------------------------ Yahoo! Groups ----------------------------~-->
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
From: "janson2997"
2. Bringing the Food Economy Home
From: "janson2997"
3. Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
From: "janson2997"
4. Fw: Transport - CSIRO electrolysis
From: "Grant"
5. Wind power important in solving energy problems
From: "janson2997"
6. Japanese Cities To Use Wind To Produce Hydrogen for Fuel Cells
From: "janson2997"
7. Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
From: "janson2997"
8. 'Hydrogen economy' a challenge
From: "janson2997"
9. U.S. 4th-Qtr Current Account Deficit Rises to Record (Update1)
From: "janson2997"
10. Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded
From: "janson2997"
11. A swiftly crumbling planet
From: "janson2997"
12. Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form
From: "janson2997"
13. A climate change of heart
From: "janson2997"
14. Mikrosysteme könnten viele Menschenleben retten
From: "janson2997"
15. Brennbares Eis aus dem Meeresboden statt Erdöl, Erdgas und Kohle
From: "janson2997"
16. (OIL) Markets oblivious to geopolitical risks
From: "janson2997"
17. The Day The Oil Stops
From: "janson2997"
18. US urged to work with China on energy - Financial Times
From: "janson2997"
19. Price rigging charges fly in Big Oil Senate hearing
From: "janson2997"
20. University of South Carolina Announces the Greater Columbia Fuel Cell
From: "janson2997"
21. The MBA's Climate Primer
From: "janson2997"
22. Kraft-Wärme-(Kälte-)Kopplung der Zukunft
From: "janson2997"
23. Tiefensee und Perben wollen H2 für den Verkehr nutzbar machen
From: "janson2997"
24. Climate of fear
From: "janson2997"
25. US urged to work with China and India on energy
From: "janson2997"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:35:50 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
By Catherine Lacoursiere
March 09, 2006
Just two years ago, a proposal for a clean coal plant in Silicon
Valley would have been unheard of, not to mention one backed by
Silicon Valley's largest technology companies. The endorsement of
coal by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) is a good
indication that coal is cleaning up its image. The driver, Justin
Bradley, the energy director of the SVLG tells Reuters, is "to
control our costs to stay competitive."
advertisement
Coal, abundant and cheap, makes up 56 percent of electric power
generation in the United States, which has 250 years of coal
reserves. With the help of generous tax incentives, the government is
pushing for the use of more clean coal. The market for coal scrubbed
clean of pollutant emissions is estimated to grow to 20 percent of
the 87,000 MWs in new coal generating capacity expected to come
online by 2025. During the same period, the Environmental Protection
Agency is requiring significant reductions in NOx, SOx and fine
particulate matter in coal generation, while global pressure to
reduce CO2 emissions continues to mount.
Not surprisingly, clean coal is becoming a hot clean tech sector, but
it also is a term that is increasingly used loosely. "I think the
first question to ask is what do you mean by clean coal," says David
Hawkins, director of the National Resources Defense Council's climate
center and its clean coal expert. Hawkins defines clean coal as a
process that reduces carbon dioxide by 80 or 90 percent from
conventional coal plants. If it does not control CO2 emissions,
investors are not willing to provide financing to a plant, he adds.
Whether economies choose mandatory or voluntary greenhouse emission
reduction schemes, CO2 reduction through carbon capture and storage
technologies will be a significant future cost for coal plants, which
are responsible for over 85 percent of power plant CO2 emissions.
Clean coal investment activity is starting to pick up with clean coal
plants expected to start coming online around 2015. In addition to
the Silicon Valley group, the chairman of the Anheuser-Busch Company
reportedly visited a clean coal plant this month and states are
offering competing subsidies to attract clean coal plant developers.
The major clean coal technology is gasification, specifically the
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, which converts
coal into a syngas that produces hydrogen and steam while
sequestering the CO2. The prototype plant, FutureGen, combines
turbines and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) to produce electric power.
Large power plant developers such as GE and Bechtel are the primary
developers. However, there are a number of technologies that will
make up next generation gasification plants. FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ:
FCEL) has just been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy for an
award of an $85 million project over 10 years, subject to final
negotiation of a contract, to produce 100-MW solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) system for use in a gasification plant. The project aims to
convert coal into grid electrical power while capturing 90 percent of
carbon dioxide emissions and achieving a 50% overall efficiency, up
from 35% today.
Steve Eschbach, director of investor relations of FuelCell Energy
expects commercial prototypes could be introduced in about seven
years, following a similar commercialization timeline as its Direct
FuelCell® power plant, which was in the market within 10 years of its
development program with the DOE. Today, FuelCell has over 40 DFC
power plants at customer sites. FuelCell owns 41 percent of Versa
Power Systems, which is designing the fuel cell stack for the SOFC
power plant.
Another promising technology is oxygen combustion (oxycombustion), a
carbon capture technology that uses pure oxygen instead of air to
burn coal. With the right government-backed incentives in place,
oxycombustion could be a real clean coal contender to gasification
technology.
Not everyone agrees that clean coal is defined as coal that is
scrubbed 90 percent clean, but most agree that near-zero emission
coal plants will not be completed for a few more years. In the
meantime, cleaner coal technologies are emerging. KFx's (KFX) K-Fuel™
pre-combustion process reduces the mercury content of coal by 70
percent on average and SO2 and Nox emissions up to 30 percent. The
technology transforms low Btu coal into a higher grade coal by
increasing the Btus per pound by reducing moisture, producing a coal
that competes with Central Appalachian coal, which has a lower sulfur
and mercury content and is increasingly in short supply.
"To our knowledge, KFx is the only cleaner coal alternative process
that is commercially viable today that does not require tax credits
to be economic," says KFx president and CEO Mark Sexton. KFx is
reducing emissions further by blending K-Fuel with other ultra-
compliant high grade coals and exploring ways to combine it with
biomass to bring emissions levels down, on par with natural gas.
Disclaimer
Catherine Lacoursiere is an independent columnist for this web site.
Catherine Lacoursiere may hold long or short positions in any of the
stocks mentioned in this article and those positions can change at
any moment.
http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/CL/News/Near-Zero_Emissions.asp
http://tinyurl.com/g59z8
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:41:21 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Bringing the Food Economy Home
Bringing the Food Economy Home
By Helena Norberg-Hodge and Steven Gorelick
Today's mounting social and ecological crises demand responses that
are broad, deep, and strategic. Given the widespread destruction
wrought by globalisation, it seems clear that the most powerful
solutions will involve a fundamental change in direction - towards
localizing rather than globalising economic activity. In fact, 'going
local' may be the single most effective thing we can do.
Many people will find this claim exaggerated and unrealistic. But we
have to ask ourselves whether it is realistic to continue pulling the
entire global population into a single economy - one in which a small
fraction of the population already uses the bulk of the world's
resources. Today, roughly half the world's people, mostly in the
South, still derive a large proportion of their needs from local
economies. Do we really believe that those people's lives will be
improved if we destroy these economies? What can globalisation offer
the majority, other than unrealistic promises? Localisation would not
only entail far less social and environmental upheaval, it would
actually be far less costly to implement. In fact, every step towards
the local, whether at the policy level or in our communities, would
bring with it a whole cascade of benefits.
Localisation is essentially a process of de-centralisation - shifting
economic activity into the hands of millions of small- and medium-
sized businesses instead of concentrating it in fewer and fewer mega-
corporations. Localisation doesn't mean that every community would be
entirely self-reliant; it simply means striking a balance between
trade and local production by diversifying economic activity and
shortening the distance between producers and consumers wherever
possible.
Where should the first steps towards localisation take place? Since
food is something everyone, everywhere, needs every day, a shift from
global food to local food would have the greatest impact of all.
What is 'global food'?
Global food is based on an economic theory: instead of producing a
diverse range of food crops, every nation and region should
specialise in one or two globally-traded commodities - those they can
produce cheaply enough to compete with every other producer. The
proceeds from exporting those commodities are then used to buy food
for local consumption. According to the theory, everyone will benefit.
The theory, as it turns out, is wrong. Rather than providing
universal benefits, the global food system has been a major cause of
hunger and environmental destruction around the world.
The environment has been hit particularly hard. The global system
demands centralised collection of tremendous quantities of single
crops, leading to the creation of huge monocultures. Monocultures, in
turn, require massive inputs of pesticides, herbicides and chemical
fertilisers. These practices systematically eliminate biodiversity
from farmland, and lead to soil erosion, eutrophication of waterways,
and the poisoning of surrounding ecosystems.
Since global food is destined for distant markets, food miles have
gone up astronomically, making food transport a major contributor to
fossil fuel use, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. In the US,
for example, transporting food within the nation's borders accounts
for over 20 percent of all commodity transport, and results in at
least 120 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. In the UK,
imports of food and animal feed require over 83 billion tonne-kms of
transport, use 1.6 billion litres of fuel, and emit more than 4
million tonnes of CO2. Much of this transport is utterly needless,
since the 'logic' of global trade leads countries to simultaneously
import and export the same commodity.
Social and economic costs
As farms have become larger and more mechanised, the number of
farmers has steadily declined. The six founding countries of Europe's
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) had 22 million farmers in 1957;
today that number has fallen to about seven million. In the US, 6.8
million farms were in operation in 1935; today there are only one-
fourth as many.
The global food system saps rural economies in other ways. People are
generally unaware that most of what they spend on food goes to
corporate middlemen, not farmers. In the US, for example,
distributors, marketers, and input suppliers take 91 cents out of
every food dollar, while farmers keep only 9 cents. As global
corporations take over food marketing, small shopkeepers are also
being squeezed out: in the 1990s alone, some 1,000 independent food
shops - grocers, bakers, butchers and fishmongers - closed in the UK
each year.
In the South, the globalisation of food is driving literally millions
of farming families from the land. Dolma Tsering, a farmer in
Northern India, described what has happened in her village: "Whole
families used to work on the land. We grew almost everything we
needed. Now imported wheat is destroying our market. It's just not
worth going to the trouble of producing food anymore, and the village
is being emptied of people." Thoughout the South, most of those
displaced people will end up in urban slums - without community,
without connection to the land, without a secure and healthy food
supply.
The declining quality of food
Because of the global food system, people around the world are
induced to eat largely the same foods. In this way, farm monocultures
go hand in hand with a spreading human monoculture, in which people's
tastes and habits are homogenised - in part through advertising,
which promotes foods suited to monocultural production, mechanised
harvesting, long-distance transport and long-term storage.
New additives and processes - like UHT milk - are continually
developed to extend storage time. For harried consumers, food
corporations also provide 'convenience' foods that can be re-heated
quickly in a microwave, and even items like 'macaroni and cheese on a
stick' which can be eaten with one hand. Nutritional content? We're
told not to worry, since some of the nutrients destroyed in
processing can supposedly be reinserted. Flavour? Hundreds of
addititives are on hand to mimic the taste and texture of real food.
Food quality? With producers in a competitive race to the bottom,
it's not surprising that food poisoning cases are steadily
increasing, and new diseases like BSE have appeared.
Decades of government support for global trade have concentrated
wealth and power in ever larger corporations, which increasingly
dominate every aspect of the global food supply - from seed and feed
to everything on supermarket shelves. Today just two companies,
Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, control 70 to 80 percent of the
world's grain trade. One agribusiness, Philip Morris, gets ten cents
out of every American food dollar - more than earned by all US
farmers combined.
Benefits of the local
Awareness is steadily growing that global food is altogether too
costly - socially, environmentally, even economically. People are
beginning to seek out local food, and a whole movement is gaining
ground.
But what, exactly, are 'local food systems'? If the highest
expression of the global food system is a plastic-wrapped, highly
processed slab of junk food that has been transported thousands of
miles, the archetype product of a local food system is fresh food
raised on nearby farms and sold at farmers' markets and in
independent local shops.
Local food is, simply, food produced for local and regional
consumption. For that reason, 'food miles' are relatively small,
which greatly reduces fossil fuel use and pollution. There are other
environmental benefits as well. While global markets demand
monocultural production - which systematically eliminates all but the
cash crop from the land - local markets give farmers an incentive to
diversify, which creates many niches on the farm for wild plant and
animal species to occupy. Moreover, diversified farms cannot
accomodate the heavy machinery used in monocultures, thereby
eliminating a major cause of soil erosion. Diversification also lends
itself to organic methods, since crops are far less susceptible to
pest infestations.
Local food systems have economic benefits, too, since most of the
money spent on food goes to the farmer, not corporate middlemen. Juan
Moreno, a farmer in the Andalucian region of Spain, told us, "When we
used to sell our vegetables to supermarkets we got almost nothing for
them. Now, through the local co-op, we're getting much more - three
times as much for some vegetables."
Small diversified farms can help reinvigorate entire rural economies,
since they employ far more people per acre than large monocultures.
In the UK, farms under 100 acres provide five times more jobs per
acre than those over 500 acres. Moreover, wages paid to farm workers
benefit local economies and communities far more than money paid for
heavy equipment and the fuel to run it: the latter is almost
immediately siphoned off to equipment manufacturers and oil
companies, while wages paid to workers are spent locally.
Food quality
Local food is usually far fresher - and therefore more nutritious -
than global food. It also needs fewer preservatives or other
additives, and organic methods can eliminate pesticide residues.
Farmers can grow varieties that are best suited to local climate and
soils, allowing flavour and nutrition to take precedence over
transportability, shelf life and the whims of global markets. Animal
husbandry can be integrated with crop production, providing
healthier, more humane conditions for animals and a non-chemical
source of fertility.
Even food security would increase if people depended more on local
foods. Instead of being concentrated in a handful of corporations,
control over food would be dispersed and decentralised. And if
countries in the South were encouraged to use their labour and their
best agricultural land for local needs rather than growing luxury
crops for Northern markets, the rate of endemic hunger would diminish
as well.
Nonetheless, even many of those who acknowledge its negative effects
have been led to believe that the global food system is necessary
because it produces more food and delivers it at a lower price. In
reality, however, the global food system is neither more productive
than local systems nor is it really cheaper. Studies carried out all
over the world show that small-scale, diversified farms have a higher
total output per unit of land than large-scale monocultures. In fact,
if providing food for the world's hungry is the priority, then the
shift towards local food systems should begin immediately, since they
do a far better job of feeding people.
Global food is also very costly, though most of those costs do not
show up in its supermarket price. Instead, a large portion of what we
pay for global food comes out of our taxes - to fund research into
pesticides and biotech, to subsidise the transport, communications
and energy infrastructures the system requires, and to pay for the
foreign aid that pulls Third World economies into the destructive
global system. We pay in other ways for the environmental costs of
global food, which are degrading the planet our children will
inherit.
When we buy local food, we can actually pay less because we are not
paying for excessive transport, wasteful packaging, advertising, and
chemical additives - only for fresh, healthy and nutritious food.
Most of our food dollar isn't going to bloated corporate
agribusinesses, but to nearby farmers and small shopkeepers, enabling
them to charge less while still earning more than if they were tied
to the global system.
How do we go local?
Local food systems have immense advantages, but most policymakers -
in the belief that more trade is always better - systematically
support the further globalisation of food. As a result, identical
products are criss-crossing the globe, with no other purpose than
enriching the corporate middlemen that control the global food
supply.
An immediate first step would be to press for policy changes to
insure that identical products are not being both imported and
exported. If we eliminate needless trade in everything from wheat,
milk and potatoes to apple juice and live animals, the reduction in
transport alone would bring immediate benefits. What's more, if
people around the world were allowed to eat their own bread and drink
their own milk, giant corporations wouldn't profit every time we sit
down to eat.
Such a step would require a rethinking of 'free trade' dogma. Trade
treaties need to be rewritten, reestablishing the rights of citizens
to protect their economies and resources from corporate predators.
At the same time, subsidies that now support the global food system
need to be shifted towards more localised systems. Governments have
spent tremendous sums of taxpayers' money to prop up a costly food
system which pretends to provide 'cheap' food. If even a fraction of
that sum were devoted to supporting local food systems instead, the
cost of local food would decrease substantially, and its availability
rapidly grow.
Shifts in energy policy - which now heavily subsidise the large-scale
centralised energy systems needed for global trade and
industrial 'development' of all kinds - are critically important. In
the South, where the energy infrastructure is still being built up, a
shift towards a decentralised renewable energy path could be easily
implemented, at a fraction of the cost in dollars and human upheaval
that huge dams, nuclear power and fossil fuels entail.
We also need to recognise the importance of local knowledge to
maintain existing local food systems, and to reclaim those that have
been largely lost. Today, a one-size-fits-all educational model is
being imposed worldwide, eliminating much of the knowledge and skills
people need to live on their own resources, in their own places on
the earth.
Changes in tax policy would also help to promote food localisation.
Now, tax credits for capital- and energy-intensive technologies
favour the largest and most global producers. Meanwhile the more
labour-intensive methods of small-scale diversified producers are
penalised through income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes on
labour.
Re-regulating Global Trade, Deregulating Local Trade
As we've seen, the steady deregulation of global trade and finance
has led to the emergence of giant corporations whose activities are
highly polluting and socially exploitative. This in turn has created
a need for ever more social and environmental regulations, along with
a massive bureaucracy to administer them. That bureaucracy is
strangling smaller businesses with paperwork, inspections, fines, and
the cost of mandated technologies. The regulatory burden is too great
for the small to bear, while the big happily pay up and grow bigger
as their smaller competitors die out. How many dairies have gone out
of business because they had to have stainless steel sinks, when
porcelain had served them well for generations?
Today, there is an urgent need to re-regulate global trade, by
allowing national and regional governments to control the activities
of TNCs. At the same time, there is an equally urgent need to de-
regulate local trade, which by its nature is far less likely to
damage human health and the environment.
Turning the tide
These policy and regulatory shifts would open up space for thousands
of community-based inititatives - many of them already underway - to
flourish. From CSAs and box schemes to farmers' markets, food co-ops,
and buy-local campaigns, people have already begun the hands-on work
needed to rebuild their local food systems. But these efforts will
fall short if government policies continue to tilt the playing field
towards the large and global.
When government ministers blindly promote trade for the sake of trade
while at the same time discussing reductions in CO2 emissions, the
possibility of sensible policy shifts can seem remote. And so it is,
unless activists and other citizens unite behind the anti-global and
pro-local banners, and exert powerful pressure from below. Already,
unprecedented alliances have been created. Environmentalists and
labour unionists, farmers and deep ecologists, people from North and
South - are all linking hands to say 'no' to an economic steamroller
that destroys jobs as quickly as it destroys species, that threatens
the livelihood of farmers while driving up the price of healthy food
in the marketplace.
Still more work is needed, however, including education campaigns to
reveal the connections between our many crises, to spell out the
truth about trade and the way we measure progress, and to graphically
describe the ecological, social, psychological and economic benefits
of localising and decentralising our economies.
Shortening the links between farmers and consumers may be one of the
most strategic and enjoyable ways to bring about fundamental change
for the better. How satisfying it is to know that by taking a step
which is so good for us and our families, we are also making a very
real contribution to preserving diversity, protecting jobs and rural
livelihoods and the environment, all over the world.
This article is adapted from the book Bringing the Food Economy Home:
Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness, published by Kumarian
Press (US), Zed Books (UK) and Fernwood Press (Canada).
For further information about the issues this article raises, please
contact ISEC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article (from 2003) doesn't mention Peak Oil, however Helena has
at least subsequently become aware of it. What's encouraging then is
the multitude of other reasons for relocalising. People drawing the
same conclusions from looking at Peak Oil can feel they're on the
right track. Problems as overwhelmingly multifaceted as Peak Oil and
socio-ecological crises need multifaceted, 'solutions-multiplying'
responses, not simple techo-fixes. That's where relocalisation as a
central principle seems to hold its ground.
I recorded a presentation Helena gave at Ceres urban eco-park in
Melbourne Australia a couple of weeks ago about local food and
cultural self defence in the contexts of Peak Oil, climate change and
globalisation. She made quite an impression with the audience.
You can listen to it here:
www.archive.org/details/helena_norberg_hodge
Helena talks about ISEC's Local Food Toolkit, an education-for-action
package designed to raise awareness about global food issues and to
encourage concrete responses.
Find out more about it:
www.isec.org.uk/ustoolkit.html
Global Public Media also have an excellent interview with Helena
available from 2004:
www.globalpublicmedia.com/people/helena_norberghodge
See here for reviews of the book Bringing the Food Economy Home
http://www.organicfood.co.uk/books/foodeconomy.html
http://www.agriculture-theology.org.uk/reviews/food_economy_home.htm
You can order the book at the ISEC website: www.isec.org.uk/books.html
Many interesting essays are available by Helena, Steven Gorelick and
others at:
www.isec.org.uk/articles.html
"Helena Norberg-Hodge, a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award or
Alternative Nobel Prize, is the founder and director of the
International Society for Ecology and Culture (www.isec.org.uk), co-
founder of the Global Eco-village and author of numerous works,
including the inspirational classic, Ancient Futures: Learning from
Ladakh, which together with an award-winning film of the same title
has been translated into more than 30 languages.
"Renowned for groundbreaking work in sustainable development, Helena
Norberg-Hodge's ISEC network runs programs on four continents aimed
at strengthening ecological diversity and community, with a
particular emphasis on local food and farming, Her latest book is
Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global
Agribusiness."
-http://www.isec.org.uk/articles/bringing.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:41:55 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
By Catherine Lacoursiere
March 09, 2006
Just two years ago, a proposal for a clean coal plant in Silicon
Valley would have been unheard of, not to mention one backed by
Silicon Valley's largest technology companies. The endorsement of
coal by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) is a good
indication that coal is cleaning up its image. The driver, Justin
Bradley, the energy director of the SVLG tells Reuters, is "to
control our costs to stay competitive."
advertisement
Coal, abundant and cheap, makes up 56 percent of electric power
generation in the United States, which has 250 years of coal
reserves. With the help of generous tax incentives, the government is
pushing for the use of more clean coal. The market for coal scrubbed
clean of pollutant emissions is estimated to grow to 20 percent of
the 87,000 MWs in new coal generating capacity expected to come
online by 2025. During the same period, the Environmental Protection
Agency is requiring significant reductions in NOx, SOx and fine
particulate matter in coal generation, while global pressure to
reduce CO2 emissions continues to mount.
Not surprisingly, clean coal is becoming a hot clean tech sector, but
it also is a term that is increasingly used loosely. "I think the
first question to ask is what do you mean by clean coal," says David
Hawkins, director of the National Resources Defense Council's climate
center and its clean coal expert. Hawkins defines clean coal as a
process that reduces carbon dioxide by 80 or 90 percent from
conventional coal plants. If it does not control CO2 emissions,
investors are not willing to provide financing to a plant, he adds.
Whether economies choose mandatory or voluntary greenhouse emission
reduction schemes, CO2 reduction through carbon capture and storage
technologies will be a significant future cost for coal plants, which
are responsible for over 85 percent of power plant CO2 emissions.
Clean coal investment activity is starting to pick up with clean coal
plants expected to start coming online around 2015. In addition to
the Silicon Valley group, the chairman of the Anheuser-Busch Company
reportedly visited a clean coal plant this month and states are
offering competing subsidies to attract clean coal plant developers.
The major clean coal technology is gasification, specifically the
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, which converts
coal into a syngas that produces hydrogen and steam while
sequestering the CO2. The prototype plant, FutureGen, combines
turbines and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) to produce electric power.
Large power plant developers such as GE and Bechtel are the primary
developers. However, there are a number of technologies that will
make up next generation gasification plants. FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ:
FCEL) has just been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy for an
award of an $85 million project over 10 years, subject to final
negotiation of a contract, to produce 100-MW solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) system for use in a gasification plant. The project aims to
convert coal into grid electrical power while capturing 90 percent of
carbon dioxide emissions and achieving a 50% overall efficiency, up
from 35% today.
Steve Eschbach, director of investor relations of FuelCell Energy
expects commercial prototypes could be introduced in about seven
years, following a similar commercialization timeline as its Direct
FuelCell® power plant, which was in the market within 10 years of its
development program with the DOE. Today, FuelCell has over 40 DFC
power plants at customer sites. FuelCell owns 41 percent of Versa
Power Systems, which is designing the fuel cell stack for the SOFC
power plant.
Another promising technology is oxygen combustion (oxycombustion), a
carbon capture technology that uses pure oxygen instead of air to
burn coal. With the right government-backed incentives in place,
oxycombustion could be a real clean coal contender to gasification
technology.
Not everyone agrees that clean coal is defined as coal that is
scrubbed 90 percent clean, but most agree that near-zero emission
coal plants will not be completed for a few more years. In the
meantime, cleaner coal technologies are emerging. KFx's (KFX) K-Fuel™
pre-combustion process reduces the mercury content of coal by 70
percent on average and SO2 and Nox emissions up to 30 percent. The
technology transforms low Btu coal into a higher grade coal by
increasing the Btus per pound by reducing moisture, producing a coal
that competes with Central Appalachian coal, which has a lower sulfur
and mercury content and is increasingly in short supply.
"To our knowledge, KFx is the only cleaner coal alternative process
that is commercially viable today that does not require tax credits
to be economic," says KFx president and CEO Mark Sexton. KFx is
reducing emissions further by blending K-Fuel with other ultra-
compliant high grade coals and exploring ways to combine it with
biomass to bring emissions levels down, on par with natural gas.
Disclaimer
Catherine Lacoursiere is an independent columnist for this web site.
Catherine Lacoursiere may hold long or short positions in any of the
stocks mentioned in this article and those positions can change at
any moment.
http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/CL/News/Near-Zero_Emissions.asp
http://www.isec.org.uk/articles/bringing.html
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:16:20 +1030
From: "Grant"
Subject: Fw: Transport - CSIRO electrolysis
Hydrogen transportation: stepping on the gas
As future oil prices soar, a CSIRO developed device may be all you need to power your car.
The challenge
Rising petrol prices has reinvigorated the alternative energy debate. Biofuels such as ethanol are one option, but another alternative being promoted is hydrogen.
Until now, hydrogen's use as an energy source has been minimal, because fossil fuels have been so readily available and hydrogen generation has been comparatively expensive and inefficient.
While the idea of fuelling your car with hydrogen might sound like science fiction, researchers say concepts such as the hydrogen economy are real possibilities.
A CSIRO solution
As part of the Energy Transformed Flagship research program, CSIRO has developed a device the size of a small, domestic microwave oven to extract enough hydrogen per day, from water, to power a family car for up to 150 km, just using:
a.. house-hold electricity
b.. a solar panel
c.. a small wind turbine.
This could be a far cheaper alternative to building new hydrogen service stations and be more readily usable in a range of applications, including transport.
Project leader, Dr Sukhvinder Badwal, said that although several commercial systems exist, they are not very efficient. Drawbacks of current systems include:
a.. high capital costs
b.. lifetime performance
c.. the inability to handle intermittent and varying loads.
How it works
Electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen electrochemically recombines with oxygen in a fuel cell to generate power, and water is the only by-product.
Dr Badwal said, 'The hydrogen produced is of such high purity that it can be used directly in a fuel cell or anywhere else without further purification.'
'The electrolyser responds instantaneously to applied load and is capable of accepting large load variations, making it easy to use this technology with solar or wind power. The hydrogen generated can be stored for long periods and be converted to electricity when needed.'
'Hydrogen cannot, at this stage, compete economically with fossil fuels, but increasing oil prices could create a different scenario,' Dr Badwal said.
'By 2010, Australia could be importing 60 per cent of its crude oil. Our abundant sustainable energy sources are major drivers for a shift to the hydrogen economy.'
The project is still in the research and development stage, but, with full-scale commercialisation in sight, CSIRO is seeking a commercial partner.
http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps1ai,,.html
Future cars could be fuelled by hydrogen technology
Reference: 2005/217
All you may need to fuel your car in the future is a small CSIRO-developed hydrogen device the size of a domestic microwave oven.
16 November 2005
A small CSIRO-developed hydrogen device the size of a domestic microwave oven may be all you need to fuel your car in the future.
A team at CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology has developed a small device that can extract enough hydrogen per day from water to power a family car for up to150kms. This work is an important part of CSIRO's Energy Transformed Flagship research program into positioning Australia for a future hydrogen economy.
Currently, the hydrogen unit runs on main's power, but researchers are investigating how to power the unit with renewable energy, such as solar and wind power.
While the idea of fuelling your car with hydrogen generated from a solar panel might sound like science fiction, project leader Dr Sukhvinder Badwal says concepts such as the hydrogen economy are real possibilities.
'Every time we stop at the petrol station to fill up the car we are reminded that fuel prices are not getting any lower,' Dr Badwal says.
At this stage, hydrogen cannot compete with fossil fuels, but rising oil prices could create a different scenario, Dr Badwal says. 'We just need to look towards future oil import costs.'
He says that hydrogen is the cleanest fuel nature has given us and its portability and flexibility makes it ideal for a range of applications, including transport.
'While Australia has abundant renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, they cannot directly provide the portable fuel required by the transport sector. Hydrogen can fulfil that demand but, because it is not a naturally occurring fuel, has to be generated using conventional fuels or renewable sources.'
Dr Badwal says that although several commercial systems exist, they are not very efficient. High capital costs, lifetime performance and the inability to handle intermittent and varying loads - important qualities when dealing with renewable energy sources - are also current drawbacks.
This is where CSIRO's latest work could make the difference. It is developing a solid-state system based on polymer electrolyte membranes for on-demand, distributed hydrogen production at homes, small-to-medium enterprises, remote locations, service stations and other end-user sites, where water and electricity are available.
The hydrogen generated can be stored for long periods and be converted to electricity when needed. The ability to generate energy on-site and on-demand would reduce up-front infrastructure costs. Dr Badwal says the team is still in the research and development stage, but "would like to have a commercial partner on board, as full-scale commercialisation is three to four years away".
http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/psrt,,.html
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:48:44 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Wind power important in solving energy problems
Wind power important in solving energy problems
By Sally Barber, Cadillac News
Living with both clean energy and modern comforts isn't a quixotic
dream.
An advocate for renewable energy, Allan O'Shea, lived three years in
a home powered by wind energy and currently powers his Copemish
office with a combination of wind and solar energy.
"These things are doable without changing your comfort levels," he
said.
O'Shea, who sells residential and small commercial wind systems, said
a homeowner with a house buttoned-down by good insulation, efficient
windows and energy saving appliances and lighting can expect to
produce about half of a family's energy needs with wind power. "You
can't put up a wind system and cure all your ills," he said.
O'Shea thinks public education, state and local laws must come
together to support renewable energy growth.
"We are so far behind the curve in Michigan, it's scary," he said.
Other states with a less favorable wind resource than Michigan have
already put laws in place and established commercial wind farms.
"Michigan has three large wind electric systems," O'Shea
said. "Wisconsin has more than 700 turbines and thousands of small
wind systems with billion dollars worth of wind generators."
If the Michigan takes an aggressive approach to wind power, O'Shea
thinks it would be possible to deliver three to five percent of the
state's energy growth needs in 10 years. But marketplace supply and
demand issues could slow progress. General Electric, a major
worldwide supplier of turbines, is 18 months behind in deliveries, he
said.
O'Shea met last week in Lansing with lawmakers and representatives of
the Michigan Association of Counties to discuss the proposed House
Bill 4649, one of several bills being looked at to further the growth
of alternative energy. Currently on the floor, HB 4649 would permit
establishment of wind electric systems in all counties.
"The first step in increasing wind (power) is to get the state to
require a renewable energy minimum standard," said Mike Klepinger,
Michigan State University Extension Specialist.
Twenty-one states have already enacted what is called a Renewable
Energy Portfolio (REP) to ensure alternative energies become a part
of the future.
Klepinger favors a policy that would require 10 percent of the
state's energy to come from a renewable energy source by 2010.
Rep. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, said an aggressive approach is
needed to get alternative energy sources into the market and that it
is key to stabilizing prices.
"I think we finally realized in Michigan this is not going to drop-
off," Sheltrown said. "We should have been working on this for a long
time and focused research on alternative energies."
Other nations have taken the lead in implementing new energy sources
and provide working models.
"There are countries in the world relying 100 percent on biofuels,
for example, such as Brazil," he said. "They seem to be running just
fine."
Legislature is currently examining bills to provide tax credits to
individuals and companies investing in alternative energies. One year
ago, Michigan took a step forward when net metering rules were put
into effect. Net metering allows owners of alternative power
generation systems to tie into a utility system and sell the excess
power produced on site to utility companies.
"It's not as simple as you or I might think on the surface," said
Craig Borr, senior vice president for marketing and member relations
at Wolverine Power Cooperative, a power wholesaler.
Engineering costs, approvals to connect to the grid and
interconnection costs add up and the scope of projects varies.
"A homeowner that has excess power from a small turbine is one
story," he said. "The other is connecting wind farms wanting to sell
to power markets."
As a renewable energy source, wind power is a trend that has its foot
in the door.
"We're very interested in renewable energy, like most utility
companies," Borr said. "The issue becomes the cost and rates to
paying customers. Are customers willing to pay a premium for clean
energy? I think some are. There are no two ways about it."
Steve Harsh, an agriculture economics professor at MSU and
administrator of The Michigan Anemometer Loan Program, an initiative
to further establish state wind data and promote wind power
generation, believes small scale wind systems have the potential to
alleviate financial pressures from soaring energy prices for many
types of establishments.
"Small turbines could be used to offset energy costs at small
manufacturers, schools or farms," he said.
He would like to see local collaboratives form and keep profits at
home. A New York-based company is developing an $80 million wind farm
underway in the Thumb, while a Michigan firm has proposed a
commercial project in Oceana County. Traverse City Light and Power
set the course for local development when it went online with a wind
system in 1996.
In the Cadillac area, wind energy has been identified as a topic of
concern, according to Kurt Schindler, Wexford County Extension
Director and land use specialist. Schindler said Wexford County has
no rules on the books applying specifically to wind systems, but the
philosophy is to encourage innovation.
"As they work through new zoning ordinances the attitude now is to be
very permissive with farmers to see they have the maximum flexibility
to be successful," he said.
As for wind power's potential in the energy mix, "I think it's the
future," Schindler said.
http://www.cadillacnews.com/articles/2006/03/14/news/news01.txt
http://tinyurl.com/ecbwj
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:49:50 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Japanese Cities To Use Wind To Produce Hydrogen for Fuel Cells
Japanese Cities To Use Wind To Produce Hydrogen for Fuel Cells
See:
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4752.html
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:57:59 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
Clean Coal: Investing in Near-Zero Emissions
By Catherine Lacoursiere
March 09, 2006
Just two years ago, a proposal for a clean coal plant in Silicon
Valley would have been unheard of, not to mention one backed by
Silicon Valley's largest technology companies. The endorsement of
coal by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) is a good
indication that coal is cleaning up its image. The driver, Justin
Bradley, the energy director of the SVLG tells Reuters, is "to
control our costs to stay competitive."
advertisement
Coal, abundant and cheap, makes up 56 percent of electric power
generation in the United States, which has 250 years of coal
reserves. With the help of generous tax incentives, the government is
pushing for the use of more clean coal. The market for coal scrubbed
clean of pollutant emissions is estimated to grow to 20 percent of
the 87,000 MWs in new coal generating capacity expected to come
online by 2025. During the same period, the Environmental Protection
Agency is requiring significant reductions in NOx, SOx and fine
particulate matter in coal generation, while global pressure to
reduce CO2 emissions continues to mount.
Not surprisingly, clean coal is becoming a hot clean tech sector, but
it also is a term that is increasingly used loosely. "I think the
first question to ask is what do you mean by clean coal," says David
Hawkins, director of the National Resources Defense Council's climate
center and its clean coal expert. Hawkins defines clean coal as a
process that reduces carbon dioxide by 80 or 90 percent from
conventional coal plants. If it does not control CO2 emissions,
investors are not willing to provide financing to a plant, he adds.
Whether economies choose mandatory or voluntary greenhouse emission
reduction schemes, CO2 reduction through carbon capture and storage
technologies will be a significant future cost for coal plants, which
are responsible for over 85 percent of power plant CO2 emissions.
Clean coal investment activity is starting to pick up with clean coal
plants expected to start coming online around 2015. In addition to
the Silicon Valley group, the chairman of the Anheuser-Busch Company
reportedly visited a clean coal plant this month and states are
offering competing subsidies to attract clean coal plant developers.
The major clean coal technology is gasification, specifically the
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, which converts
coal into a syngas that produces hydrogen and steam while
sequestering the CO2. The prototype plant, FutureGen, combines
turbines and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) to produce electric power.
Large power plant developers such as GE and Bechtel are the primary
developers. However, there are a number of technologies that will
make up next generation gasification plants. FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ:
FCEL) has just been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy for an
award of an $85 million project over 10 years, subject to final
negotiation of a contract, to produce 100-MW solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) system for use in a gasification plant. The project aims to
convert coal into grid electrical power while capturing 90 percent of
carbon dioxide emissions and achieving a 50% overall efficiency, up
from 35% today.
Steve Eschbach, director of investor relations of FuelCell Energy
expects commercial prototypes could be introduced in about seven
years, following a similar commercialization timeline as its Direct
FuelCell® power plant, which was in the market within 10 years of its
development program with the DOE. Today, FuelCell has over 40 DFC
power plants at customer sites. FuelCell owns 41 percent of Versa
Power Systems, which is designing the fuel cell stack for the SOFC
power plant.
Another promising technology is oxygen combustion (oxycombustion), a
carbon capture technology that uses pure oxygen instead of air to
burn coal. With the right government-backed incentives in place,
oxycombustion could be a real clean coal contender to gasification
technology.
Not everyone agrees that clean coal is defined as coal that is
scrubbed 90 percent clean, but most agree that near-zero emission
coal plants will not be completed for a few more years. In the
meantime, cleaner coal technologies are emerging. KFx's (KFX) K-Fuel™
pre-combustion process reduces the mercury content of coal by 70
percent on average and SO2 and Nox emissions up to 30 percent. The
technology transforms low Btu coal into a higher grade coal by
increasing the Btus per pound by reducing moisture, producing a coal
that competes with Central Appalachian coal, which has a lower sulfur
and mercury content and is increasingly in short supply.
"To our knowledge, KFx is the only cleaner coal alternative process
that is commercially viable today that does not require tax credits
to be economic," says KFx president and CEO Mark Sexton. KFx is
reducing emissions further by blending K-Fuel with other ultra-
compliant high grade coals and exploring ways to combine it with
biomass to bring emissions levels down, on par with natural gas.
Disclaimer
Catherine Lacoursiere is an independent columnist for this web site.
Catherine Lacoursiere may hold long or short positions in any of the
stocks mentioned in this article and those positions can change at
any moment.
http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/CL/News/Near-Zero_Emissions.asp
http://www.isec.org.uk/articles/bringing.html
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:59:59 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: 'Hydrogen economy' a challenge
'Hydrogen economy' a challenge
National conference draws experts and Gov. Schwarzenegger.
By Kurt Blumenau
Of The Morning Call
LONG BEACH, CALIF. |The nation's largest hydrogen conference opened
here Monday with equal doses of substance and California-style star
power.
Hundreds of attendees at the National Hydrogen Association's 17th
annual conference heard California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recap
his efforts to bring the element into mainstream use. Other speakers
took tougher looks at the challenges still in the way of a ''hydrogen
economy,'' in which the gas would serve as America's main energy
source.
Lehigh Valley LocalLinks
Hydrogen, an abundant element that can be used to make pollution-free
power, was chosen by President Bush three years ago as the most
attractive replacement for gasoline and other fossil fuels. The
element is decades away from fulfilling its potential, with numerous
technological and production problems still to be solved.
California has led the way in hydrogen research and testing, due in
part to Schwarzenegger's ''Hydrogen Highway'' program. That effort
calls for the construction of 50 to 100 fueling stations for hydrogen-
powered cars by 2010, with more over the following decade. Some 22
stations are already open in what will eventually become a statewide
network.
''No state is more committed to hydrogen than California,'' said
Schwarzenegger, who spoke for about five minutes via a satellite link
from Sacramento. ''We are well on our way to a hydrogen future.''
Schwarzenegger, who labeled himself ''an environmental warrior for
this state,'' did not mention partners that have contributed to the
Hydrogen Highway project. One such company is Air Products and
Chemicals Inc. of Trexlertown, whose hydrogen fueling technology is
used in many California stations. An Air Products fuel pump also is
being used to fill hydrogen cars on public display at the conference.
Air Products is one of the biggest sponsors of the conference, and
the world's leading hydrogen supplier — though nearly none of its $1
billion in annual hydrogen sales comes from the hydrogen economy.
Most of its customers are oil refineries, which use the gas to remove
sulfur from crude oil, making cleaner gasoline.
Longtime hydrogen supporter Alan Lloyd, who also spoke Monday,
singled out former Air Products researcher Venki Raman as a
difference-maker. Lloyd said Raman served as ''a voice crying in the
wilderness'' in the '90s, convincing the company to invest in
hydrogen development. Raman, retired from Air Products, is now an
independent hydrogen consultant in Emmaus.
Air Products ''is being very productive and helpful in helping
develop the hydrogen economy,'' said Lloyd, who retired last month as
head of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Lloyd warned, though, that major problems still stand in the way of
hydrogen's development. Sharp increases in gasoline prices have not
sparked the kind of backlash that might push Americans to investigate
other fuels, he said. Neither did Bush's proclamation, in this year's
State of the Union address, that America is addicted to fossil fuels.
''I've been disappointed in the fact that there's been no major
uprising against our dependence on oil,'' he said.
Lloyd also called on states beyond California to step up their
commitments to the future fuel. Hydrogen association President Jeff
Serfass, who spoke before Lloyd, said 33 states are preparing plans
for hydrogen development. But few states outside California have
built stations.
''A lot more needs to be done to transfer that interest into
action,'' Lloyd said.
Organizers expect the conference to draw at least 1,000 people. The
event opened in a low-key fashion Sunday, but its first major events
were Monday morning. It ends Thursday.
Kurt.blumenau@mcall.com
610-820-6664
http://www.mcall.com/business/local/all-hydrogenmar14,0,7972625.story?
coll=all-businesslocal-hed
http://tinyurl.com/jwx6v
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:48:27 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: U.S. 4th-Qtr Current Account Deficit Rises to Record (Update1)
U.S. 4th-Qtr Current Account Deficit Rises to Record (Update1)
March 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. current account deficit widened more
than forecast to a record $224.9 billion in the fourth quarter,
driven by a ballooning trade gap that is poised to worsen this year.
The deficit, the broadest measure of trade because it includes
transfer payments and income from investments, was up from a revised
$185.4 billion the previous three months, the Commerce Department
said today in Washington. For all of 2005, the deficit reached $804.9
billion, the biggest ever.
The burgeoning gap threatens to undermine the dollar and foster
higher interest rates should foreign investors tire of buying U.S.
stocks and bonds, economists said. Rising interest rates and
healthier economies abroad raise the possibility that investment may
flow to other countries.
``It's a little, ticking time bomb,'' Michael Gregory, a senior
economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto, said before the report.
``It may get increasingly hard to get those inflows when
opportunities improve elsewhere.''
The U.S. needs to attract about $2.5 billion a day to fund the gap
and keep the value of the dollar steady.
Even taking into account a growing economy, the deficit remains
daunting. It equaled 7 percent of the nation's gross domestic product
in the fourth quarter and 6.5 percent of GDP for all 2005, both all-
time highs. The deficit set a record in seven of the last eight
years.
U.S. retail sales fell 1.3 percent last month, the first decrease in
six months, as auto purchases declined and the return of cold weather
discouraged shoppers, a separate government report showed today.
Crude Oil and China
Economists forecast a fourth-quarter current account deficit of $218
billion, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey,
from an initially reported $195.8 billion shortfall in the previous
quarter. The previous record of $197.7 billion was reached in the
first three months of the year of 2005.
The deficit in trade, which accounted for 88 percent of the total
current account imbalance, swelled to $197.4 billion last quarter as
the country's imported-oil bill jumped and Americans' appetite for
goods made in China and other Asian countries remained unfettered.
The trade deficit compared with a $181.4 billion gap the prior three
months.
The trade gap jumped to a monthly record of $68.5 billion in January,
the Commerce Department reported last week, getting 2006 off to an
inauspicious start.
Government Payments
The U.S. paid foreigners more income on their holdings of American
assets than it received from U.S. investment abroad. That's helped to
widen the deficit.
Foreign earnings on U.S. assets, including wages and other
compensation, rose to $132.3 billion in the fourth quarter from
$115.9 billion in the previous three months. Income on overseas
assets held by U.S. investors rose to $129.8 billion from $120.8
billion. That left a $2.4 billion deficit on income payments,
compared with a $4.9 billion surplus in the third quarter.
U.S. government payments to foreigners and other private transfers
abroad registered a $25.1 billion deficit, larger than the $8.9
billion gap in the prior quarter that was reflected hurricane
insurance payments from overseas carriers.
Fewer countries now account for a bigger share of an
``unprecedented'' jump in global currency reserves, so that ``the
financing of the U.S. current account deficit has become
concentrated,'' according to a March 8 report from the European
Central Bank.
Japan and China accounted for more than half of world reserve
accumulation between 2002 and last year and together held around 40
percent of the total stock of reserves, the report showed.
Budget Deficit
The build up of reserves and a growing trade deficit with China have
given politicians fodder to demand change. U.S. officials, led by
Treasury Secretary John Snow, have been pushing China's government to
let its currency trade more in line with market forces. U.S.
lawmakers, including New York Senator Charles Schumer, support
legislation that would raise import duties on China's goods if it
doesn't comply.
The U.S. government's budget deficit together with the current
account gap represent ``unsound underpinnings'' in an otherwise
``good'' economic landscape, Robert Rubin, chairman of Citigroup
Inc.'s executive committee and former Treasury Secretary in President
Bill Clinton's administration, said in a Feb. 22 interview.
``At some point, these kinds of deficits are not viable,'' Rubin
said. ``The probabilities are extremely high that if we don't address
these imbalances, then at some point, and it could be years down the
road, we'll pay a very big price.''
In his first testimony before Congress last month, Fed Chairman Ben
S. Bernanke laid out some steps that could be taken to narrow the
gap. These included an increase in U.S. savings, more spending
overseas and currency adjustments to bring that about, he said.
Bernanke supported calls for the Chinese to move to a more flexible
exchange rate.
``I don't think that we can continue to finance the current account
deficit at 6 percent or 7 percent of GDP indefinitely, and it's
desirable for us to bring down that ratio over a period of time,'' he
told lawmakers on Feb. 16.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Carlos Torres in Washington ctorres2@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 14, 2006 08:55 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=10000103&sid=a6vl4z1AsVUE&refer=us
http://tinyurl.com/s3zdq
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:52:43 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded
Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded
By David Shukman
BBC science correspondent
US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a
new record level.
BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at
381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial
average.
The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on
record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the
globe.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has
been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world,
including America's Rocky Mountains.
The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data
confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average,
recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago.
Mankind is changing the climate
Professor Sir David King,
UK chief scientific adviser
"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the
opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told
the BBC.
The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global
concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may
be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.
The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David
King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent
action to limit carbon emissions.
"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been
for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is
changing the climate."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm
Published: 2006/03/14 00:12:43 GMT
http://tinyurl.com/gamy7
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:54:49 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: A swiftly crumbling planet
A swiftly crumbling planet
Doomsayer Mike Davis offers a new reason to panic: Earth is turning
into a giant slum.
By Matt Steinglass
Mar. 14, 2006 | In case global warming, avian influenza, AIDS,
terrorism, nuclear proliferation, Chinese nationalism, epidemic
obesity and the state of the Knicks don't have you worried enough,
Mike Davis has a new reason to panic: Planet Earth is turning into a
giant slum. For the first time in human history, the world's urban
population now equals its rural population, and the balance tilts
further toward the cities with each passing year. The overwhelming
majority of this growth is occurring in shantytowns and tenements
stretching from Karachi, Pakistan, to Lima, Peru, where people live
crowded together in densities that sometime dwarf those of such
notorious 19th century human anthills as New York's Mulberry Bend. As
of 2005, a billion people were living in slums, and the number is
rising by 25 million per year.
The proliferation of slums is an ironic rebuke to the modernist
vision of the city of tomorrow, which prevailed until a few decades
ago. "The cities of the future," writes Davis, "rather than being
made out of glass and steel as envisioned by earlier generations of
urbanists, are instead largely constructed out of crude brick, straw,
recycled plastic, cement blocks, and scrap wood." The high modernist
dream has been pronounced dead before, beginning in the 1970s, when
Jane Jacobs first attacked skyscrapers and freeways in favor of the
organic, variegated human-scale neighborhoods such mega-projects
often bulldozed. But the slums that hold 39 percent of China's urban
population, 55 percent of India's, and an incredible 99 percent of
Ethiopia's (according to U.N. figures) make a mockery of
Jacobs' "urban ballet." In Davis' words, "Instead of cities of light
soaring toward heaven, much of the twenty-first-century urban world
squats in squalor, surrounded by pollution, excrement, and decay."
It's not surprising to hear such apocalyptic rhetoric from Mike
Davis, who has spent his literary career taking on one disaster after
another. His classic "City of Quartz" critiqued the chaotic urban
history of Los Angeles. "Late Victorian Holocausts" recounted the
devastating famines afflicting British colonies in the late 1800s.
And "The Monster at Our Door," published just last fall, sounded the
klaxon over avian influenza's threat to mutate into a massive human
pandemic. It is hard to dismiss Davis as a serial Chicken Little; his
books are simply too well researched. For "Planet of Slums," he has
digested acres of reports by U.N. agencies, governments, academics
and non-governmental organizations, along with obscure architectural
papers bearing titles like "The Incidence and Causes of Slope Failure
in the Barrios of Caracas."
Yet Davis' relentless dourness does tend to make his conclusions less
trustworthy. He has a penchant for arguing against all sides of an
issue. In Chapter 3 of "Planet of Slums," "The Treason of the State,"
Davis excoriates neoliberal governments that fail to build housing
for the poor -- and criticizes those that do, like China and
Thailand, because their high-rises are too far from poor people's
jobs, or lack the community feeling of the old slums. In Chapter
4, "Illusions of Self-Help," the reader learns that granting
squatters legal title to their land is a false solution that only
enriches speculators -- and that not granting squatters land titles
leaves them at the mercy of gangs and police who demand payment for
squatting rights. Reading Davis can be a bit like sitting down at a
bar next to a guy who starts out lambasting the president and then
proceeds to ridicule the opposition, leaving one with the impression
that he doesn't actually vote.
Well, one might say, what do you expect? It's a book about slums.
What's to like? But, in fact, many urban thinkers have had positive
things to say about slums. For example, Davis in several places cites
papers published as part of a 2002 conference on African urban issues
titled Under Siege, held in Lagos, Nigeria. I was at that conference,
and the tone, while sometimes apocalyptic, was a lot more
enthusiastic than one would expect from reading Davis.
The conference's most illustrious presenter was the Dutch superstar
architect Rem Koolhaas, who had just finished a four-year study of
Lagos conducted with his students at the Harvard Graduate School of
Design. Koolhaas is an inveterate contrarian, the kind of guy who can
find humanism in a concrete access ramp, and his take on Lagos was
typical. He said his initial impression of the city, driving in along
the freeways that stretch over its lagoon and seeing only the
indistinct forms of shanties through masses of rising smoke, was as a
sort of modernist hell. Gradually, however, he realized that what he
was seeing was Ebute-Metta, Lagos' partially waterborne sawmill
district, where giant rafts of logs floated down from the country's
surviving rain forests are hacked up by hundreds of small lumber
companies. What at first appeared as pure negative chaos was in fact
a complex, unstable and highly creative informal economy.
Koolhaas and his students came to realize that all of Lagos was like
this. The book they published, "The Lagos Project," presents dozens
of examples of the city's mash-up economy: the world's largest
markets for used electronics and auto parts; unfinished public
housing taken over semi-legally, the units rebuilt in jury-rigged
expansions by the residents; a never-completed butterfly highway
access ramp converted into a cantilevered village by informal
colonists, complete with market stalls and a church. Koolhaas coined
the term "flexscape" to denote large indeterminate structures, like
highway overpasses or abandoned freighters, which can be creatively
reappropriated and made to serve changing local needs. He came to see
the city not as a dystopian nightmare or ruin, but as a giant hive of
recombinant, sometimes cannibalistic creative energy. Lagos is often
termed "unlivable" by Westerners and even by its own inhabitants; but
as Koolhaas pointed out, 12 million people live in this unlivable
city, and somehow, on their own terms, they make it work.
Davis does acknowledge the views of such slum enthusiasts. In the
1970s, in particular, social scientists in Latin America wrote
of "slums of hope," where families staked an informal claim on open
land and built a shanty in the expectation of gradually working their
way up the income ladder, into the middle class. But he invokes these
optimistic progressive visions of the slum in order to dismiss them.
Davis argues, rather trenchantly, that the rising inequality
associated with globalization and the neoliberal economic policies of
the Washington Consensus have sawed through that income ladder. The
very fact that slums are growing much faster than the urban
population overall is proof that the "slums of hope" are mostly
hoping in vain.
One of Davis' most original observations is that the explosive growth
of modern third-world cities stands the model of Europe's Industrial
Revolution on its head: It is not generally driven by economic
growth. In East and parts of South Asia, the new jobs are there, but
not in Latin America and certainly not in Africa, where countries
have been losing industrial jobs since the 1980s even as their cities
ballooned. Today's migrants are not lured to the city by the promise
of prosperity, but are driven from the countryside by ever direr
poverty, population growth, environmental damage, war and the
increasing global domination of high-tech
agribusiness. "'Overurbanization,' in other words," Davis writes, "is
driven by the reproduction of poverty, not by the supply of jobs." In
the cities, they survive not by finding formal employment, which
scarcely exists, but by scrabbling together an existence as petty
traders, artisans or day laborers -- entering the so-called informal
sector, which Davis argues generally subdivides the existing economic
pie into ever-smaller pieces. The starkest example is Kinshasa, a
city that continues to grow even as the Congo it supposedly governs
has fallen off the map of the world economy.
Davis goes on to sketch the proliferation of hysterical witchcraft
accusations against Kinshasa's unfortunate children. He then tops off
his "Oliver Twist" meets "Blade Runner" vision of the global urban
present with a chapter on the only U.S. government agency he thinks
really "gets" the transformations underway in the Third World today:
the Defense Department, whose planning for anti-insurgent guerrilla
warfare in urban environments has gained fresh impetus from the
conflict in Iraq. Davis sketches Baghdad as a kind of blueprint for
the future of the planetary city, the world of the "war on terror" as
a magnified New Los Angeles, with the police helicopters of the first
world's gated communities perpetually hovering over the permanent low-
grade conflict of the Third World's smoldering slums.
It would certainly make a great movie. And it's a brilliant paradigm
for thinking about global inequity: "Planet of Slums" is the first
book I've read to consider globalization through the frame of the
urban landscape. But again, Davis sometimes strays too far to the
noir side of his cinematic imagination. In my own experience of some
of the slums Davis describes, I haven't found them as bleak as he
does. He cites an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development study hypothesizing the West African coast from Lagos to
Accra, Ghana, as a single vast urban poverty zone by 2020; it's
possible, but today much of this coast still consists of tiny raffia-
hut villages under palm trees, or uninhabited scrub. And Davis
utterly fails to capture the organic vibrancy and thriving street
life that can make slums attractive: the elbow-to-elbow throngs of
Lagos' Idumota market, where Igbo teenagers hand-spool videotape for
local shot-on-video feature film studios, choking in the exhaust of
thousands of tiny electric generators; the alleyways and gray tile
roofs of Beijing's packed old hutongs, where barbers trim hair on the
sidewalk in front of mirrors hung from tree trunks; the sunny, grassy
shantytowns of Capetown, South Africa's Khayelitsha.
A romance of picturesque poverty? Sure. It's easy to be charmed by
Khayelitsha when you live in Tamboerskloof. But like Davis' Bangkok
residents who preferred their old slums to the new public housing
projects, at least some slum dwellers enjoy aspects of their
neighborhoods -- many of which they themselves have created. What
Davis' book misses is any acknowledgement of positive agency on the
part of the millions of people who move into slums each year. More
important, it lacks any acknowledgement that some of the negative
outcomes he describes from housing policy toward the poor are the
result of inevitable tradeoffs. Davis scathingly depicts the miseries
of slum life in one chapter and the miseries inflicted by slum
clearance in the next, without ever suggesting what other choices
might be possible. "Planet of Slums" is a brilliant book, but it
might have benefited from a calmer analytic tone, more like the one
taken by Jared Diamond in last year's "Collapse" -- an acceptance
that even catastrophic social developments result from bargaining and
competition between different groups with different outlooks and
interests, and that perfectly bad solutions are as rare as perfect
ones. It's gratifying to see that Davis is now at work on a book
about what agents of change might lead to positive improvements in
the situation of the global poor. Davis is extraordinary at staring
into the abyss; it'd be nice if he started telling us where the
handholds are.
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/03/14/davis/print.html
http://tinyurl.com/jwvx6
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:56:20 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form
Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form
Source: Copyright 2006, Independent
Date: March 14, 2006
Byline: Steve Connor
Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second
consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped
the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than
predicted.
Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice
show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even
to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second
consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough
to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few
summers.
Scientists are now convinced that Arctic sea ice is showing signs of
both a winter and a summer decline that could indicate a major
acceleration in its long-term rate of disappearance. The greatest
fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in,
where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to
warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean
rather than being reflected by white ice.
Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the US National Snow and Ice
Data Centre in Colorado, said: "In September 2005, the Arctic sea ice
cover was at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in
1979, and probably the lowest in the past 100 years. While we can't
be certain, it looks like 2006 will be more of the same," Dr Serreze
said.
"Unless conditions turn colder, we may be headed for another year of
big sea ice losses, rivalling or perhaps even exceeding what we saw
in September 2005. We are of course monitoring the situation
closely ... Coupled with recent findings from Nasa that the Greenland
ice sheet may be near a tipping point, it's pretty clear that the
Arctic is starting to respond to global warming," he added.
Although sea levels are not affected by melting sea ice - which
floats on the ocean - the Arctic ice cover is thought to be a key
moderator of the northern hemisphere's climate. It helps to stabilise
the massive land glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland which have the
capacity to raise sea levels dramatically.
Dr Serreze said that some parts of the northern hemisphere
experienced very low temperatures this winter, but the Arctic was
much warmer than normal. "Even in January, when there were actually
record low temperatures in Alaska and parts of Russia, it was still
very warm over the Arctic Ocean," he said.
"The sea ice cover waxes and wanes with the seasons. It partly melts
in spring and summer, then grows back in autumn and winter. It has
not recovered well this past winter - ice extent for every month
since September 2005 has been far below average. And it's been so
warm in the Arctic that the ice that has grown this winter is
probably rather thin," he explained.
Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first
Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One
of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents
Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of
Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice
in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign
that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much
faster than predicted."
Originally posted at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article351135.ece
http://tinyurl.com/e78m5
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:58:09 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: A climate change of heart
A climate change of heart
Even Bush's business allies have seen the light on global warming.
But he's dug in.
By Eugene Linden
EUGENE LINDEN is the author of "The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather
and the Destruction of Civilizations."
March 14, 2006
A BELEAGUERED president stubbornly insists on staying the course even
as his staunchest allies abandon him. I'm not talking about Iraq, but
global warming.
Here's a case where virtually everybody is acknowledging a weapon of
mass destruction — the threat of climate chaos — but still President
Bush refuses to take action. When the evangelical community, Bush's
stalwart base, called for climate action last month, the news grabbed
headlines. But the more important Bush defectors on this issue are
some of the world's largest corporations, including British
Petroleum, General Electric, DuPont and Cinergy. So, the question
arises: Why does Bush persist in his increasingly lonely stance?
The answer may lie in the difference between realpolitik and
ideology. Many corporations initially opposed climate action as a
practical matter, because of its perceived costs. The Bush
administration's opposition seems to derive from its ideological
hostility to international treaties and the United Nations on the one
hand and environmentalists on the other.
One story from 2002 illustrates the different approaches. A former
staffer from an anti-climate-action lobbying group, the Global
Climate Coalition, had dinner with oil and chemical company bigwigs
at the Palm Too restaurant in New York not long after the U.S.
negotiating team walked out of the talks on the Kyoto treaty to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"You'd think that this group would have been jumping for joy," he
told me, "but instead, they were sputtering mad because they felt
that the move could not have been done in a more politically
incompetent way." The last thing these savvy businessmen wanted was a
grand gesture that would galvanize the the world against the U.S.
Instead, business groups had hoped for the U.S. to stay inside the
negotiations, where they could quietly kill action by a thousand
cuts.
That approach had already proved successful. For 17 years, industry-
sponsored lobbying groups forestalled action on climate change even
as scientific alarm mounted. One prong of the attack was to
infiltrate treaty negotiations. The lobbyists not only influenced
policy, in some cases they wrote it. In one incident in the 1990s,
Don Pearlman, an attorney who represented the Climate Council
(another vociferous anti-climate-action group), was escorted from the
floor of a Kyoto negotiating session after he was spotted writing
positions for the Saudi Arabian delegation.
When they were not writing policy for emerging nations, industry
groups were insisting that there was no scientific consensus that
climate change was an urgent threat. It was a brilliant tactic. The
naysayers didn't have to disprove global warming; they just had to
create the impression that it was still subject to debate. This left
the public feeling that there was no need to get excited until the
scientists sorted things out.
Two things happened to change corporate attitudes. The destructive
power of extreme weather events has become impossible to ignore (for
instance, Hurricane Katrina and the 2003 heat wave in Europe that
killed nearly 35,000 people). Even to the casual observer, the
climate system seems to be popping rivets. And multinational
corporations couldn't afford to be too out of step with their
customers and stakeholders, particularly in the many countries where
global warming is viewed as a clear and present danger.
Businesses began defecting from the Global Climate Coalition, which
closed up shop in 2002 (noting that the Bush administration had
adopted its agenda). And some companies changed positions to attempt
green branding or because of the threat of sanctions.
In other cases, however, change came about simply because there was a
new boss. That seems to have been the case with General Electric, the
ninth-largest corporation in the world. Chief Executive Jack Welch
was vocal in his opposition to taking action on climate change, and
according to those close to the situation, in 1997 he forced the head
of Employers Re, a GE insurance subsidiary, to abandon a plan to join
a public/private environmental and climate initiative put together by
the U.N. Environment Program. Now, however, under Jeffrey Immelt, GE
trumpets the very type of initiatives that Welch squashed.
The changed corporate landscape gives hope until we remember that the
climate seems to be changing the landscape that we live on even more
rapidly. With carbon dioxide levels already higher than they've been
since homo sapiens emerged as a species, we are conducting a science
lab experiment on a planetary scale.
India, China and other big greenhouse gas emitters will not do their
part unless the United States, the biggest emitter, joins the effort.
And that won't happen without presidential leadership. So, President
Bush, if the scientific, evangelical and business communities can't
sway you, what will it take to persuade you to help halt our lunatic
meddling with Earth's atmosphere?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-
linden14mar14,0,4671876,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
http://tinyurl.com/krqkr
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:00:57 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Mikrosysteme könnten viele Menschenleben retten
Mikrosysteme könnten viele Menschenleben retten
Ein erheblicher Teil der Herz-Kreislauf-Patienten, die an ihrer
Erkrankung sterben, könnte mit Hilfe des „TeleMonitoring" gerettet
werden. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt ein vom VDE jetzt veröffentlichtes
Positionspapier.
Die Zahl chronisch herzkranker Patienten wächst in den
Industrienationen besorgniserregend. Allein in Deutschland treten
jährlich 200.000 bis 300.000 Neuerkrankungen auf. National wie
international gelten Erkrankungen des Herz-Kreislauf-Systems als
häufigste Todesursache. Durch den Einsatz neuartiger Mikrosysteme in
Verbindung mit den Möglichkeiten des TeleMonitoring ließen sich einer
VDE-Expertise zufolge aber zweistellige Milliardenbeträge einsparen
und zahlreiche Menschenleben retten.
Beim TeleMonitoring senden medizinische Sensoren am Körper des
Patienten kontinuierlich Daten wie Blutdruck, Puls oder EKG an ein
telemedizisches Zentrum, einen dafür ausgerüsteten Arzt oder an ein
Krankenhaus. Dort werden die eingehenden Daten gespeichert und
bewertet. Auf der Basis dieser „rund-um-die-Uhr"-Kontrolle sollen
Prävention und Behandlung von Erkrankten wesentlich verbessert,
Folgekrankheiten vermieden sowie Leben erhalten und verlängert
werden. In diesem Zusammenhang setzt sich der VDE auch für einen
Paradigmenwechsel im Gesundheitswesen ein, der die präventive Medizin
vor der kurativen Medizin in den Vordergrund rückt.
Derzeit werden akute kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse häufig zu spät
bemerkt und das ohnehin kurze Zeitfenster der Behandlung schließt
sich, bevor ein medizinischer Eingriff erfolgen kann. So sterben in
Deutschland rund 30 Prozent der Patienten, die einen Herzinfarkt
erleiden, noch vor dem Eintreffen in der Klinik, zumal Herzinfarkte
häufig am Morgen nach dem Aufstehen auftreten. TeleMonitoring kann
helfen, die Zeitspanne bis zur Ersthilfe entscheidend zu verkürzen.
Zu den Firmen, die mit leistungsstarken Produkten zum TeleMonitoring
demnächst auf dem Markt vertreten sein werden, gehört zum Beispiel
die Biotronik GmbH. In einem Verbundprojekt entwickelt das
Unternehmen zurzeit einen Herzschrittmacher, der erstmals einen
integrierten hämodynamischen Sensor enthält. In Verbindung mit einer
leistungsstarken Ferndatentelemetrie soll die Innovation Patienten,
die an einer Herzinsuffizienz leiden, zu Gute kommen. In ähnlicher
Weise soll das von der Dr. Osypka GmbH in der Entwicklung
befindliche „Intravasale Monitoring System für Hypertoniker (HYPER-
IMS)" zur kontinuierlichen Überwachung der Pulsrate und des
Blutdrucks dienen. Einen Schritt weiter geht die Metrax GmbH. In
einem als MµGuard bezeichneten Projekt ist neben der Überwachung
kardiologisch relevanter Signale gleichzeitig auch der Vorhalt eines
externen Defibrillators zur Vermeidung des plötzlichen Herztodes
vorgesehen.
Der VDE geht davon aus, dass TeleMonitoring-Systeme im
Gesundheitswesen künftig eine stärkere Rolle spielen werden. Die
Zunahme chronischer Krankheiten, der Kostendruck die Alterung der
Gesellschaft, der technologische Fortschritt, aber auch das Drängen
der Bevölkerung auf bestmögliche Versorgung werden nach Einschätzung
des Verbandes für den nötigen Rückenwind sorgen.
Weitere Informationen: www.vde.com
http://www.innovationsreport.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/b
ericht-56517.html
http://tinyurl.com/jolcc
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:02:11 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Brennbares Eis aus dem Meeresboden statt Erdöl, Erdgas und Kohle
Brennbares Eis aus dem Meeresboden statt Erdöl, Erdgas und Kohle
Forscher entdecken Indikator für Methaneis-Vorkommen
Wissenschaftlern des Leibniz-Instituts für Meereswissenschaften (IFM-
GEOMAR)ist es gelungen, den Entstehungsprozess von Methanhydraten zu
analysieren und einen Indikator für förderungswürdige Mengen der
brennbaren Substanz zu finden. Der wirtschaftliche Abbau des "weißen
Goldes" ist damit ein Stück näher gekommen. Methanhydrate, auch als
Methaneis bekannt, lagern tief unter dem Meeresboden und bestehen aus
Methan, das in gefrorenes Wasser eingelagert ist. Unter
Wissenschaftlern wird die Kombination aus Wasser und Erdgas bereits
seit längerem als Energiequelle der Zukunft gehandelt. Forscher
schätzen, dass die Vorräte an Methanhydraten fast doppelt so viel
Energie liefern können wie alle Erdöl-, Erdgas- und Kohlelagerstätten
der Erde zusammen.
Bei Untersuchungen im Westatlantik haben die Kieler Meeresforscher
entdeckt, dass man förderungswürdige Mengen der Methanhydrate anhand
von Gasblasen orten kann. "Die Vorkommen von Methanhydraten verteilen
sich auf weite Flächen. Der Abbau lohnt sich nur an den Stellen, an
denen die Substanz in großen Mengen vorkommt, sonst verbraucht man
mehr Energie als man letztendlich gewinnt", erklärt Klaus Wallmann,
Professor am IFM-GEOMAR und Koordinator des Kieler
Forschernetzwerks "Ozean der Zukunft", im Gespräch mit pressetext.
Größere Mengen Methaneis entstehen dadurch, dass freiwerdende Gase
aus dem Abbau organischer Substanzen aus einer Tiefe von ein bis drei
Kilometern unter dem Meeresboden aufsteigen und in einer Tiefe von
100 bis 500 Metern zu Gashydraten gefrieren. Die Schichten in dieser
Tiefe sind kälter als die Sedimente weiter unten.
Das brennende Potenzial der Methanhydrate sieht man der Substanz auf
den ersten Blick nicht an. Einmal aus der Tiefe des Meeres
hervorgeholt, sehen die Methanhydrate nicht viel anders aus als ein
Schneebrocken. "Zündet man das Methaneis an, brennt das Erdgas und
das Wasser schmilzt. In den Ofen sollte man das Methanhydrat deshalb
lieber nicht werfen", so Wallmann schmunzelnd. "Ziel ist es, nur das
Erdgas zu verwerten." Bevor das aus den Methanhydraten gewonnene Gas
wirtschaftlich genutzt werden kann, müssen allerdings noch viele
Fragen geklärt werden. "Wir wissen noch wenig darüber, wie viele
Methanhydrat-Vorkommen es an welchen Stellen gibt und wie viel Methan
vom System abgegeben wird", berichtet der Kieler Forscher. "Das
System der Methanhydrate ist offen und sehr dynamisch. Das Methaneis
zersetzt und bildet sich ständig neu."
Unklar ist auch noch, wie man den Abbau des "weißen Goldes"
nachhaltig gestalten kann, ohne den Treibhauseffekt durch Freisetzen
des klimaschädlichen Methans noch weiter zu verschärfen. Des weiteren
liegen noch keine Untersuchungen darüber vor, wie sich der Abbau von
Methaneis auf die Stabilität und die Lebenswelt des Meeresbodens
auswirkt. Auch die rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen einer zukünftigen
Nutzung sind noch nicht geklärt. Zur Zeit untersuchen die
Wissenschaftler des Forschernetzwerks "Ozean der Zukunft", ob es
sinnvoll wäre, abgebautes Methaneis im Meeresboden durch Kohlendioxid
zu ersetzen und ob sich ein CO2-neutraler Abbau der Substanz
rentieren würde. Auch an der Technik für die Bergung von
Methanhydraten wird weltweit geforscht. "In Japan wird eine
Fördertechnik von Methaneis, bei der die Wasser-Erdgas-Mischung
thermisch zersetzt wird, bereits getestet", berichtet Wallmann.
Weitere Informationen: www.ifm-geomar.de
www.ozean-der-zukunft.de
http://www.innovationsreport.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/b
ericht-56559.html
http://tinyurl.com/js9o8
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:17:56 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: (OIL) Markets oblivious to geopolitical risks
Markets oblivious to geopolitical risks
By Jephraim P Gundzik
Washington's military action and democratization efforts in the
Middle East are creating unprecedented instability in the most
important oil-producing region in the world - instability that will
likely increase during 2006.
Growing instability in the Middle East has made global geopolitical
risk extreme. Investors worldwide have yet to link extreme global
geopolitical risk with high global economic growth risk, as evidenced
by the very modest impact these rapidly rising risks have had on the
world's financial markets. Risk perception may finally meet actual
risk this year, sending interest rates soaring and stock markets
plummeting around the world.
What's geopolitical risk?
Geopolitical risk can be defined as the risk of one country's foreign
policy unduly influencing or upsetting domestic political and social
stability in another country or region. In isolation, geopolitical
risk rarely rates consideration by investors. One reason for this is
that prior to the terrorist attacks on the United States in September
2001, and the resultant launch of Washington's "war on terror",
global geopolitical risk was almost non-existent.
The Cold War greatly limited adventurous foreign policy by any one
country. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War
left the US as the world's sole superpower - power used to advance
Washington's global economic agenda rather than to stake political
claims in another country or region. With geopolitical instability
mostly limited to individual countries during the six decades between
the end of World War II and the beginning of the "war on terror",
investors rightly focused on domestic issues to evaluate investment
risk in individual countries or regions.
The world's relatively benign geopolitical environment changed
dramatically once the US invaded Afghanistan, heralding the beginning
of the "war on terror". From trying to advance America's economic
agenda, the Bush administration's foreign policy was immediately
dominated by efforts to depose unfriendly regimes, first in
Afghanistan and later in Iraq.
This dramatic shift in the focus of US foreign policy, and
accompanying upward leap in geopolitical risk, has barely registered
with equity and bond investors worldwide. Judging from world equity
and bond-market performance over the past two years, most portfolio
investors continue to ignore geopolitical risk when making investment
decisions.
Link between geopolitical risk and economic growth risk
High geopolitical risk in an individual country indicates that
external forces strongly influence domestic political and social
stability. Changes in political and social stability, in turn,
strongly influence domestic economic stability. For example, the US
invasion and occupation of Iraq has produced unprecedented political
and social instability, leading to economic freefall. Economic growth
risk in Iraq is extreme because there's little chance the economy
will expand in the face of this instability.
More broadly, instability in Iraq is creating enormous regional
political and social instability. Increasingly, frequent terrorist
strikes across the Middle East and intensification of the Arab-
Israeli conflict demonstrate how extreme geopolitical risk can affect
an entire region at once. Extreme geopolitical risk emanating from
events in the Middle East have significant consequences for the
global economy as well.
The most prominent impact of extreme geopolitical risk in the Middle
East on the global economy thus far has been ever higher
international oil prices. Since the end of 2001, benchmark crude-oil
prices have jumped by about 140%. Though some of this increase can be
attributed to growing oil demand in China and India, the primary
factor driving international oil prices higher has been very weak
investment in new oil production caused by instability in the Middle
East.
Without new oil sources, natural production declines in the world's
aging oilfields have reduced global oil supply. At the same time,
supply shocks in countries such as Nigeria have become more frequent.
These shocks can also be partly attributed to instability in the
Middle East arising from the "war on terror". By strongly influencing
international oil prices, extreme geopolitical risk in the Middle
East is having a global impact, pushing global economic growth risk
higher, making extreme geopolitical risk a global phenomenon.
In addition to undermining investment in global oil production,
extreme global geopolitical risk also began to undermine other forms
of fixed investment worldwide last year. Weakening corporate
investment outlays in the US were mirrored across developed and
developing countries, leading to slower global economic growth.
Global inflation also continued to creep higher in 2005. Inflation
expectations shifted to a much higher plane, judging from hefty gains
in precious-metals prices over the past six months.
Though extreme global geopolitical risk and high global economic
growth risk have clearly undermined fixed investment around the
world, equity and bond investors continue to pump money into
increasingly risky investments. Stock markets in developed countries
are trending higher. Stock markets in many developing countries are
flirting with record high levels. Bond yields worldwide do not
reflect rising inflation or inflation expectations. Finally, emerging-
market bond spreads are near all-time lows.
Portfolio investors appear oblivious to extreme global geopolitical
and high global economic growth risks that the world's fixed
investors have clearly become aware of. Much of this disparity can be
attributed to the vast difference between the investment horizon of
portfolio investors, which is short-term by nature, and that of fixed
investors, which is long-term by definition. Risk perceptions evolve
over time for fixed investors, while risk perceptions among portfolio
investors usually change suddenly and dramatically.
When perceptions meet reality
Extreme global geopolitical risk and accompanying high global
economic growth risk originating in the Middle East are extremely
unlikely to decline this year. Rather, regional instability will
intensify as Iraq's civil war gains traction, Iran responds to
sanctions, Hamas in Palestine discards negotiations with Israel and
Washington works to destabilize all three in an attempt to reshuffle
the region's political deck in its favor.
How long can a country be on the verge of civil war? The answer is
not very long if sectarian violence has killed upwards of 1,000
people in one week. Rapidly spreading sectarian violence in Iraq
indicates the country is no longer on the verge of civil war - it has
become engulfed by civil war. After Iraq completely fractures along
sectarian lines, an event very likely to occur this year, historians
will identify the bombing of the Askari Shrine in Samarra as the
trigger for civil war.
Iraq's civil war will hasten the departure of al-Qaeda-allied foreign
fighters from the country. These fighters will return to their home
countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, sowing terrorism.
Recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan probably offer
a glimpse of what is to come in the months ahead. Terrorist strikes
in the Middle East will produce periodic oil supply shocks.
Another, potentially larger oil supply shock looms in Iran. Tehran's
strengthening resistance to the West's efforts to halt uranium
enrichment in Iran will lead to one of two outcomes this year:
economic and political sanctions or a US military strike. Either
outcome will prompt a significant reduction of Iran's oil exports.
As shocks disrupt Middle East oil exports, Hamas will stiffen
Palestinian resistance against Israel. With Israel's upcoming
elections likely to usher in another conservative government, it is a
safe bet that the Arab-Israeli conflict will deepen in the months
ahead. Recent revelations that al-Qaeda has set up shop in the
Palestinian territories secures this bet.
With absolutely nothing in the region going Washington's way, it is
no great leap to imagine that the administration of President George
W Bush will work to undermine adversarial governments in Iraq, Iran
and the Palestinian territories - a process that has already begun.
Washington is trying to lead an international political and economic
blockade against Hamas and has announced grand plans to foment
internal revolution in Iran. Judging from these actions, it seems
more than possible that there has been some US involvement in Iraq's
civil war designed to discredit the country's Iran-backed Shi'ites.
Increasing instability in the Middle East spells much higher
international oil prices in the months ahead. Crude-oil prices could
easily top US$100 per barrel by July. Such an increase in oil prices
will have grave consequences for the global economy, through higher
inflation and interest rates. However, plunging equity markets
worldwide could do much more damage to the global economy than rising
inflation.
>From precarious heights occur the greatest falls - an aphorism that
can easily be applied to the world's equity markets, where valuations
offer zero premium for extreme global geopolitical and high global
economic growth risks. A sudden change in risk perception among
portfolio investors, bringing perceived risks into closer alignment
with actual risks, may well push the world's financial markets
sharply lower in the months ahead. This sudden loss of investor
capital could easily trigger a global economic recession.
Jephraim P Gundzik is president of Condor Advisers, Inc. Condor
Advisers provides investment risk analysis to individuals and
institutions globally.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HC15Dj01.html
http://tinyurl.com/hb3xp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:27:40 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The Day The Oil Stops
The Day The Oil Stops
Jerry Flint 03.14.06, 6:00 AM ET
"Get America off its addiction to oil." We hear this often. Even
President George W. Bush has entered the game, talking about fuel
from wood chips. Swell. The problem is that we don't see much
happening, and we don't seem to be worried.
Look at our automobiles: V-8 engines are grabbing a bigger chunk of
the market, and just about every new vehicle has more horsepower than
the one it replaced. Zero-to-60 acceleration is still more important
than miles per gallon. Trucks still account for more than half of the
auto market--53% in the first two months this year. And that's down
from 54.2% a year ago, though it's a small decline considering all
the talk.
I use the words "blue sky" for solutions that aren't going to happen
in the near future, such as fuel from wood chips, hydrogen engines
and fuel cells. The majority of American's don't seem to want a
significant hike in the government's mileage standard, called CAFE
(corporate average fuel economy), which now requires a manufacturers'
fleet of sold passenger cars to average 27.5 miles per gallon. The
standard is lower for light trucks--currently 21.6 miles per gallon--
but is very slowly climbing.
We also hear talk of higher fuel taxes, say a hike every year until
we get to $5 or $6 per gallon. I don't like that idea. We use our
cars to go to work, and people shouldn't be taxed for going to work.
Even so, if nothing else happens, I would predict increases in the
gasoline tax. Every additional penny of tax per gallon would bring in
$1 billion in revenue. Our Congress can't resist that forever.
Regardless of what happens with gasoline taxes, I think there are
several things we could do right now to reduce our dependency on
foreign oil.
My first suggestion is to pass a law requiring an alcohol fuel pump
at all gas stations tied to the big oil companies. I am talking about
the likes of ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. The oil
companies themselves would pay for the pumps and storage tanks. With
their profits from today's prices, they can afford this sacrifice.
And no tricks, such as sneaking the cost of these pumps onto the
local stations. My proposed law wouldn't affect the small,
independent, oil companies.
Naturally, there will be a timetable. Something like six years seems
reasonable, with the companies required to complete a certain
percentage each year. All that construction would be good for the
economy too.
What kind of alcohol fuel? We have one mix of 15% ethanol alcohol and
85% gasoline, as well as E 85, which is 85% alcohol and 15% gasoline.
I'm not sure which we want. Let the government and the auto and
energy industries figure out which would be better. Once those
alcohol pumps are widely available, the government could require that
all new cars and light trucks have engines that can accept this fuel.
One advantage of this plan is that it turns all the talk about the
energy problem into some action. And it would show petroleum
producers such as Venezuela and Iran that we are serious about
reducing the use of imported oil. No, this plan won't come close to
eliminating the potential danger of oil shutdowns around the world.
But it would be a start. Of course, once the oil companies start
putting in pumps, demand will increase, and these companies will have
a vested interest in producing alcohol too. We won't have to depend
on Archer Daniels Midland to save the world.
My next suggestion is to create a bio-diesel reserve. Bio-diesel is a
fuel that works like regular diesel fuel but doesn't come from
petroleum. Instead, it comes from organic material ranging from
soybeans and corn stalks to spent French fry cooking oil. If the
government created a reserve--buying bio-diesel and storing it--this
would encourage the creation of an industry. Initial reserves would
be small, but it would encourage the development of facilities and
techniques for creating the fuel in the most efficient ways. The bio-
diesel stored in reserve could be available in an energy crisis. And
again we would be showing the foreign producers that we are serious
about creating options.
My third suggestion is to resume development of nuclear power. France
and Japan, among others, rely heavily on nuclear power to produce
electricity. We use coal, oil and gas. The President has suggested
that we start building nuclear power plants again in order to reduce
our reliance on fossil fuels. The problem is that private companies
aren't likely to spend billions on such projects because of the risk
that public opposition could prevent them from completing these
plants.
So let the federal government build nuclear power plants and then
sell the electricity. Why not? Didn't the federal government build
dams and create electricity in the past? Does anyone remember Boulder
Dam (OK, Hoover Dam) or the TVA? I assume that if the government
built the plants, it would not shave pennies for safety. Neither
would Consolidated Edison, but let's not quibble.
I am sure there are other things we could do to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil and increase our bargaining power with the producers.
My three ideas seem relatively important and achievable.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/13/gasoline-alternative-energy-
cz_jf_0314flint_print.html
http://tinyurl.com/syjhn
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:37:54 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: US urged to work with China on energy - Financial Times
US urged to work with China on energy - Financial Times New York,
March 14, IRNA
US-Energy-Financial Times
The US must expand international coordination of energy issues,
especially with China and India, to address concerns about growing
global competition for energy resources, the chairman of the Senate
foreign relations committee Dick Lugar said.
According to Financial Times, in a speech in Washington, the
influential Republican senator, Lugar, warned: "No one who is
honestly assessing the decline of American leverage around the world
due to energy dependence can fail to see that energy is the albatross
of US national security."
His statement highlighted the extent to which energy security has
moved rapidly up the US political agenda, driven by an unusual
coalition of interests. These include national security specialists
concerned about US reliance on foreign oil in troubled parts of the
world, environmentalists and unions keen to create jobs in the US by
developing alternative energy sources.
"Political interest in the issue was underlined by President George
W. Bush's unexpected comments in his State of the Union speech in
January, when the former oil executive warned that the US was
addicted to oil."
Lugar on Monday called that phrase a "seminal moment in American
history, when a US president said something contrary to
expectations," and compared it with "President Nixon using his anti-
communist credentials to open up China".
Lugar noted that 77 percent of the world's oil supply was controlled
by foreign governments, and that the US paid 17 percent more for its
energy in 2005 than the year before. Energy costs now account for a
third of the US trade deficit. He predicted that the US would spend
$320bn on oil imports this year.
"To reduce US vulnerability he said he would introduce an Energy
Diplomacy and Security Act this week to expand international co-
operation to "enhance preparedness for major disruptions in oil
supplies".
He said a priority was formal co-ordination with China and India as
they developed strategic petroleum reserves. He also called for new
regional partnerships in the west.
More controversially, he suggested that there be a $35 a barrel price
floor for oil, to provide security for companies seeking to invest in
alternative fuels. He admitted that he was still speaking to
economists about how this could be achieved.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-18/0603143765175342.htm
http://tinyurl.com/gt2va
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:42:23 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Price rigging charges fly in Big Oil Senate hearing
Price rigging charges fly in Big Oil Senate hearing
Oil executives called back before lawmakers to explain record
profits, and how prices for the consumer will be brought down.
March 14, 2006: 12:26 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - A Senate committee heard testimony Tuesday
from public policy experts who accused energy companies of rigging
price and supply in order to make a higher profit and supported
proposed legislation to restrict the industry.
David Boies, an environmental lawyer from New York, told the
committee that one reason natural gas is so expensive is because
energy companies have killed plans to import natural gas from Canada
and instead burry excess supply under the ground in order to make
more profits.
Other experts testified that the small number of energy companies
made it easier for them to manipulate price and supply with one
another.
"I think we have a real problem," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-
California) in opening remarks.
Feinstein said that a decade ago, five companies controlled 20
percent of the gas stations. Now, five companies control 61 percent.
Oil companies have to believe they are not just in the business of
supplying oil," said Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). "Businesses,
families, hospitals can't operate without it."
The hearing, held by the Senate Judiciary Committee, was called as
its chairman, Republican Sen. Alan Spector, is expected to introduce
a bill that would limit oil and gas company mergers if the merger
would impact supplies or prices.
Under the bill, the government could go after companies that
purposely withhold energy supplies from the market to make a bigger
profit.
The legislation would also permit the government to take legal action
against the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or
OPEC, for restricting oil supplies and fixing prices.
Executives from oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp. (Research), Chevron
Corp. (Research), ConocoPhillips (Research), the U.S. units of BP Plc
(Research) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc and major oil refiner Valero
Energy Corp. are set to testify later Tuesday.
The hearing comes as gasoline prices are on the rise again as motor
fuel demand picks up with the busy U.S. spring and summer driving
seasons in sight.
The national retail price for regular unleaded gasoline has jumped
11.2 cents over the past two weeks to $2.37 a gallon, the highest
level since early November, Reuters said Energy Department reported
Monday.
Exxon alone earned more than $36 billion last year, the biggest
profit ever for a U.S. company.
Executives, in advance written testimony provided by Reuters, said
that mergers have actually benefited consumers by making it easier
for the bigger companies to find oil and natural gas supplies and
ship them to needed markets around the globe.
"With these mergers, (consumers) have been able to rely on
dependable, and increasing, supplies of energy," Chevron Chairman
David O'Reilly said in a statement.
The oil company executives also told lawmakers that if they want
lower energy prices, they need to open restricted U.S. federal lands
and offshore waters to more oil and natural gas drilling.
Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister said the restricted federal
areas hold more than 100 billion barrels of oil and 635 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas.
"If Congress wants to address supply and help consumers, provide a
way to tap these resources," he said in written testimony.
Tuesday's hearing is the second time in less than four months that
Congress has called Big Oil executives on the carpet to explain high
prices. Executives testified last fall on record gasoline prices and
tight supplies after Hurricane Katrina affected markets.
-- from staff and wire reports
Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/14/markets/oil_hearing/index.htm?
section=money_latest
http://tinyurl.com/rbmyr
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:49:58 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: University of South Carolina Announces the Greater Columbia Fuel Cell
Challenge
University of South Carolina Announces the Greater Columbia Fuel Cell
Challenge
Tuesday March 14, 10:00 am ET
Initiative Propels City's Leadership in Future Fuels from Vision to
Reality
COLUMBIA, S.C., March 14 /PRNewswire/ -- The University of South
Carolina (USC) challenged fuel cell industry leaders around the
country today to join a fuel cell initiative that would make Columbia
a world leader in fuel cells and other alternative energy
applications.
The challenge, officially called the Greater Columbia Fuel Cell
Challenge, was made at the National Hydrogen Association's Annual
Conference in Long Beach, Calif., and organized by USC, the City of
Columbia, the SCRA and EngenuitySC to collaborate with private sector
leaders from all areas of the fuel cell market for the unprecedented
deployment of fuel cell and alternative energy technologies into
multiple city, university and public applications in Columbia.
With one of the nation's top fuel cell research programs located at
USC and several other alternative fuel cell projects around the
state, the region is uniquely positioned to play a leadership role in
the development of the next energy economy.
USC provides the central role in Columbia's industry leadership --
including the country's only National Science Foundation Center for
Fuel Cells and the unique opportunity for 235,000 square feet of
facilities within Innovista, USC's research and innovation district,
dedicated to the cultivation of the fuel cell and Future Fuel
industry.
With a 2005-2008 research, construction and faculty budget of over
100 million dollars aimed at commercially viable fuel cells and ten
percent of new faculty hires in the field fuel cell research, the
University is committed to continuing its leadership role in Future
Fuel development. The University also continues to build on
established international partnerships with Germany's Institut Solare
Energiesysteme, the Korean Institute for Energy Research while
simultaneously working to secure additional global relationships.
USC Vice President for Research and Health Sciences, Dr. Harris
Pastides, noted that the Challenge aligns the University's leading
research focus on fuel cells and Future Fuels with the City of
Columbia's commitment to becoming a pre-eminent location for the
hydrogen and fuel cell economy.
According to Bob Coble, the Mayor of the City of Columbia and co-
chair of EngenuitySC, when combining the research of USC, the
training of technology school students for fuel cell service and the
support of the public and private sector, the City of Columbia is
fully equipped to be a world-class, self-sufficient, full process
home for fuel cell technology.
South Carolina Research Authority Board Member, Larry Wilson
said, "by partnering with industry from the full supply chain of the
hydrogen and fuel cell economy, Columbia will become the model city
for large scale use and implementation of fuel cell and alternative
energy applications."
Through the Challenge's solicitation of ideas from companies and
service providers, a groundbreaking plan will be implemented to
incorporate innovative fuel cell applications in a multi-year, multi-
million dollar project -- cultivating Columbia, SC's potential as the
leader in fuel cell innovation.
To learn how your company might participate in the Greater Columbia
Fuel Cell Challenge, go to www.fuelcellchallenge.com. For more
information regarding the Greater Columbia Fuel Challenge while
attending the National Hydrogen Association's Conference, please
visit booth # 519 or contact EngenuitySC Executive Director, Neil
McLean, at 803-546-9223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Greater Columbia Fuel Cell Challenge
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060314/cltu502.html?.v=32&printer=1
http://tinyurl.com/lrcsw
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:00:12 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The MBA's Climate Primer
The MBA's Climate Primer
One of the cooler 'freebies' that Stanford Business School passed out
at the Net Impact conference last November was a "Primer" on climate
change. The problem was the print was so tiny you could hardly read
it. I has happy to discover the other day that there's a downloadable
PDF version which not only saves paper, but can be enlarged. Have a
look at it here!
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/PMP/pdfs/ClimateChange_2005PMI.pdf
(6pages)
http://tinyurl.com/jbpr6
The key takeaway: "
Climate change may prove to be the most important business issue of
the 21st century.
Managers who wish to be responsible to shareholders and the broader
community must be prepared to face the challenges and opportunities
presented by our shifting climate. Trillions of dollars, millions of
lives, thousands of species – infinite solutions...
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/the-mbas-climate-primer-001779.php
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:14:11 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Kraft-Wärme-(Kälte-)Kopplung der Zukunft
Kraft-Wärme-(Kälte-)Kopplung der Zukunft
Autor: MTU CFC Solutions GmbH
Agency:Press`n`Relations II GmbH
Zur Sonderausstellung "Hydrogen + Fuel Cells", die im Rahmen der
Hannover Messe 2006 in Halle 13 stattfindet, präsentiert die MTU CFC
Solutions GmbH ihr "HotModule". Diese Schmelzkarbonat-Brennstoffzelle
für den stationären Einsatz stellt etwa 245 kW elektrische und 170 kW
thermische Leistung bereit. Die Wärmeauskopplung erfolgt mit maximal
400 °C, was den effektiven Betrieb von Absorptionskältemaschinen
ermöglicht. Die Brennstoffzellen eignen sich daher für Kraft-Wärme-
(Kälte-) Kopplungsanlagen in der Industrie, dem Krankenhaus oder auch
in der kommunalen Wirtschaft, zum Beispiel zur Nahwärmeversorgung.
Seine Zuverlässigkeit hat das HotModule in diversen Projekten mit
Laufzeiten von bis zu drei Jahren mit einem Stack und Verfügbarkeiten
von etwa 98 Prozent mehrfach unter Beweis gestellt.
Zu den Besonderheiten des HotModules gehört seine Flexibilität
bezüglich des verwendbaren Brennstoffs: Neben Erdgas können auch Bio-
und Klärgas oder Flüssigbrennstoffe wie Methanol zum Einsatz kommen.
Der Vorteil: Sekundärbrennstoffe aus Abfall oder Biomasse erlauben
eine klimafreundliche Energieerzeugung. Wer Biogas oder andere
regenerative Energieträger verstromt, kann zudem die
Wirtschaftlichkeit positiv beeinflussen, denn die CO2-neutrale
Energiebereitstellung wird nach dem EEG (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz)
gefördert.
Im Vergleich zu etablierten Kraft-Wärme-Kopplungstechniken besticht
die Brennstoffzelle der MTU CFC Solutions durch ihren hohen
elektrischen Wirkungsgrad von etwa 47 Prozent und den besonders
leisen Betrieb. Die geringe Geräuschentwicklung macht die
elektrochemischen Wandler zum idealen Nutzenergielieferanten in
Krankenhäusern und Wohngebieten. Sogar der direkte Einbau in bewohnte
Gebäude ist ohne aufwändige Schallschutzmaßnahmen möglich. Aus diesem
Grund prophezeit der Anbieter aus Ottobrunn seinen Kleinkraftwerken
besonders hohe Chancen, wenn es um die verbrauchernahe Erzeugung von
Strom und Wärme geht. Projekte wie die Installation des HotModules in
der "HafenCity", Hamburgs neuem Stadtteil südlich der Speicherstadt,
lassen das Potenzial des innerstädtischen Einsatzes erahnen.
Funktion des HotModules
Das HotModule ist eine Schmelzkarbonat-Brennstoffzelle (MCFC), die im
Wesentlichen aus einem zylindrischen Stahlbehälter mit dem horizontal
angeordneten Brennstoffzellen-Stapel, einer Starteinrichtung, dem
katalytischem Brenner und der Mischkammer besteht. Dazu kommen die
Medienversorgung mit Brennstoff- und Wasseraufbereitung sowie ein
Wechselrichter, in dem der erzeugte Gleichstrom für die Einspeisung
ins Wechselstromnetz aufbereitet wird. Ein weiterer Teil der Anlage
ist für die Wärmeauskopplung zuständig.
Als Brennstoff können Gase wie Erd-, Bio- und Klärgas genutzt werden,
also Gase mit einem hohen Methananteil, oder zum Beispiel
Flüssigbrennstoffe wie Methanol. Wie bei allen Brennstoffzellen
basiert der elektrochemische Prozess auf einer Reaktion von
Wasserstoff und Sauerstoff, die Strom und Wärme freisetzt. Methan
(beispielsweise Erdgas oder Biogas) und Wasserdampf werden der Anode
zugeführt. Hieraus entsteht durch eine katalytische Reaktion
Wasserstoff. Dieser reagiert anschließend mit den Karbonat-Ionen des
Elektrolyten zu Wasser und Kohlendioxid. Dabei werden Elektronen auf
der Anodenseite freigesetzt und fließen über einen Verbraucher
(öffentliches Stromnetz) zur Kathode. Auf der Kathodenseite reagieren
Kohlendioxid und Luftsauerstoff mit den aus der Anodenreaktion
freigesetzten Elektronen zu Karbonat-Ionen. Diese wandern schließlich
durch den Elektrolyten zur Anode. Damit schließt sich der
elektrochemische Kreislauf.
Die Abluft der Brennstoffzelle beinhaltet lediglich Wasserdampf und
Kohlendioxid. Die Schadstoffemissionen sind vernachlässigbar gering,
insbesondere SO2 und NOx sind nicht nachweisbar.
Die Schmelzkarbonat-Brennstoffzelle eignet sich für die dauerhafte
Versorgung mit Strom und Wärme. Aufgrund der hohen
Nutzwärmetemperatur ist auch ein ganzjährig effizienter Betrieb von
Absorptionskältemaschinen möglich (Kraft-Wärme-Kälte-Kopplung).
Weitere Informationen:
MTU CFC Solutions GmbH - Stefanie Eickele, Pressereferentin
Christa-McAuliffe-Straße - 85521 Ottobrunn
Postanschrift: Postfach - 81663 München
Tel.: 089 607-31558
www.mtu-cfc.com
Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit:
Press'n'Relations II GmbH - Ralf Dunker
Guntherstraße 19 - 80639 München
Tel.: 089 17999275 - Fax: 089 17999289
http://openpr.de/news/80069.html
http://tinyurl.com/s8596
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:17:05 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Tiefensee und Perben wollen H2 für den Verkehr nutzbar machen
Tiefensee und Perben wollen Wasserstoff für den Verkehr nutzbar
machen
Minister eröffnen zweite deutsche CEP-Wasserstofftankstelle in Berlin
14. März 2006 - Bundesverkehrsminister Wolfgang Tiefensee und sein
französischer Amtskollege Dominique Perben haben heute in Berlin die
zweite Clean Energy Partnership (CEP) Wasserstofftankstelle
eröffnet. "Die Entwicklung und Erprobung neuer Technologien braucht
den Einsatz engagierter Unternehmen. Wir wissen, dass es gerade auch
die Innovationen der Mobilität sind, die mit darüber entscheiden, ob
unsere Wirtschaft auch im 21. Jahrhundert international
wettbewerbsfähig ist. Heute sind wir Zeugen, wie die ökologische
Wasserstoffwirtschaft in die nächste Etappe geht und aus einem Traum
zu einer realen Möglichkeit wird", sagte Tiefensee.
Um die Spitzenstellung zu behaupten und weiter auszubauen werde die
Bundesregierung die Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellen-Technologie in
Deutschland mit einem neuen Nationalen Wasserstoff- und
Brennstoffzellen-Innovationsprogramm fördern. "Wir werden daher unser
Engagement künftig verstärken und zusätzliche Fördermittel von 500
Millionen Euro für die kommenden zehn Jahre bereitstellen", kündigte
der Bundesverkehrsminister an. "Ich freue mich, dass wir mit unseren
französischen Freunden einen engen politischen Partner haben, dieses
Zukunftsthema in Europa gemeinsam voran zu bringen. Uns verbindet
vieles, auch eine Industrie, die sich dem Wettbewerb und den
Herausforderungen der Zukunft stellen muss. Dieses schaffen wir nicht
alleine. Stark sind wir in der Allianz , in einem gemeinsamen
europäischen Bündnis."
"Als Kraftstoff im Verkehr hat die Wasserstoff-Technologie den
längsten Weg noch vor sich. Wasserstoff muss verlässlich,
verbraucherfreundlich und kosteneffizient sein. Herstellung,
Speicherung, Vertrieb des Kraftstoffs, Belastbarkeit, Leistung und
Preis von Fahrzeugen müssen sich am Markt bewähren", so Tiefensee.
Eine Massenproduktion und der breite Einsatz könnten jedoch nicht
über Nacht erfolgen. Deshalb sei es wichtig, jetzt konkrete
Erfahrungen mit der mobilen Alltagsanwendung des Wasserstoffs zu
gewinnen.
CEP ist ein Zusammenschluss von derzeit zehn Unternehmen unter
maßgeblicher Beteiligung des Bundesverkehrsministeriums. Ziel ist es,
die Wirtschaftlichkeit der Wasserstofferzeugung im Realbetrieb zu
erproben. Im Herbst 2004 wurde die erste öffentliche
Wasserstofftankstelle Europas am Berliner Messedamm eröffnet. Die
Eröffnung der zweiten Wasserstoff-Tankstelle in Berlin-Spandau ist
ein neuer Höhepunkt im Engagement der CEP-Partner am Standort
Berlin. "Heute wird ein weiteres wichtiges Fundament gelegt: die
Einführung des emissionsfreien Personennahverkehrs mit Wasserstoff.
Ich freue mich besonders, dass die Bundeshauptstadt und ihr
Nahverkehrsunternehmen dabei innovativer Vorreiter in Europa sind",
sagte Tiefensee.
Bei inhaltlichen Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an:
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung
Bürgerservice
Invalidenstraße 44
10115 Berlin
E-Mail: buergerinfo@bmvbs.bund.de
Quelle: pressrelations.de
Aufgenommen am: 14.03.2006 um 14:51:26
Verantwortlich: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und
Stadtentwicklung
http://www.verivox.de/news/ArticleDetails.asp?aid=25574&pm=1
http://tinyurl.com/p9jle
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:32:14 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Climate of fear
Climate of fear
By Fiona Harvey
Published: March 11 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 11 2006 02:00
THE WEATHER MAKERS: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change
by Tim Flannery
Allen Lane £20, 368 pages
Getting the prime minister to write a blurb for your book is quite a
coup. But then Tim Flannery's book deals with one of the key issues
that Tony Blair wants to see as part of his all-important legacy.
Blair tells readers: "Climate change is perhaps the most challenging
collective action problem the world has faced. Almost uniquely, The
Weather Makers provides insights not only into the history, science
and politics of climate change but also the actions people can take
now that will make a difference."
Less exalted readers might see the book as another of the myriad
popular science contributions to the climate change debate published
in the last year, including works by the environmentalist Lester
Brown; the polemic in favour of nuclear power by the father of the
Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock; and the superb Collapse by Jared
Diamond.
Yet Flannery's book deserves special attention. He is a fascinating
and respected figure, a dashing Australian scientist, conservationist
and explorer who has discovered and named more than 30 species of
mammal. Think Indiana Jones crossed with Charles Darwin.
His book combines one of the broadest surveys of climate change
research with some of the clearest explanations of the underlying
science, in a beautifully clear, breezy style. The scholarship is
wide-ranging, with a formidable bibliography drawing on more than 250
sources, mostly scientific papers. But there is nothing dry or
academic. At the pace of a thriller he carries us through about 300
million years of climatic variations and on to humanity's struggles
in the 21st century, in which we can expect mass extinctions,
droughts, floods, hurricanes and the freezing of western Europe as
the Gulf Stream changes direction.
He lards his discourse with stories such as the demise of the gastric
brooding frog, a magical creature that gestates its young in its
stomach, until the baby frogs pop out of its mouth. Now, the frog has
disappeared, a casualty of climate change.
Flannery explains why scientists think we are on the brink of
destroying what has made the earth habitable, and makes clear the
limits to our opportunity for preventing it: "When thinking about
these potential catastrophes, it's important to realise that, as when
firing a gun, the possibility of human control is only there at the
very beginning of the process - before we trip the trigger." He even
shows how humanity narrowly escaped disaster by destroying the ozone
layer.
But this is not a book of despair. It's a pleasure to read, alive
with Flannery's wonder and delight in the natural world. In the words
of Blair: "All who read The Weather Makers will be made wiser and
able to appreciate how fragile our climate is and how it is this
generation who must act to protect it." But has he sent a copy to
George W. Bush?
Fiona Harvey is the FT's environment correspondent.
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1d0526dc-b0a3-11da-a142-
0000779e2340,s01=1.html
http://tinyurl.com/p6okd
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:34:21 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: US urged to work with China and India on energy
US urged to work with China and India on energy
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: March 14 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 14 2006 02:00
The US must expand international co-ordination of energy issues,
especially with China and India, to address concerns about growing
global competition for energy resources, the chairman of the Senate
foreign relations committee said yesterday.
In a speech in Washington, Dick Lugar warned: "No one who is honestly
assessing the decline of American leverage around the world due to
energy dependence can fail to see that energy is the albatross of US
national security."
His remarks highlight the extent to which energy security has moved
rapidly up the US political agenda, driven by an unusual coalition of
interests including national security specialists concerned about US
reliance on foreign oil in troubled parts of the world,
environmentalists and unions keen to create US jobs through
alternative energy sources.
Political interest in the issue was underlined by President George W.
Bush's unexpected comments in his State of the Union speech in
January, when the former oil executive gave warning that the US
was "addicted to oil". Mr Lugar called that phrase a "seminal moment
in American history, when a US president said something contrary to
expectations", and compared it with "President Nixon using his anti-
communist credentials to open up China".
As debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions shifts to the United Nations
Security Council, Mr Lugar highlighted the dangers of transferring
billions of dollars to unaccountable regimes and warned economic
sanctions against Iran might not work.
"Iran has been anticipating a crisis by accumulating funds [from high
oil prices], so if they shut off oil supplies it could have savings
to draw down for a long period of time. That is not well recognised
and allows Iran and other states a degree of invulnerability to
economic sanctions," he said.
Mr Lugar noted that 77 per cent of the world's oil supply was
controlled by foreign governments, and that the US paid 17 per cent
more for its energy in 2005 than the year before. Energy costs now
account for a third of the US trade deficit. He predicted the US
would spend $320bn (£185bn) on oil imports this year.
To reduce US vulnerability he said he would introduce an Energy
Diplomacy and Security Act this week to expand international co-
operation to "enhance preparedness for major disruptions in oil
supplies".
More controversially, he suggested there be a $35-a-barrel price
floor for oil, to provide security for companies seeking to invest in
alternative fuels. He admitted that he was still speaking to
economists about how this could be achieved.
Mr Lugar acknowledged the challenges of international co-ordination
of energy policy, against a backdrop in the US of increased
protectionism, shown in the recent battle over the Arab-owned Dubai
Ports World's attempt to take over five US ports.
"The things I outlined today are impossible without extraordinary
international diplomacy."
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/624918e4-b2ff-11da-ab3e-0000779e2340.html
http://tinyurl.com/lelam
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcell-energy/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A personal quest to promote the use of wind energy and hydrogen technology in the Great Lakes area of the United States. The Great Lakes area is in a unique position to become an energy exporting region through these and other renewable energy technologies. *Update 2014: Just do it everywhere - Dan*
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
[fuelcell-energy] Digest Number 1402
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please do not promote businesses that are not about keeping the environment clean or renewable energy via comments on this blog. All such posts will be reported as spam and removed.