Search This Blog

Monday, June 6, 2011

Bleak emissions outlook points to a renewable future



Aapone-20110513000317853167-france-energy-solar-environment-original
Europe is leading the world in renewable technology. AAP
This week, unpublished estimates from the International Energy Institute showed that 2010 was the most carbon-intensive year in human history.
Chief Economist of the IEA Dr Fatih Birol responded to the finding by noting that the prospect of staying below the 2-degree threshold “is getting bleaker”.
This revelation is sobering and reminds us of the urgent need to scale up and rollout existing renewable energy technologies.
Increasing the scale of the challenge is the IEA’s finding that the majority of the power plants operating in 2020 —including ones that are currently under construction or already approved — will be powered by fossil fuels.
Given the long operating life of these installations, a massive amount of carbon emissions is being locked in for the next 40 years.
The fact is, we will have to retire our fossil fuel plants earlier than planned.
In his Critical Decade report for the Climate Commission, Professor Will Steffen highlighted the most important question we should ask: how can we fully decarbonise our economy without blowing our carbon budget first?
According to the Potsdam Institute on which his work is based, for a country like Australia with high per capita emissions, a ten year decarbonisation timeline would be appropriate.
Australian policymakers are set to diverge from this path by facilitating a switch to gas electricity generation as a so-called transitional fuel.
According to climate change minister Greg Combet, “For baseload electricity generation it will be gas-fired electricity that we see emerge, and for that investment to be committed, we need a carbon price in the economy.”
If we’re going to have to shut down the fossil fuel power plant operating today to meet science-based reduction targets then is it sensible to build new ones?
Australia, with the best solar and wind resources of any developed nation, can make the global challenge easier by deploying today’s renewable energy technologies —concentrating solar thermal power, wind, and photovoltaics.
Concentrating solar thermal (CST) power with storage is a perfect option for providing zero-carbon baseload power.
Its unique energy storage allows CST installations to produce electricity day and night.
In recent weeks, the Spanish Gemasolar plant, with 15 hours of storage, started feeding electricity to the grid. Spain’s feed-in tariffs for CST have encouraged billions of private sector investment that will see 2500 MW installed by 2013.
The United States is also part of the CST boom. Federal loan guarantees and Investment Tax Credits have kickstarted utility-scale renewable energy developments like the 390MW Ivanapah power tower, the 1000MW Blythe trough plant with storage, and the 110 MW Tonopah tower with storage.
The EU’s powerhouse economy Germany has increased the cumulative installed capacity of photovoltaics from 2900MW in 2006 to over 17000MW in 2010.
The German and Spanish feed-in tariffs provide a model for sustained expansion of renewable energy in Australia, as they create a truly level playing field for all renewables, and might help us leapfrog the costly and emissions-intensive shift to gas.
Rather than gamble on gas and risk billions of dollars worth of stranded assets in the electricity sector, policymakers can find confidence in research that shows renewable energy technologies are travelling quickly and predictably down cost curves.
In research commissioned by the government’s chief climate change advisor Ross Garnaut, we reviewed the current and future costs of renewables.
Comparing data from a range of international and Australian-specific studies, evidence suggests Australia’s current modelling on the cost of renewable energy technologies is out of date and overly conservative.
Renewable technologies are expected to decline in cost more rapidly than the Australian models predict.
A large proportion of cost reductions have come from the learnings and economies of scale associated with large-scale global deployment.
The sooner Australia gets on with the job of a large-scale roll out of these renewable energy sources, the faster the nation will benefit from the improved economics of these technologies.
Such efforts will help Australia and the globe make the carbon cuts needed to avoid runaway climate change.

Western & Asian habits - interesting differences

Blue --> Westerners 
Red --> 
Asians
 


(1) Opinion


Westerners: Talk to the point

Asians: Talk around the circle, especially if opinions are different
 


(2) Way of Life


Westerners: individualism, think of himself or herself. 

Asians: enjoy gathering with family and friends, solving their problems, and know each other's business. 


(3) Punctuality 


Westerners: on time.
 
Asians: in time.


(4) Contacts 


Westerners: Contact to related person only
.
Asians: Contact everyone everywhere, business very successful.
 

(5) Anger


Westerners: 
Show that I am angry. 
Asians: I am angry, but still smiling... (Beware!)


(6) Queue when Waiting


Westerners: Queuing in an orderly manner
.
Asians: Queuing?! What's that?


(7) Sundays on the Road


Westerners: Enjoy weekend relaxing peacefully.

Asians: Enjoy weekend in crowded places, like going to the mall.


(8) Party


Westerners: Only gather with their own group. 

Asians: All focus on the one activity that is hosted by the CEO.


(9) In the restaurant


Westerners: Talk softly and gently in the restaurant.

Asians: Talk and laugh loudly like they own the restaurant.


(10) Travelling


Westerners: Love sightseeing and enjoy the scenery. 

Asians: Taking picture is the most important; scenery is just for the background. 


(11) Handling of Problems


Westerners: Take any steps to solve the problems.
 
Asians: Try to avoid conflicts, and if can, don't leave any trail. 


(12) Three meals a day


Westerners: Good meal for once a day is sufficed. 

Asians: At least 3 good meals a day.


(13) Transportation 


Westerners: Before drove cars, now cycling for environmental protection. 

Asians: Before no money and rode a bike, now got money and drive a car 


(14) Elderly in day-to-day life
 

Westerners: When old, there is snoopy for companionship. 

Asians: When old, guarantee will not be lonely, as long as willing to babysit grandkids. 


(15) Moods and Weather
 

Westerners: The logic is
: rain is pain. 
Asians: More rain, more prosperity 


(16) The Boss


Westerners: The boss is part of the team. 

Asians: The boss is a fierce god.
 

(17) What's Trendy


Westerners: Eat healthy Asian cuisine.

Asians: Eat expensive Western cuisine.
 

(18) The Child 


Westerners: The kid is going to be independent and make his/her own living.

Asians: Slog whole life for the kids, the centre of your life.

How doctors and public health officials deal with dilemmas

How doctors and public health officials deal with dilemmas


Scientists in the US have investigated the ways in which medical doctors and public health professionals deal with hypothetical dilemmas that require them to decide whether to sacrifice a few for the sake of saving many. Their research extends the kind of dilemma often seen in ethics and philosophy courses, such as the well-known footbridge dilemma, originally suggested by philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson, in which a trolley is about to hurtle into and kill five workers on a railway track. You are on a footbridge spanning the track and can save the workers by pushing a large man next to you off the bridge and into the path of the trolley. The question is, is it morally permissible to kill the one to save the five?
Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene and undergraduate student Katie Ransohoff decided to use more realistic medical dilemmas that real doctors and public health professionals might have to face to test 153 volunteers: 69 of them public health professionals who plan or manage health campaigns and medical resources and 84 medical doctors who actually treat the patients.
The volunteers and 110 controls from unrelated professions were all given the standard dilemmas such as the railway trolley, plus realistic medical dilemmas. One example of the medical dilemmas posed was to decide whether to save a few lives now using expensive treatments or to use the money for thousands of cheap diagnostic tests that could save many patients in the future. Another was whether or not to disconnect life support from a critically ill patient to give several other patients the brief access they needed to the life support machines.
In the trolley dilemma only 12 percent of doctors were willing to kill the one man to save the five workers, and in the life support systems dilemma less than one third of the doctors were willing to sacrifice the critically ill patient to save the others. The results of the medical doctors and volunteers from non-medical professions were not statistically different.
The results for the public health professionals were vastly different, however, with 21 percent willing to kill the man in the trolley dilemma and almost half willing to sacrifice the critically ill man.
Dr. Greene said the results probably reflect the oath doctors take to “do no harm,” and he pointed out that doctors do choose not to sacrifice their patients’ health for the greater good in their overprescribing of antibiotics, which leads to widespread resistance.
Bioethicist Daniel Wilker from the Harvard School of Public Health, who helped design the experiments, said the next stage in the study would be to test public health professionals before and after training. This would enable researchers to tell if the training made people more willing to sacrifice the few for the many, or if people who were so inclined were attracted to working as public health administrators.
The results were reported at the Association for Psychological Science’s annual meeting in Washington D.C.
© 2010 PhysOrg.com
"How doctors and public health officials deal with dilemmas." June 3rd, 2011. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-doctors-health-dilemmas.html
Comment:
The workers have chosen to be on the tracks and it is their job to look out for trains and get out of the way if one comes.  The large man has chosen not to take any risks, has chosen to stay out of the way of danger, has not volunteered to jump into the path of the trolley to save the men.
The choice would be clearer if we amplify the situation.  Let the people on the track be five stunt men who are doing a show that is about to go wrong.  The large man can not be pushed onto the tracks unless you kill him with a knife first.
 
The amplified case is perfectly clear, the diminutive case is slightly less clear but, even so, your decision based on the choices and risks that people have volunteered to take is clear ~ if you kill the chubby guy, no matter how you try to justify it, you should be tried and convicted of murder.
 
In the medical dilemma all patients are equally responsible or not responsible for their conditions and the choice is one of numbers only, assuming that there was some guarantee that patients would be saved if one patient was allowed to die.  The patient is not an innocent bystander like the chubby guy but has the condition, like the others, which is fatal without treatment.  A snap decision must be made and so nobody could be blamed if the wrong decision was made (because they are not given sufficient time to explore alternatives).
 
In the case of the tests, there is a sufficient intervening period when conditions could change eg more money is made available, doctor's pleas are heeded, medical insurance or other financial conditions could change.  So there is a very real possibility that those sacrificed now might be sacrificed unnecessarily, and nobody wants to be responsible for that and rightly so.
 
The three conditions are different in far too many ways for any trivial comparison of decisions made.  Indeed, they are, if anything, examples of moral blackmail meant to make the person taking the test feel inadequate or amoral regardless of the decision they make.  It's no wonder professionals have lingering contempt for philosopher's absurd and ill-considered questions.
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek