EnviroMission Solar Tower

The world's first 'solar tower' is in the works for the Australian outback in the Buronga district of Wentworth Shire in New South Wales (NSW) and 25km north east of Mildura in Victoria. This 50MW tower at Tapio Station is just the beginning. Once the 200MW solar tower stations are commercialized in late 2007 or early 2008,

the energy output will represent an annual saving of more than 900,000 tonnes of greenhouse CO2 gases from entering the environment, with an outstanding Life Cycle Analysis of 2.5 years
...

EnviroMission’s Solar Towers are proposed to generate electricity 24-hours a day. The power station will be at its most efficient on the hottest days when energy is most needed and peak prices are paid for electricity.

Re-radiation of heat present in the ground under the collector zone will provide the energy source during the night. This special feature enhances the commercial viability of the power station and gives EnviroMission a consistent competitive advantage over other forms of renewable energy generation(EnviroMission).

Here is an excerpt from an article by Todd Woody of CNN Business 2.0:

It's a dead-calm antipodean winter's day, the silence of this vast ranch called Tapio Station broken only by the cry of a currawong bird. Davey, chief executive of Melbourne renewable-energy company EnviroMission, aims to break ground here early next year on the world's first commercial "solar tower" power station.

"The tower will be over there," Davey says, pointing to a spot a mile distant where a 1,600-foot structure will rise from the ocher-colored earth. Picture a 260-foot-diameter cylinder taller than the Sears Tower encircled by a two-mile-diameter transparent canopy at ground level. About 8 feet tall at the perimeter, where Davey has his feet planted, the solar collector will gradually slope up to a height of 50 to 60 feet at the tower's base.

Acting as a giant greenhouse, the solar collector will superheat the air with radiation from the sun. Hot air rises, naturally, and the tower will operate as a giant vacuum. As the air is sucked into the tower, it will produce wind to power an array of turbine generators clustered around the structure.

The result: enough clean, green electricity to power some 100,000 homes without producing a particle of pollution or a wisp of planet-warming gases.

"We're aiming to be competitive with the coal people," says Davey, 60. "We're filling a gap in the renewable-energy market that has never been able to be filled before."

And although its final dimensions are still being tweaked, the 50-megawatt Tapio Station plant is just the small model: A half-mile-tall version is in the works for China, and EnviroMission is scouting sites in the American Southwest for other possible skyscraping power plants.

Illegal Externalities?

Excerpts from an article entitled 'As world warms, legal battles loom' by Reuters:

Heatwaves, droughts and rising seas are likely to spur a spate of hard-to-prove lawsuits in the 21st century as victims seek to blame governments and companies for global warming, experts say. Pacific islanders might sue to try to prevent their low-lying atolls from vanishing under the waves, African farmers could seek redress for crop failures or owners of ski resorts in the Alps might seek compensation for a lack of snow.

"If the evidence (that humans are warming the globe) hardens up, as it may well do, then it has all the ingredients of the tobacco case," said Myles Allen, of the physics department of the University of Oxford in Britain. But convincing a judge that a country or a company is liable for a fraction of a global problem caused by greenhouse gases -- the effects of which are widely disputed -- may be difficult.

"The legal profession is only now penetrating these issues," said Roda Verhaugen, co-director of the Climate Justice group which mainly advises plaintiffs. "There have been no large awards of damages but there are an increasing numbers of cases."
...

The 10 warmest years since records began were all since 1990, and scientists who advise the United Nations project that rising temperatures could cause wrenching changes by 2100.
...

And some damage could be more easily linked to rising temperatures than others, he said. "Sea level rise, melting of glaciers and the early flowering of plants are direct responses to higher temperatures," he said. "But other impacts, such as storm damage from hurricanes, are far more controversial." The United States is the target of most litigation because it produces a quarter of all greenhouse gases. President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, the U.N. pact meant to limit greenhouse gases. Bush said Kyoto wrongly omitted poor nations from its first goals for 2012 and would cost U.S. jobs.
Experts say companies complying with all laws in the countries where they operate may still be liable to lawsuits.

Firms in the European Union, for instance, are curbing emissions under Kyoto while U.S. firms face no mandatory caps. A European Commission official said: "EU member states' governments do certainly not take over liability for claims for industries participating in the (emissions trading) scheme even if they were to arise."

Last year, a U.S. court threw out a petition by eight states and the City of New York to order caps on carbon emissions by power generators American Electric Power Co. Inc., Southern Co., Xcel Energy Inc., Cinergy Corp. and the Tennessee Valley Authority public power system. A New York district court judge said it was a political issue for the President or Congress to decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court has separately agreed to decide whether a dozen states, three cities and several environmental groups can force the U.S. government to regulate car and truck emissions of carbon dioxide. Among other climate-related efforts, Inuit people in the Arctic have petitioned a branch of the Organization of American States to brand global warming a form of human rights abuse undermining their hunting culture.

China, WTO, & Environment

The State of the World is a grand title for an annual publication; a title that many authors or organizations would be incapable of writing about. The Worldwatch Institute is that rare organization with the ability to accurately assess the facts of so many complex issues. The 'State of the World 2006: China and India' is a wonderfully informative book. A GlobeScan survey of sustainability experts ranked these books as the "Top-rated annual publication on sustainable development." Here is an article from page 139 entitled 'China, the WTO, and the environment'

In 2004, a high-level group of Chinese and international scholars released a detailed assessment of the environmental impacts of China's 2001 accession to the WTO, covering a number of key sectors. The results, some of which are surveyed here, underline an important message: trade's impacts on the environment are not straightforward.

In agriculture, trade liberalization has meant a dramatic shift away from resource-intensive crops such as wheat and rice (since China's water and energy resources are scarce) and toward labor-intensive sectors such as vegetables and horticulture (since labor is plentiful). China is now for the first time a net importer of wheat. The result is predicted to be a lowered use of water, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers in China: a positive structural effect. Of course, the net global effect will depend on the production methods in the countries now exporting wheat and rice to China.

WTO accession has brought a dramatic expansion of aquaculture exports as investment barriers drop and domestic investment shifts from traditional agriculture to new areas. This has meant increased severity of a number of associated environmental problems: eutrophication in coastal waters, destruction of seagrass and mangroves (used as breeding grounds for marine fish stocks), and marine deposition of antibiotics and other chemicals used in aquacultural production. Aquaculture's growth is suspected of contributing to toxic red tides; while the "normal" incidence is around 10 per year, there were 10 times that many in 2003.

Trade liberalization has slashed automobile prices in China by dismantling trade and investment barriers and forcing domestic efficiencies. This, added to the increased income generated by growth from trade, has meant an explosion of automobile production, with almost 40 percent growth in 2002 and 35 percent in 2003. This threatened to greatly increase pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and particulates; in response, the government adopted stringent European Union standards for automobile emissions. The result has been a substantial drop in emissions per vehicle, but the overall drop has been undercut by the sheer numbers of increased vehicles on the road: the scale effect.

Trade liberalization has meant a vastly increased Chinese energy demand, in part the result of increased manufacturing and growing affluence. Projections see that demand more than tripling by 2030. Coal--among the most polluting fuels--will decrease in prominence but will still dominate the energy mix. The result will be a steady and significant increase in pollutants such as sulfur dioxides, nitrous oxides, particulates, and carbon dioxide: again, the scale effect at work.

WTO accession has meant a significant increase in textile production in China, as quotas in export markets were lifted. It was predicted that in the four years following WTO accession (to 2005), the production of sewage discharged from textile production would increase by 960 million tons, or 90 percent, compared with 36 percent without WTO accession. The most serious problems with this effluent are polluting dyes and increased chemical oxygen demand. Water and power use are also predicted to expand dramatically. These scale impacts will be somewhat offset by improvements in technology brought by foreign investment; pre-WTO technology in this sector was extremely wasteful and polluting by international standards.

Senator Chafee Debate

On August 4th 2006, Paul Krugman of The New York Times wrote an interesting article with his opinions on the Sierra Club and their support of Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. Here is part of the article entitled 'Centrism Is For Suckers':

The Sierra Club’s executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, “We choose people, not parties.” And it’s true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.

But while this principle might once have made sense, it’s just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party’s leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee’s personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the “R” after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

Here is part of the response from Sierra Club Executive Director, Carl Pope:

The value of the Sierra Club's endorsement -- to environmentally concerned independents, Republicans, and Democrats alike -- is that it tells voters where a candidate stands on values they cherish. If a voter wants to know who the Democrat is in a race, they don't need the Sierra Club to tell them. Our job is to reward conviction, applaud leadership, and promote progress made in cleaning up the air and water and in preserving our wild lands and wildlife -- no matter which side of the aisle we find it on.

Indeed, in political races all over the country where the Sierra Club happens to be endorsing Democrats who share Lincoln Chafee's values on the environment, right-wing campaign managers have tried to blunt the power of our message by saying that we are simply "a knee-jerk arm of the Democratic party." Paul Krugman, ironically, would like us to make the jobs of these people easier.

And to set the record straight -- because of the committee seats he holds and the influence that he wields as a member of the Republican majority -- Senator Chafee has been extremely effective in stopping President Bush's polluting "Clear Skies" plan and in blocking efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

At the Sierra Club, we value performance above party affiliation. We stand up for the people who have stood up for us and for the environment. And we are proud to stand with, and behind, Senator Chafee.

Water Wars

On August 2nd 2006, Reuters published an article entitled 'Where Are the World's Looming Water Conflicts?' Five areas are discussed and I have chosen the one I found most interesting. Here is the excerpt on Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia via the Environmental News Network.

- The Nile, the world's longest river, is the main source of water for nine countries in the Nile basin: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Congo.

- Eygpt and Sudan's 1929 Nile Waters Agreement, which divided up water use, is now being challenged.

- Ethiopia, where some 80 percent of the Nile's waters originate, said last year that it wants to take more water. It accuses Egypt of blocking overseas aid for irrigation projects. Egypt says calls for change amount to a "declaration of war".

- In July 2006 a Nile Water steering committee met to discuss Ugandan and Tanzanian plans to use Nile waters in massive hydro-electric power stations and irrigation projects.

These countries have some of the fastest growing populations in the world. Their economies have many glitches, but assuming that at some point in the future they figure them out, Egypt's in trouble. As industrialization becomes more prevalent, the longest river in the world will likely become unsustainably consumed. How will Egypt respond to more polluted and less diluted water?

Opponents Of Evolution

On August 2nd 2006, The New York Times published an article by the Associated Press entitled 'Evolution Opponents Lose Kansas Board Majority'. I recommend checking it out. It got me a little flustered so here are some thoughts I have on the debate.

The evolution debate concerns the four mechanisms of evolution: gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection & mutation. I always find this debate interesting. To quote Sir John Houghton,

One of the most important statements you can make as a scientist is: I don't know. One of the most important statements you — you should be prepared to make as a believer is: I don't know.

Biology cannot prove. Evolution can only be highly corroborated through repeatable research that can be observed by different individuals.

I ask all of those who believe that evolution is 'just a theory' to stop all contradictory behavior and discontinue their annual vaccines (to fight off newly mutated viruses). After all, many microevolutionary events turn into macroevolutionary events if given enough time (i.e. it took 6,000,000 years -- or > 300,000 generations of diverging populations -- for the differences observed today between chimpanzees and humans). And yet I still manage to share blood type with many chimpanzees and not with many humans! Anyways... there should be debate about evolution, such as punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. However, intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in science classrooms.

One would have expected the past 147 years to have produced enormous amounts of data concerning the evolution debate, and it has. For instance, DNA has provided unrelenting support for the theory of evolution. Scientists cannot prove; however, to ignore the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution is irrational. To question the validity of evolution, you must question the reality of the evidence supporting evolution. Thus far, the objective scientific method has concluded that evolution is worthy to be considered a theory. To argue against evolution, is to argue against the scientific method.

If the debate is about the subjectivity of reality depending on the perspective or the constraints of any given methodology, then I agree that human reason is inherently flawed. However, this applies to every aspect of knowledge, including spiritual, that we consider to be real. George Berkeley once said,

Nothing seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism, than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.

The beauty of science is that we can never know it all.

Related post: 'Medicine Needs Evolution'

Unprecedented Conservation

The USA Today recently published an article by Nick Jans entitled ''A beginning' for conservation'. Unprecedented conservation will forever be part of President Bush's legacy. "Hard to believe... in the past four months -- 654,000 square miles of ocean bottom, more than twice the size of Texas -- represent, in total area, the largest act of conservation in our nation's history, and arguably the world's."

Like me, you probably missed the announcement by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in March that closed more than 135,000 square miles of ocean floor off the West Coast to commercial bottom trawling. Maybe, though, you caught President Bush last month designating another 140,000 square miles around the northwestern Hawaiian islands as a national monument, closed to all fishing. CNN considered it a newsworthy, though definitely second-tier, sound bite.

Now, raise your hand (no fibbing) if you caught the NOAA Fisheries proclamation in late June that protected 379,000 additional square miles of ocean floor around Alaska. Even on a slow news day, that one was branded a snoozer.

Hard to believe, considering those three closures of federal waters in the past four months — 654,000 square miles of ocean bottom, more than twice the size of Texas — represent, in total area, the largest act of conservation in our nation's history, and arguably the world's. Consider that the entire area protected by our national parks, national forests and grasslands amounts to roughly 420,000 square miles.
...

And so what?

OK, so a bunch of ocean floor is getting protected. Not like we'll ever vacation there. Land-borne, oxygen-sucking critters that we are, the virtually unexplored terrain that lies far beneath the waves might as well be Mars. Why should we care?
...

"People overwhelmingly said they wanted clean beaches, healthy seafood, abundant wildlife, stable fisheries and vibrant coastal communities," she says. "And in order to have those things, we need large-scale habitat protection. It's that simple."
...

The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (a merger of the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which is appointed by the president and chaired by Admiral James Watkins) awarded the government a stinging rebuke in the form of a letter grade for ocean policy reform: D+.

Meanwhile, commercial fishing groups, faced with the prospect of restrictions and closures, added their voices to the fray. "When this process started, it was very contentious and polarized," says David Benton, executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance, a commercial fishing advocacy group. "But we ended up with practical, working solutions. Industry recognized we had to step up to the plate and do the responsible thing." Oceana's amended proposals gained such wide acceptance that they were passed unanimously and endorsed by NOAA. The Hawaii closure, in which a consortium of native Hawaiian and conservation groups including Environmental Defense played a major role, was publicly embraced by President Bush.

"This is a huge step," Oceana's Ayers says. "We have a long way to go toward sustainable existence. Is it enough? No, but it's a beginning."

Benton adds, "This is a win for the environment and for the populations of animals and fish that we depend on."

To put it mildly, such sweeping acts of conservation are out of character for an administration that has given at best short shrift to environmental concerns. A cynic might say that these protections amount to a drop in the bucket of the world's oceans, and that the administration was forced into actions for which it now claims credit. While I'm hardly suggesting we baptize Dubya as a born-again greenie, the fact of these historic protections remains.

And consider the recent course of events. Environmentalists, commercial interests and government found a way to work together, declared a shared victory and practically broke into a chorus of Kumbaya. If this is a template for future conservation initiatives, in the oceans or anywhere, I say bring it on.