24 years after the miners strike, coal is at the centre of a new battle.
This weekend activists are attempting to close down Kingsnorth power station, protesting against government plans to build a new coal-fired power station at the site in Kent.
This is just one of many anti-coal protests around the country, as public feeling against coal mining and coal burning is mounting. Simultaneously, the industry has plans to open many new mines, and the government is deciding whether to give the go-ahead to seven or eight new coal-fired power stations, the first for 30 years.
Yet concerned climate scientists argue that leaving coal in the ground is the best form of carbon capture and storage - the planet just cannot survive that much more CO2 put into the atmosphere. The burning of coal for electricity and heating, the logic goes, is far easier to halt and to replace than is the use of oil for transportation.
Coal is primarily used for electricity generation, which is the largest source of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of all power stations, coal-fired ones are most CO2 intensive.
Today, globally, burning coal is responsible for around one quarter of our global CO2 emissions. And currently, approximately 1,000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the Earth's atmosphere every second due to human activity. But around half of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now, due to us, is from burning coal. The majority of this came from Western developed nations who industrialised before China and other emerging indistrialised powers.
This is why developing economies like China and India argue, in the current round of climate control talks, that as today's climate change is due to our historical emissions, developed countries should curb their emissions before they do. Climate campaigners argue that if we want these countries to stop building new coal-fired power stations (China is opening two a week), we must set a good example.
JAMES HANSEN
James Hansen is described by many as the world's leading climate scientist. He first alerted Washington politicians to the dangers of climate change in June 1988 and has been an outspoken advocate of action to stop it ever since. He is the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA and adjunct professor at earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. He has called for a moratorium on building coal-fired power plants and for a 350ppm target for the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Currently it is 385ppm.)
"It's very difficult to see how we can prevent the oil from being used and the carbon getting in to the atmosphere because it comes from vehicles, but in the case of coal if we're going to use that, we could restrict it to power-plants and we should say it can only be used there if you capture the CO2," he says. He argues that it's easier to make electricity and heat buildings with other sources of energy than coal, than it is to find alternatives to the fossil fuels which power our vehicles. Therefore we should do this first. "I think it's a better way than saying let's reduce CO2 80% or 90% or 60% or any particular number because we really can't let 40% or 20% of the coal to continue to be used; that's the one source that we really need to cut off."
Hansen has written to Gordon Brown requesting that the Government doesn't build any new coal fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. "Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air," he wrote. "Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use." We don't know if Brown replied. "Source".
In June Hansen on Monday told listeners on Capitol Hill, Washington, that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime. "These CEO's, these captains of industry," he said in the briefing, "if they don't change their tactics they're guilty of crimes against humanity and nature." He compared cordons of coal cars heading to power plants to the death trains of the Holocaust (because of the mass extinctions foreseen by many biologists should warming go unabated).
Hansen said in an interview in March: "I would say within a decade or so, that these coal plants are simply not compatible with keeping a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed. And I think there is going to be eventually pressure to in effect bulldoze those plants, so economically they just don't make sense. You are not going to be able to leave them there 50 years."
Hanen argues that we will have to "restore the point of energy balance because as it stands now we will lose the Arctic sea ice without any more greenhouse gases, as there is additional warming in the pipeline. That means we would have to reduce the amount of CO2 at least to the 350ppm level, and we are already at 385. So, we've actually got to go backwards and it's really too bad that we didn't realise this earlier."
Does Hansen believe it's possible to reverse the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
"Yes, yes, it's still possible. If we get on the stick very promptly, it's still practical to do that in ways that are quite natural. The most important thing is to have a moratorium on new coal fired power plants that don't capture CO2 and then to phase out the dirty coal use over the next 2-3 decades.
If we do that, you know that the system does still take up CO2, the ocean and the soils and things, so that other things being equal, CO2 would only go up to a bit more than 400 if we phase out coal use. But then we have got to take at least 50ppm out of the atmosphere, and that is possible with improved agricultural and forestry practices, things that we have not being paying much attention to."
BRITAIN'S COAL RESOURCES
The coal industry estimates there are 45 billion tonnes of recoverable UK coal reserves, which at current rates would last us 300 years. This represents around 150 billion tonnes of CO2. The industry says new mines are in development because it is becoming more cost-effective to mine rather than import, which currently costs Britain around lb3 billion a year.
But just-released government energy statistics show that coal consumption fell by just under 7% in 2007, with an 8.5% decrease in consumption by the major power producers (consumers of 81% of total coal demand). Electricity supplied from coal in 2007, actually fell from 37% in 2006 to 34% in 2007. Burning coal at home only uses 1% of coal.
The only reason the government wants to burn more coal is to reduce the demand for imported gas and replace currently offline or closing nuclear power stations. But it should invest in renewables, the power of the future, instead.
The government's BERR and coal supporters talk about using 'Carbon Capture and Storage' (CCS) at coal-fired power stations as a solution to climate change. This technology does not yet exist and the industry itself says it won't be ready for at least 10 years. It is also likely to be highly expensive. In America the Bush administration withdrew its support for the FutureGen CCS project in February for this reason. Despite this, the government is now deciding whether to allow seven or eight new coal fired power stations.
OPENCAST COAL MINING
Where will the coal come from? There are 17 opencast mines in the UK now, with a staggering 25 in planning or proposed (see table below).
Opencast coal mining recovers over 90% of the coal deposit, more than deep mining but leaves a huge scar on the landscape. Soil and rock are first broken up by drilling and blasting with explosives then removed by draglines or by power shovels and trucks. With the coal seam exposed, it is also drilled and blasted. Large trucks or conveyors then take it to where it will be used. These activities have the following effects on local communities, notwithstanding the climate damage:
* Noise, such as blasting and vehicle movements
* Dust and dirt
* Health problems: respiratory, eye and skin conditions
* Traffic congestion
* Adverse visual impact and change to local landscape
* Long term environmental damage
* Reduced investment and lowering of property values
* Loss of local countryside for recreation.
For example, Ffos-y-Fran is one of the biggest opencast coal mines in Europe, on the outskirts of Merthyr Tydfil. Merthyr residents have opposed the scheme for many years as the mine comes within 36 metres of the nearest homes. In England and Scotland, the scheme would have been rejected because the law requires a 500 metre buffer zone between opencast mines and residential areas.
Elsewhere, protestors have occupied Prospect Farm off Bell Lane, Smalley, Derbyshire, site of a proposed open cast mine and occupied by activists since June 2008. They were evicted on August 7.
If Britain is serious about climate change, it cannot sanction new coal mines and power stations.
Opencast Coal Mining Sites In England And Wales: Currently Producing:
LICENSEE
NAME
LOCATION
Celtic Energy Ltd
Margam Opencast
Bridgend, S Wales
Celtic Energy Ltd
Nant Helen Extension
Powys
Celtic Energy Ltd
Selar
Neath, Port Talbot, S wales
Dynant Fach Colliery Company
Dynant Fawr
Carmarthenshire
Energybuild Ltd
Nant-y-Mynydd
Neath, Port Talbot, S wales
H J Banks Developments
Delhi Site
Northumberland
H J Banks Developments
Shotton Surface Mine
Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Cutacre
Bolton
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Lodge House
Derbyshire
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Long Moor
Leicestershire
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Maidens Hall Extension
Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Oxcroft
Derbyshire
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Sharlston
West Yorkshire
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Stobswood
Northumberland
Minerals (UK) Ltd
Bwlch Ffos
Neath, Port Talbot
Ward Brothers
Prestwick Pit
Northumberland
Miller Argent
Ffos-y-Fran
Mid-Glamorgan, Wales
Opencast Sites Proposed/in Planning Process In England And Wales
LICENSEE
NAME
LOCATION
STATUS
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd
Cwn Yr Onen Colliery Reclamation
Carmarthenshire
Celtic Energy Ltd
East Pit East revised
Neath, Port Talbot, S wales
Celtic Energy Ltd
Margam Extension
Bridgend, S Wales
Planning applied for Oct 2007
Draeth Mining
Pentre Mawr
Carmarthenshire
H J Banks Developments
Alcan Farms
Northumberland
planning put in Oct 2007
H J Banks Developments
Brenkley
Northumberland
H J Banks Developments
Cavil Head
Northumberland
planning put in Oct 2007
H J Banks Developments
Houndalee, nr Widdrington
Northumberland
Planning put in Oct 2007
H J Banks Developments
Newton Lane Surface Mine
Leeds
H J Banks Developments
The Cockles, nr Ulgham
Northumberland
Planning put in Oct 2007
Hall Construction Services Ltd
Skons Park, Burnopfield
Gateshead, Newcastle
Planning rejected 2007. New submission expected
Parkhill Estates Ltd
Caughley Quarry
Shropshire
Shires Development Ltd
Corporal Lane Quarry
Calderdale, yorks
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Bradley
County Durham
Planning expected April 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Butterwell, nr Ulgham
Northumberland
Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Chesterfield Canal
Derbyshire
Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Highthorn, nr Widdrington
Northumberland
planning submitted Oct 07
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Huntington Lane
Telford,Shropshire
Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Minorca
Leicestershire
Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Park Wall North
County Durham
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Potland Burn
Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Steadsburn
Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd
Whittonstall, nr Consett
Northumberland
planning submitted Oct 07
UK Coal PLC
Temple Quarry
Kirklees, yorks
Unknown
Whittle Colliery
Northumberland
Sources:
* www.ukcoal.com/sm-locations
* www.hjbanks.com/energy/sites
* www.miller.co.uk/argent
* www.coal.com/operations.htm
o The new wind farm, with an installed capacity of 61 MW, is able to generate over 160 GWh.
o Enel Green Power invested approximately 140 million US dollars in the construction of the wind farm.
The wind farm consists of 32 wind turbines, for a total installed capacity of 61 MW, and is able to generate over 160 GWh per year. This output is equivalent to the energy needs of about 60,000 Chilean households, and will therefore avoid the emission of over 130,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Enel Green Power invested approximately 140 million US dollars in the new wind farm, which contributes towards the growth targets set out in the company's business plan for 2014-2018.
The project is supported by contracts to supply energy to regulated-market customers. The contracts were awarded at the end of 2013 following a tender, carried out for Chile's Central Region Transmission Network (SIC) by a total of 26 distributors. The energy generated by the wind farm will be delivered to SIC's transmission grid.
The wind farm is located in the Coquimbo region, across from the Talinay Oriente wind farm (90 MW), which has been operating since 2013.
Enel Green Power is the Enel Group company (enel.com) fully dedicated to the development and management of renewable energy sources at the international level, with operations in Europe, the Americas and Africa. With an annual generation capacity equal to, approximately, 32 billion kWh from water, sun, wind and the Earth's heat - enough to meet the energy needs of more than 10 million households, Enel Green Power is a world leader in the sector thanks to its well-balanced generation mix, providing generation volumes well over the sector average. As of today, the company has an installed capacity of approximately 9,600 MW from a mix of sources including wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and biomass. The company has about 740 plants operating in 15 countries.
The post Enel Green Power Brings Talinay Poniente Wind Farm Online in Chile appeared first on World Of Wind Energy.
National Geographic"'"s latest cover story generated lots of attention for comparing climate change skeptics to those who fear vaccinations, disbelieve NASA's moon landing, and oppose water fluoridation.
The author bemoans the fact that only 40 percent of Americans (according to Pew Research Center) "accept that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming," asking how so many "reasonable people doubt science." Dubbing climate change one of the "precepts of science," the author opines that climate change skepticism is "dispiriting" for anyone considered a "rationalist." How could so many dismiss "settled science"?
Actually, there's a healthy reason that the public has come to distrust government warnings and the scientific experts: they are often wrong.
Ironically, National Geographic"'"s sermon on settled science could have hardly come at a more inopportune time. In recent months, leading scientists have reversed themselves and have admitted their expert findings and advice were wrong on eating fat. After decades of telling us not to do so, we now learn that fat can be good for your diet and for weight loss. What we all thought to be true based on the expert testimonies, turned out to be precisely the opposite of the truth. Oops.
This kind of reversal happens all the time in the pursuit of scientific truths. Forty years ago the experts warned of a coming ice age, now they are absolutely certain the earth is warming-and some of the same "experts" were on board both scares. National Geographic even acknowledges this inconvenient fact, but explains that even though the climatologists were all wrong several decades ago, this somehow actually helps make the case for global warming.
Wait, for a scientific fact to be true, it has to be testable and refutable. But if any weather pattern confirms "climate change," then by definition it is neither refutable nor is it testable. That's convenient.
Here is how the magazine derisively describes one reason why there is such widespread skepticism on climate change: "Many people in the United States-a far greater percentage than in other countries-retain doubts about that consensus [of global warming] or believe that climate activists are using the threat of global warming to attack the free market and industrial society generally."
Wait. It is an irrefutable truth that many climate change activists "are" using the climate change issue as a means of attacking free market capitalism. This past summer major environmental groups gathered in Venezuela to solve leading environmental problems like global warming, concluding in the Margarita Declaration "The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system." In fact, the statement itself included the motto, "Changing the system, not the climate."
So how is it delusional paranoia to believe that the climate change industry wants to shut down capitalism when the movement plainly states that this is their objective? And how can a movement be driven by science when its very agenda violates basic laws of economics? I am no scientist, but I am first in line in questioning the wisdom and motivation of a movement whose purpose is to steer the U.S. economy off a cliff toward financial ruin.
Americans are also naturally skeptical that government can do anything to achieve the grandiose task of changing the weather of the planet-because the U.S. government can't even do simple things like balance its budget, deliver the mail, or run a health care website. If global warming ever becomes a planetary threat, it will undoubtedly be solved by technological progress-not repressive government action-and this is dependent on the very free enterprise system the left wants to tear down.
As for the future of our "industrial society," the global warming agenda of shifting away from cheap and abundant fossil fuels and forcing nations to adopt much more expensive and less reliable wind and solar powered energy is a frontal assault against industrialization. One of the surest ways of reducing industrial output and moving hundreds of millions of people into poverty is to make energy more expensive. Now we are told that in order to save the planet, we must do just that. The left is promoting the obvious fairy tale that we can somehow power our 18 trillion industrial economy in America with windmills. Europe tried the green energy route and it was an economic fiasco.
One other point on the issue: If there were no ulterior motive of the greens and their only agenda was to stop the rise of the oceans by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then most honest and rational people would say the solution is for America to build perhaps 40 nuclear power plants over the next decade. In 2013, coal provided just under 1.6 million gigawatts of electricity. One nuclear power plant (such as South Korea's 6 reactor Yonggwang plant) can provide 50,000 gigawatts annually. So production from just 40 of these plants would equal the entire amount of electricity produced from coal. This would provide cheap and abundant electric power with almost no greenhouse emissions and would not slow industrial progress. But most in the climate change crowd hate nuclear power.
Moving on, National Geographic next makes this claim: "Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most powerful Republican voices on environmental matters, has long declared global warming a hoax. The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable."
Laughable? The entire history of the green movement is full of grand hoaxes and even catastrophic advice, dating back to the modern-day birth of this movement with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". This was the green anthem which played a big part in the banning of DDT around the world-a move which contributed to millions of Africans losing their lives from malaria. The lesson of the false DDT scare is that there are very real dangers to false scares and faulty science.
As for the claim that scientists would never "collaborate on a hoax," what about the scandal of climategate, which the left to this day pretends didn't happen? Shouldn't the fact that some the leading climate change researchers were caught red-handed manufacturing evidence and suppressing data even cause some degree of skepticism by the media and the scientific community as to the validity of the "science"?
Then there is the reality that nearly every environmental scare of the 1970s and backed by hundreds of scientists as well as media like National Geographic, was proven to be a hoax? In the 1970s we were told that the world was overpopulated, running out of energy, food, water, minerals, getting more polluted, and that the end result would be massive poverty famine and global collapse. Every aspect of this collective scientific wisdom was spectacularly wrong.
In 1980, a "collaboration" of hundreds of the top scientists in the United States government issued a report called The Global 2000 Report to the President which was a primal scream that in every way life on earth would be worse by 2000 because the world would run out of oil, gas, food, farmland, and so on. Just a few brave souls like Julian Simon and Herman Kahn dared to contradict this conventional wisdom. They were disparaged then-just as climate change skeptics are today-as dangerous lunatics. Yet on ever score these iconoclasts were right and the green scientific consensus was wrong. What was the cost? Start with the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese-mostly girls-are demographically missing today because of the barbaric one child policy, which the greens all supported as a way to save the planet.
False scares lead to a massive misallocation of resources as governments chase nonexistent goblins, which leaves less money for solving real societal ills. For one-tenth of the cost of the global warming crusade, if the world concentrated on bringing clean water, cheap energy, and schools to desperately poor areas of the world, child mortality would fall dramatically and living standards would rise.
The final insult by the National Geographic article is this: "It's very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public's understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics." So everyone who dares question the climate change theology has been bought off by industry polluters, but the climate change research brigades are pure as snow. Really?
In 2010, Climate Depot identified more than 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists, who voiced skepticism about the climate change consensus and the IPCC-a consensus which National Geographic seems to think is the gospel of global warming. Are 1,000 scientists "a few," and are they all bought off by the Koch brothers?
No doubt industry funds some of these skeptics, but it is also true that the U.S. government and private foundations are providing billions of dollars of funding-Obama wants 8 billion this year-for climate change research and activities. Needless to say, the best way to get defunded and to go unnoticed is to conclude global warming isn't happening. Would anyone want to fund the green-industrial complex if the earth's temperature weren't on a catastrophic path of warming or cooling?
National Geographic concludes by saying the debate is over on climate change. Period. What is clear is that this "settled science" argument isn't meant to advance scientific inquiry and understanding, but to shut it down. What is the left so afraid of that they want to cut off all debate and disparage all who question the consensus? Once liberals believed in "questioning authority," now they insist on universal allegiance to every conventional wisdom.
Once when I was at The Wall Street Journal, I wrote a column about the myth of disappearing polar bears. (Here we have yet another example of how the left simply manufactures false crises to advance an ideological agenda.) After I spoke with one of the few experts in Alaska who is involved in the population counts of the polar bears and he reported to me that the population is up not down, he called me after the article ran in a panic and said his job was in jeopardy for reporting the politically incorrect facts. This is the real tragedy of science today: Political correctness now has invaded the research facilities.
Scientific truth is the first casualty in ideological crusades like that of climate change. I am in no position to know whether it is happening or not, but as with half of Americans I question this settled science, if only because of the Stalinist approach which commands everyone to believe. The tolerance movement refuses to tolerate a minority opinion. By pounding skeptics as imbeciles, stooges of industry, and right-wing Republican ideologues, National Geographic has managed to set back science, not advance it.
"Originally published in Forbes "
The post No, Being a Climate Change Skeptic Isn't Like Fearing Vaccines appeared first on Daily Signal.
Have you been thinking about green energy but didn't know what to do about it? Does it seem confusing or too expensive and hard for you to get started?
When designing outdoor lighting for your patio or garden path, think of solar powered lamps as an option. These lamps are cheap and don't require any kind of power besides sun exposure. This saves a ton of energy. It also means that you money by not having to go outside and wire up outdoor lights to your home.
Shading your windows from direct sunlight whelps to save energy. You can do this by putting up blinds or blinds. You can save both money and energy in the same time.
Solar water heaters are a great option for your home's water. If your location does not get too cold, you can purchase a system that heats water through a heater that is solar before it pumps it in your home. However, it's best to keep a traditional heater for times when you need a lot of heated water, or if the sun does not come out for some time.
Find out about various energy options your community has available. Compare the costs of various utilities, making sure to take into consideration any legislation with regard to energy costs that has recently been passed.You may find that switching to one or natural gas heat.
When planning the solar system used in the home, be sure to run a calculation using the hours of winter sunlight. This prevents unpleasant surprises in the winter, and it keeps you ahead of the game for summer months.
Take time to maintain your refrigerator. Since the refrigerator is an appliance that consumes a lot of energy, it's key to maintain it in working order. Make certain to clean the dust from around heating coils periodically. Make sure the door seals are clean and tight.
Instead, wear multiple layers, robes and slippers, and heat your living areas with a pellet stove or fireplace.
Learn about the difference between passive and active solar power.Passive power uses the sun's rays to store energy withing the walls of your home and are significantly cheaper.
Avoid cranking the heat up in your home unless you have to.If your home is cold, wear warmer clothing, and pair of sweatpants. Having your heat up too high wastes a lot of energy.
Write yourself reminders to stay on top of new energy efficiency goals, and check each bill against last year to see if improvements were made.For example, if you actively attempted to use less water or power, you are also likelier to turn off appliances or unused lights.
How can you alter your home so it's more energy efficient and green? This article has given you the information you need to get started, but you'll need to make use of it. You will be amazed at the results from small changes once you start!
Two sector studies became available almost simultaneously and focused on the growth opportunities in the renewable energy sector, in particular photovoltaics and the simultaneous need to create micro storage points in order to encourage the most profitable use of energy.
The researcher Felix Creutzig and a team of analysts published a detailed report on the excellent opportunity for South Europe to transform the economy from consumers to producers of electricity, appropriately using currently renewable technologies, especially solar. This study also identifies the problem of the energy storage as a key to development with high growth rates. In confirmation of this comes from Italy, recently published data by the Authority for Electricity and Gas (AEEG), the news that more than 340,000 solar plants power plants of which the vast majority of less than 1MW/p installed in Italy have only 40% of self-consumed energy.
Analysts Lenin H. Balza and Christiaan Gischler on behalf of the IDB: Inter-American Development Bank have identified that the increase in energy demand by mainland Latin America and the Caribbean can be addressed without resorting to a massive use of fossil fuels, only by combining a strong expansion of energy from renewable sources in conjunction with the development of micro-storage of points distributed on the territory.
L'articolo Energy storage sembra essere il primo su Day4 Europe.
A Renewable Energy Program For 2030
Despite all of the recent adverse publicity surrounding fossil fuels, crude oil and organic gas has been helpful for the development of our contemporary world. It has helped the population have life right after dark, transportation of goods all over the world, and permitted technology to advance. Nonetheless, the use of fossil fuels has also resulted in many adverse consequences: it has designed serious pollution, political conflict, financial control and total dependence of countries that lack this natural resource.
The provide of fossil fuels is restricted, and it truly is only situated in particular locations from the globe. The demand for fossil fuels creates conflicts which threaten peace. Nations which have adequate fossil fuel supplies could potentially threaten the security and economy of countries which are dependent upon these countries. Additionally, there happen to be numerous estimates created regarding the volume of fossil fuels left inside the globe. These estimates are dependent upon the population development, and how much the actual fossil fuel consumption increases within the close to future. These estimates state that there is enough for approximately an additional 35 years of oil, 37 years of natural gas, and 107 years of coal . As well as the adverse environmental consequences of making use of these fuels, there is certainly a finite provide of fossil fuels which will force the usage of yet another form of power. This restricted provide and big demand will cause inevitable price tag increases. As a result, the finish of low-cost oil is swiftly approaching.
The usage of fossil fuels to fulfill the world's power requirements is causing harmful side-effects for folks, plants and animals. Waste products from these fuels heat the earth's atmosphere and pollute the earth's air, water, and ground. This benefits in decreased living situations for all species on the earth. As well as becoming hazardous to our ecosystem, as well as the overall health of a lot of species, the pollution can also be changing the atmosphere from the globe. This trend is known as worldwide warming, and will continue to grow to be worse on account of the boost in the combustion of fossil fuels for electrical energy because of the growing globe population. Within the approach of burning the gasoline, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere. The catalytic converters minimize a large portion in the pollution, however they aren't ideal. Many cities currently have unsafe levels of ozone in the air. The planet wants a energy source that has low pollutant emissions, is energy-efficient, and has an unlimited provide of fuel for a rising world population.
Numerous option power technologies have been researched and developed. These include solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal power as well as several other individuals. Solar cells use the sun to generate electrical energy, wind energy is obtained in the kinetic power in the wind, bioenergy is extracted from plants and geothermal energy is power in the earth. Each and every of these alternative energy sources has its positive aspects and disadvantages and all are in varying stages of improvement.
For most nations around the globe, if the supply of fossil fuels were cut off -- the whole economy would come to a halt. There wouldn't be a way for people to drive to function, or use electrical energy in their residences or workplaces. The global population consumes petroleum items at a rate one hundred,000 times higher than the rate that they're formed. The United states of america currently imports 70% of the oil, and it really is still increasing. About 80% of the total energy inside the world is offered by fossil energy sources . The International Energy Agency estimates that the major planet demand for power is anticipated to develop by about 45% by 2030. The price of meeting this power demand is estimated to be 20 trillion U. S. dollars [2, 3]. Consequently, because a lot money requirements to be spent on the investment in energy infrastructure within the upcoming years, this enables an opportunity for replacing the fossil fuel infrastructure having a renewable energy infrastructure. U.S. coal and fossil fuel plants are currently relatively old simply because at the very least half from the plants had been built before 1970. When the oldest plants are retired 1st, it may be a simple progression to transfer the energy production to alternative power without retiring the plant's prematurely.
Although the demand for oil is increasing, the world's oil production peaked in 2005 . In 2006, nations that had a important percentage of their energy from renewable power was Canada (16%), followed by France (6%), Italy (6.5%), Germany (five.6%), Usa (4.8%), and the United kingdom (1.7%) . The worldwide community has reached a point exactly where future power demands have to be balanced with future financial and environmental requirements. We at present have a actual chance to transform the way that our economy utilizes energy, prevent further pollution, and we are able to support to insure a safer and more secure future
About international warming
For all you international warming naysayers - please keep reading!
Everyone is aware that the definition of international warming can be a substantial improve inside the Earth's temperature over a brief time period because of the outcome of human activities. An increase in temperature of 0.4
Clean Power
PUBLISHED ON April 9th, 2015
"by Smiti Mittal"
0
April 9th, 2015 by SMITI MITTAL
The southern Indian state of Telangana is set to launch one of the largest tenders for solar power projects in the country.
The government of Telangana is planning to issue a tender to auction 2 GW of solar power capacity, most likely 100% solar photovoltaic (PV) projects, over the next few weeks. The tender is probably the first and is most certainly the largest to be issued by a government, central or state, following the official announcement to increase the solar power capacity addition target from 22 GW to 100 GW by 2022 in late February this year.
The state government would offer prospective developers projects through competitive bidding where the base tariff is expected to be below 0.1 per kWh. Last year, the government auctioned off 500 MW worth of solar power capacity and received a very healthy response. Some of the leading project developers, Indian as well as foreign, managed to win significant project capacities.
Renew Power (backed by Goldman Sachs), First Solar, and ACME Solar together bagged 300 MW out of the 500 MW which were on offer. Renew Power alone managed to get 140 MW worth of solar projects, while ACME and First Solar settled for 80 MW and 65 MW, respectively.
Telangana, once part of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh state, has been in a tussle with its neighbour to attract investment especially in the power sector as both the states claim to be power deficient. Both the states have signed separate agreements with the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) to set up ultra mega solar power plants of capacity 1 GW each. So apart from the state-level auctions, the central government will also organise auctions for at least 1 GW solar power capacity of the next few months.
Telangana has an ambitious plan to add 5 GW solar power capacity and 4 GW wind energy capacity by 2019.
"Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to OUR (FREE) CLEANTECH NEWSLETTER, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) SOLAR ENERGY NEWSLETTER, ELECTRIC VEHICLE NEWSLETTER, or WIND ENERGY NEWSLETTER."
TAGS: India, India Solar Power, Solar Energy Corporation of India, Telangana, Telangana Renewable Energy, Telangana Solar Power, Telangana Solar Tender
About The Author
Smiti Mittal works as a senior solar engineer at Mott MacDonald, a reputed engineering and management consultancy. She has conducted due diligence of several solar PV projects in India and Southeast Asia. She has keen interest in renewable energy, green buildings, environmental sustainability, and biofuels. She currently resides in New Delhi, India.
Related Posts
Global Clean Energy Investment Slumps In Q1'15, But South Africa Shines ->
INDC Clues From Large Developing Nations: Part 3 ->
Green Climate Fund Can Be Spent To Subsidise Dirty Coal ->
Brazil Announces Huge 350 MW Floating Solar Power Plant ->
Article source: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/09/indian-state-telangana-set-launch-2-gw-solar-power-auction/
The post Indian State Of Telangana Set To Launch 2 GW Solar Power Auction appeared first on Renewable Electron.
