The small number of large power stations we built decades ago are what we still rely on today. These fossil feuled dinosaurs waste 70% of the energy we put into them, as the heat generated while producing electricity is blown away in the cooling towers or into a local lake. More heat dissipates along the transmission lines, which are usually long as the large power plants are located some distance away from cities. The heat wasted is enough to supply a country's heating and hot water needs.
A Better Approach: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) - The single biggest solution for reducing CO2 emissions from electricity generation. Using smaller, cleaner, more efficient energy sources near to where they are needed allows the use of both the heat and electricity that are produced, with less transmission waste. The efficiency of CHP can be as much as 91% (vs. 30% from traditional power stations).
Netherlands - generators are smaller, cleaner, more efficient and more reliable. half of electricity comes from CHP plants. Having very many, smaller points of supply brings a much more stable and reliable total system. In one part of the Netherlands, a larger cogeneration plant is used to power 100,000 homes, and the heat is used in local greenhouses. The CO2 emissions are also used as a fertilizer in the greenhouses, before being released.
Ontario currently has 2300 MW out of 31200 MW from CHP.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
One way to approach the global warming debate
Forget altogether the question of global warming - let us instead as a species focus on questions of efficiency and sustainability, not because they will prevent global warming, but because it benefits everyone to do so in ways that most people do not even imagine (for if they did, there would be no opposition to environmental initiatives).
I think that the possibility of an economic downturn, should we pursue environmental policies, is a complete fabrication, used to scare people and cloud their judgement on the issue.
Politicians and unimaginative business leaders who resist change are worrying that capping carbon emissions will "hurt the economy" and require companies to implement expensive retrofits. This is rhetoric that is not backed by any data - in fact, there are many examples of strategies companies can implement that will help their bottom line, not to mention the environment.
A simple example everyone is by now familiar with is switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, or even better, LED lighting. Aside from an initial cost, the company saves money on lighting every single year hence, and instantly the company wastes 10-20% less energy (estimate - 25% of energy goes towards lighting, compact fluorescents consume about 30% of the energy as incandescent bulbs).
Consider another example: If we made it our mission to design an engine that gets x times the gas mileage as our current engines, everyone benefits; Less pollution (if you worry about global warming), individual consumers spending less on gas (if you worry about your bank account), and any company that requires transportation or shipment of its products and people (if you worry about corporate profits). Even the car company would benefit - if the cost of owning a car decreased due to lower fuel costs, more people could afford one, and more cars would be sold.
So its a win-win-win endeavor. How can anyone suggest that this would be bad for the economy? What jobs would be lost, that wouldnt be replaced with the same jobs, working on the new and improved product? We would still need people to design the new engines, to mine and ship the materials needed, to manufacture them, and to sell them at the dealer.
How would this new technology be different from current technologies, that could possibly hurt anyone, except perhaps the people with vested interests in maintaining the wasteful status quo (ahem, oil companies)? Higher prices for cars? Like all technologies, manufacturing costs drop as economies of scale kick in - subsidies can be used at the start and once every car has the new engine, the prices would drop. In the meantime, everyone using the better engine would save money on gas. A simple graph at the car lot would show consumers: spend $2000 more on the better engine, and your gas cost savings will pay that off within two years.
Now, substitute "more efficient engine" with different fuel sources. Or with a different transportation paradigm altogether, like computer-controlled personal transportation pods (like half a smart car) that drive themselves, eliminating traffic jams (in my opinion, the worst and least productive waste of energy our society allows). This is not science fiction, this is all technology that will see the light of day within the next decade.
A better car is just the tip of the (melting) iceberg. Pretty much every action humans set themselves to is inefficient or in some way wasteful. Weeding out these inefficiencies is win-win-win, and only when we realize this can we re-frame the environmental debate in more realistic terms. Often simple, broadly applied changes in how we do something will produce large savings in energy use and pollution. An easy way to do this is to look for success stories - see what other countries and companies have done that worked for them, and implement the same, or go farther.
Another example, this time from Germany (or the EU): why does toothpaste come in a box? The box has the exact same graphics on it as the tube contained within, and the first thing you do when you get home is throw the box out. Did we need to waste the energy, the cardboard and those inks to make that box, only to recycle it or trash it later? It makes the product bulkier, requiring more transportation costs (more pollution again). Solution: Pass a law that makes manufacturers pay for excess packaging. This should reign in their marketing departments, and companies save money.
Afraid of too much government regulation? Take a different approach! We do not have to 'restrict' anything. If you are a proponent of the free market sorting this thing out, instead of restricting emissions, give subsidies to companies that develop breakthrough technologies, or implement pollution taxes that would further encourage companies to wake up and pay attention to their inefficiencies. There is also a huge hidden benefit to this: countries that push their companies to stress efficient technologies will become world leaders in efficiency, and as the rest of the world wakes up to the benefits of being efficient, it will come knocking on the door of those who know how to do things right, presenting new opportunities and increasing the demand for that countries expertise.
Politicians and naysayers have stood in the way of these common sense ideas for too long, by creating and drumming up a `debate` that should not exist. The next time you hear people arguing about whether or not global warming is real, tell them theyre both missing the point. Forget hypothetical doomsday scenarios which may or may not come true, and hypothetical world depressions that may come with changing the way we do things - lets all smarten up and focus on weeding out inefficiencies from our systems for the greedy reason that it benefits us all, financially and environmentally.
I think that the possibility of an economic downturn, should we pursue environmental policies, is a complete fabrication, used to scare people and cloud their judgement on the issue.
Politicians and unimaginative business leaders who resist change are worrying that capping carbon emissions will "hurt the economy" and require companies to implement expensive retrofits. This is rhetoric that is not backed by any data - in fact, there are many examples of strategies companies can implement that will help their bottom line, not to mention the environment.
A simple example everyone is by now familiar with is switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, or even better, LED lighting. Aside from an initial cost, the company saves money on lighting every single year hence, and instantly the company wastes 10-20% less energy (estimate - 25% of energy goes towards lighting, compact fluorescents consume about 30% of the energy as incandescent bulbs).
Consider another example: If we made it our mission to design an engine that gets x times the gas mileage as our current engines, everyone benefits; Less pollution (if you worry about global warming), individual consumers spending less on gas (if you worry about your bank account), and any company that requires transportation or shipment of its products and people (if you worry about corporate profits). Even the car company would benefit - if the cost of owning a car decreased due to lower fuel costs, more people could afford one, and more cars would be sold.
So its a win-win-win endeavor. How can anyone suggest that this would be bad for the economy? What jobs would be lost, that wouldnt be replaced with the same jobs, working on the new and improved product? We would still need people to design the new engines, to mine and ship the materials needed, to manufacture them, and to sell them at the dealer.
How would this new technology be different from current technologies, that could possibly hurt anyone, except perhaps the people with vested interests in maintaining the wasteful status quo (ahem, oil companies)? Higher prices for cars? Like all technologies, manufacturing costs drop as economies of scale kick in - subsidies can be used at the start and once every car has the new engine, the prices would drop. In the meantime, everyone using the better engine would save money on gas. A simple graph at the car lot would show consumers: spend $2000 more on the better engine, and your gas cost savings will pay that off within two years.
Now, substitute "more efficient engine" with different fuel sources. Or with a different transportation paradigm altogether, like computer-controlled personal transportation pods (like half a smart car) that drive themselves, eliminating traffic jams (in my opinion, the worst and least productive waste of energy our society allows). This is not science fiction, this is all technology that will see the light of day within the next decade.
A better car is just the tip of the (melting) iceberg. Pretty much every action humans set themselves to is inefficient or in some way wasteful. Weeding out these inefficiencies is win-win-win, and only when we realize this can we re-frame the environmental debate in more realistic terms. Often simple, broadly applied changes in how we do something will produce large savings in energy use and pollution. An easy way to do this is to look for success stories - see what other countries and companies have done that worked for them, and implement the same, or go farther.
Another example, this time from Germany (or the EU): why does toothpaste come in a box? The box has the exact same graphics on it as the tube contained within, and the first thing you do when you get home is throw the box out. Did we need to waste the energy, the cardboard and those inks to make that box, only to recycle it or trash it later? It makes the product bulkier, requiring more transportation costs (more pollution again). Solution: Pass a law that makes manufacturers pay for excess packaging. This should reign in their marketing departments, and companies save money.
Afraid of too much government regulation? Take a different approach! We do not have to 'restrict' anything. If you are a proponent of the free market sorting this thing out, instead of restricting emissions, give subsidies to companies that develop breakthrough technologies, or implement pollution taxes that would further encourage companies to wake up and pay attention to their inefficiencies. There is also a huge hidden benefit to this: countries that push their companies to stress efficient technologies will become world leaders in efficiency, and as the rest of the world wakes up to the benefits of being efficient, it will come knocking on the door of those who know how to do things right, presenting new opportunities and increasing the demand for that countries expertise.
Politicians and naysayers have stood in the way of these common sense ideas for too long, by creating and drumming up a `debate` that should not exist. The next time you hear people arguing about whether or not global warming is real, tell them theyre both missing the point. Forget hypothetical doomsday scenarios which may or may not come true, and hypothetical world depressions that may come with changing the way we do things - lets all smarten up and focus on weeding out inefficiencies from our systems for the greedy reason that it benefits us all, financially and environmentally.
Welcome to the Democratic Action Party
Lets get the ball rolling. I'm thinking we need to define different areas that will require attention and research, and take it from there... for example:
- What is required to run in the next Ontario election? (money, registration info, rules, important dates)
- Policy (all the different issues that we will have to know our way around). Among others, Budget, Drugs, Environment, Education, Foreign Policy, Government Services, Health Care, Justice System, Military, and so on... These all need to be expanded into sub-sections.
- And very importantly - a website. Well see how versatile this blogger thing is, but we may need to use this just for planning purposes, and look into other ways to make the e-government website itself.
- What is required to run in the next Ontario election? (money, registration info, rules, important dates)
- Policy (all the different issues that we will have to know our way around). Among others, Budget, Drugs, Environment, Education, Foreign Policy, Government Services, Health Care, Justice System, Military, and so on... These all need to be expanded into sub-sections.
- And very importantly - a website. Well see how versatile this blogger thing is, but we may need to use this just for planning purposes, and look into other ways to make the e-government website itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)