MORE NEWS, 1-11: SUMMING UP COPENHAGEN; “CLEAN” COAL HEALTH COSTS; INDIA CITY LIT BY JAPAN SUN?; UK OFFSHORE AMBITIONS FUNDED

SUMMING UP COPENHAGEN
What was agreed and left unfinished in U.N. climate deal
Gerard Wynn (w/Jon Hemming), December 20, 2009 (Reuters)

"…The [Copenhagen] accord was not legally binding, and did not commit countries ever to agree a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol, whose present round ends in 2012…[and so] it did not guarantee global participation…

"…A NEW TREATY?…[1] No decision on whether to agree a legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol…[2] No agreement on whether to sign one new treaty replacing Kyoto, or two treaties…[3] Kyoto limits the emissions of nearly 40 richer countries from 2008-2012, but the United States never ratified [it]…[and] it does not bind…[4] Rich nations prefer one new treaty including all countries; developing countries want to extend and sharpen rich nation commitments under Kyoto, and add a separate deal binding the United States and supporting action by poorer countries…[5] No agreement on…[any specific] time frame."

click to enlarge

"…LONG-TERM GOAL TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE…[1] Recognizes "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius."…[2] Agrees that "deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science."…[3] Agrees to stop global and national greenhouse gas emissions from rising "as soon as possible." …[4] No agreement on goals for global emissions cuts in the long-term…[5] Implementation of the accord would be reviewed in 2015 to ensure the world was avoiding dangerous climate change…

"…2020 EMISSIONS CUTS BY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES…[1] Rich countries would "commit to economy-wide emissions targets for 2020" to be submitted by 31 January 2010…[2] Rich nation parties to the Kyoto Protocol would strengthen their existing targets…[3] No agreement on a base year for 2020 goals…[4] Rich nations have so far offered 2020 targets of cuts about 14-18 percent below 1990 levels…[5] Developing nations including China want collective rich nation cuts of at least 40 percent by 2020 versus 1990…CLIMATE ACTION BY DEVELOPING NATIONS…[1] Developing nations would "implement mitigation actions" to slow growth in their carbon emissions, submitting these by January 31 2010…[2] Developing countries would report those actions once every two years via the U.N…[3] Actions which rich nations paid for would be recorded…"

click to enlarge

"…FINANCE…[1] Establishes a "Copenhagen Green Climate Fund." …[2] Agrees a "goal" for the world to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries cut…[and] adapt…[3] The funding would come from a "a wide variety of sources."…[4] Developed countries would raise funds of $30 billion from 2010-2012…[5] No agreement on how much individual countries would contribute to or benefit from any funds…[6] "A significant portion" of the funds would…support projects to slow deforestation, help countries adapt to climate change and fund the development and sharing of clean technologies…[7] Recognized the "crucial role" of reducing carbon emissions from destroying forests, and to raise funds to achieve that…

"…EXCLUDED SECTORS, LOOPHOLES…[1] No agreement on whether to include emissions from aviation and shipping [though Kyoto excludes them]… [or] make it mandatory to include farming and forestry…a third of all global greenhouse gases… ON CARBON MARKETS…[1] No agreement on how to scale up carbon finance under Kyoto's existing $6.5-billion clean development mechanism (CDM)…[or] trade in carbon offsets…[though the] European Union wants the scheme to invest tens of billions of dollars annually in developing nations by 2020…[2] Agreement to allow developers to appeal against U.N. panel rejections of CDM projects…[3] No agreement on whether to include carbon capture storage in the CDM…[4] No agreement on including forest preservation in CDM…ON CONSERVING TROPICAL FORESTS…[1] Agrees to ensure indigenous peoples are involved…[2] Asks developing countries to identify drivers of deforestation and to start measuring emissions from destroying trees…[3] No agreement on [funding]…"


“CLEAN” COAL HEALTH COSTS
Health and Safety Risks of Carbon Capture and Storage
John Fogarty, MD, and Michael McCally, MD, January 6, 2010, (Journal of the American Medical Association)

"Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology being developed in an attempt to slow global warming. In theory, CCS would prevent carbon dioxide produced from coal-fired power plants from reaching the atmosphere by capturing and storing it permanently underground. The scale of this proposal is remarkable, requiring the capture of tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide from thousands of coal and gas power plants throughout the world…

"…[T]he use of the technology to permanently store carbon dioxide is still in a demonstration phase…[and] may receive billions of dollars of taxpayer support in pending energy legislation…[but] important and unanswered questions remain…What risks to human health and safety are involved? How will CCS projects affect water quality in aquifers? Can CCS at scale really work and can carbon dioxide storage be made permanent? The risks are substantial and to our knowledge have not been considered in the promotion of CCS technology…"

The first good question. (click to enlarge)

"Carbon dioxide is the most significant of the greenhouse gases…and more than one-third…in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants. Consequently, many earth scientists and lawmakers have called for a ban on new coal plants unless carbon dioxide is captured and contained. The coal industry consequently has launched a media campaign promoting “clean coal” …Carbon capture and storage would involve collecting carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants and transfering them as high-pressure liquid carbon dioxide to underground geologic formations…The scope of the project is huge…The International Energy Agency estimates that for CCS to have a significant effect in slowing global warming, there must be 6000 CCS projects each storing a million tons of carbon dioxide per year in operation by the year 2050…

"The potential health risks of CCS include asphyxiation of humans and animals, compromise of safe drinking water supplies, in addition to the well-known cardiorespiratory disease and mortality consequences of continued coal combustion. High concentrations of carbon dioxide interfere with cellular metabolism and are lethal to humans and animals. Under normal circumstances, carbon dioxide is a trace gas composing less than 0.04% of gases in ambient air. Concentrations of carbon dioxide of more than 7% to 10% pose an immediate threat to human life. Elevated partial pressures of carbon dioxide in the blood cause carbon dioxide narcosis with delirium, somnolence, and coma…"

And then there's this. (click to enlarge)

"…A large inadvertent release of carbon dioxide (as must be considered in a nationwide, full-scale CCS program) would pose significant risks for asphyxiation to humans and animals in surrounding areas…Carbon capture and storage researchers have raised concerns about the ability of geologic formations to hold large amounts of carbon dioxide and acknowledge the possibility of unintentional releases. Acidification effects of carbon dioxide as well as cracks, faults, natural springs, and old wells could allow dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide to escape…The geologic security or permanence of underground carbon dioxide storage over time also has not been well studied. Geologists have raised concerns for possible leakage…

"…[A]cidification can dramatically alter water quality by increasing the leaching of contaminants such as arsenic, lead, mercury…organic compounds…[and] other pollutants…The widespread use of geologic formations as storage for carbon dioxide could compromise not-currently-used aquifers on which future generations may depend for drinking water…Because of its scope, complexity, intrinsic risks, and cost, it is unclear whether CCS can be implemented in time to contribute to the immediate need for greenhouse gas reduction…The medical community ought to support actively noncombustion, clean energy policies as a matter of public health…Before new coal-fired power plants are approved, the National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine and the Congressional Research Service should conduct careful scientific review of thefeasibility, cost, and public safety of commercial scale implementation of CCS…"


INDIA CITY LIT BY JAPAN SUN
Japan wants to set up solar city
Naraj Thakur, January 7, 2010 (DNA India)

"Japan says it wants to set up at least one solar city in India out of the 34 that the government is planing to develop during the Eleventh Plan Period…[through which India seeks] to cut the country’s carbon emissions and promote the use of renewable energy.

"A Japanese delegation…[met with India’s] minister for new and renewable energy… and discussed various aspects of cooperation between the two countries in the field of renewable energy."

Japan was a pioneer in solar, fell behind at the turn of the century and has recently jumpstarted a renewed effort. (click to enlarge)

"A total of 34 cities have been approved by the government in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Gujrat, Maharashtra, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Chandigarh…The ministry of new and renewable energy is providing financial support up to Rs 50 lakh for each solar city…for preparation… [F]or two model solar cities,financial support of 50%…will be available towards the cost of installation…

"Japan is promoting a Midori no Bunken, which aims at changing centralised society to community-based society to enhance self-sufficiency within a region through maximising natural resources (forest, sea, food, etc) and energy, with emphasis on self-sufficiency…Midori no Bunken does not rely on electricity generated by others. It focuses on renewable energy like solar, wind, micro hydel and biomass energy. India is looking to get investment and technology from foreign countries to increase the use of renewable energy in India…"

India has ample sun.

"The Indian and the Japanese delegations also agreed to strengthen cooperation in research and development for promoting renewable energy…

"The proposed solar cities will aim to reduce a minimum of 10% of the projected demand of conventional energy of the city through energy efficiency measures and renewable energy installations."


UK OFFSHORE AMBITIONS FUNDED
The Crown Estate Announces Round 3 Offshore Wind Development Partners; A Quarter of UK Electricity Demand Could Be Met From The Programme
8 January 2010 (The Crown Estate)

"The Crown Estate… announced the successful bidders for each of the nine Round 3 offshore wind zones within UK waters. The expansion of electricity generation from offshore wind represents a massive long term investment opportunity which has the potential to generate thousands of jobs in the UK as well as securing a marine renewable electricity source. Round 3 offshore wind energy generation aims to deliver a quarter of the UK’s total electricity needs by 2020.

"All parties have now signed exclusive [planning and consenting phase] Zone Development Agreements with The Crown Estate, who has responsibility for renewable energy in UK waters…"

click to enlarge

"The developers who have signed exclusivity zone agreements are…[1] Moray Firth Zone, Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd which is 75% owned by EDP Renovaveis and 25% owned by SeaEnergy Renewables – 1.3 GW…[2] Firth of Forth Zone, SeaGreen Wind Energy Ltd equally owned by SSE Renewables and Fluor – 3.5 GW…[3] Dogger Bank Zone, the Forewind Consortium equally owned by each of SSE Renewables, RWE Npower Renewables, Statoil and Statkraft – 9 GW…[4] Hornsea Zone, Siemens Project Ventures and Mainstream Renewable Power, a consortium equally owned by Mainstream Renewable Power and Siemens Project Ventures and involving Hochtief Construction – 4 GW…[5] Norfolk Bank Zone, East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd equally owned by Scottish Power Renewables and Vattenfall Vindkraft – 7.2 GW…[6] Hastings Zone, Eon Climate and Renewables UK – 0.6 GW…[7] West of Isle of Wight Zone, Eneco New Energy – 0.9 GW…[8] Bristol Channel Zone, RWE Npower Renewables, the UK subsidiary of RWE Innogy – 1.5 GW…[9] Irish Sea Zone, Centrica Renewable Energy and involving RES Group – 4.2 GW…"

[UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown:] “Our policies in support of offshore wind energy have already put us ahead of every other country in the world. This new round of licences provides a substantial new platform for investing in UK industrial capacity. The offshore wind industry is at the heart of the UK economy’s shift to low carbon and could be worth £75 billion and support up to 70,000 jobs by 2020…”

click to enlarge

[UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband:] “Our island has one of the best wind energy resources in Europe and today’s news shows we’re creating the right conditions for the energy industry to invest in harnessing it. This is one of the strongest signals yet that the UK is locked irreversibly into a low carbon, energy secure prosperous future.”

[Roger Bright, Chief Executive, The Crown Estate:] “…We have been working very closely with Government and a wide range of other interests to secure commitments from investors in offshore wind energy in the UK. The Crown Estate will continue to play an active role working closely with our new partners to deliver their offer of 32 GW – which equates to a quarter of the UK’s electricity needs. A series of supply chain events will be held across the UK in January, February and March to support the delivery of this growth industry…”