*hiss*
on the annotated budak blog and dealing with lice and fan flower and snailed
A second nesting for the Olive-backed Sunbirds
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
Of breeding Coppersmith Barbet: A chronological summary (Part 9)
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
How to survive Pulau Ubin on a long weekend
on the wild shores of singapore blog and blooming ubin and Sonneratia ovata and Pongamia pinnata
Supermarkets go LIVE
Move draws eager customers and chains see a spike in sales
Jessica Lim, Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
SUPERMARKETS in Singapore are offering more live food as demand for variety goes up at stores.
Less than three years ago, only two kinds of food were found alive and kicking at local supermarkets: fish and prawns.
Now, consumers can buy more exotic fare - such as bullfrogs, razor clams, oysters, soft-shell turtles and eels - from Singapore's major supermarket chains.
The pickings - killed, bagged and weighed seconds after they are netted from large tanks - are proving to be a big hit.
At Sheng Siong Supermarket, which sells the widest range of live produce, sales have been brisk, said its spokesman, who was unable to provide exact figures.
However, a Straits Times check at some of its outlets showed their sales of live food had increased. At its Clementi West store, about 150kg is sold daily, six times the amount sold last year, said assistant supervisor Wong Nee Kook.
The story is the same at FairPrice, which offers live food at its three hypermarkets in Jurong, Hougang and Ang Mo Kio.
In the first three months of this year, compared with the same period last year, sales of live food increased by 30 per cent, said its spokesman.
In the middle of last year, three Cold Storage outlets started stocking live food as well - first oysters, then lobsters. Since then, demand has seen double-digit growth, said the chain's spokesman.
Customers say going live is the same as going fresh.
'I've tried frozen and chilled, but live is still the best,' said housewife Liew Chiu Hua, 58, who buys all kinds of live fish every day.
Fellow housewife Anna Lee agreed. The 60-year-old, who buys live food twice weekly, used to make trips to Johor Baru to feast on fresh seafood and buy some live food back to cook.
'I'm so happy that supermarkets here have them now. It's so much easier,' she said.
For Madam Tahyijati Mathawi, 43, the greater variety means greater convenience when shopping.
'Nowadays, supermarkets have everything. I can buy live shellfish and toilet paper,' said the housewife, who buys flower crab and gong-gongs (a type of shellfish) once a month from a Sheng Siong outlet that is just a five-minute bus ride from her home. 'I don't have to go anywhere else.'
At Sheng Siong, live food is now sold at all of its 22 outlets, up from just four in 2007.
To meet the demand, the chain is in the midst of upgrading: Over the next five years, all the stores will be equipped with tanks and stainless steel displays, at a cost of about $50,000 a store.
Currently, only three stores are fully equipped, and they sell more than 20 kinds of live produce each.
The other chains are also looking for new products that will extend their range.
Although customers are rejoicing, industry players say this deals yet another blow to wet markets, which are already suffering from dwindling sales.
Mr Chua Ser Keng, the president of The Federation of Merchants' Associations, said wet market business has fallen by about 30 per cent over the past two years.
'More women work and find it inconvenient to shop early in the morning, and supermarkets have everything now.'
This opinion is shared by fishmonger Yeo Lee Kwong, who has operated a stall in Ghim Moh for the past 32 years.
The 68-year-old plans to wind up his 'failing business' next year. He is now dipping into his savings to keep it afloat.
'Business has fallen a lot over the years,' he said. 'There are supermarkets everywhere. They are cleaner and have everything. How can we compete?'
The Singapore Botanic Gardens celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. TAY SUAN CHIANG asks five people what it means to them
Walks and talks
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
KEITH HILLIER, 80, RETIREE AND VOLUNTEER GUIDE
A volunteer at the Gardens since 2001, he first came to Singapore with the British Army as an officer in 1948. He has been living here since 1970 and is now a Singapore citizen
'My wife and I have always enjoyed taking walks here. Even now, when we are finding a new house, our first criterion is that it must be within walking distance of the Gardens.
'I remember back in 1970, we used to play games on our walks. We would each take turns to guess the names of the trees that we saw. Not only did this improve our knowledge of them, but it also trained our memory. We knew almost every tree then.
'We still enjoy taking walks in the park. For the last nine years, we have been faithfully coming to the Gardens in the evenings for an hour. Sometimes, we walk to the Swan Lake, which is my favourite part of the Gardens. At other times, we walk to the other parts.
'I'm also here every Saturday to take visitors on guided tours. I enjoy being with other volunteers, all of whom have a passion for the Gardens.
'Since I'm here almost every day, I know it like the back of my hand. Yet I am not bored by it. There is always something different. It can be new variety of plants being grown, or even simple pleasures, such as a tree flowering.'
Botanic reveries
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
MR SAMSURI AHMAD, 73
Herbarium research assistant at the Singapore Botanic Gardens
This sprightly senior joined the Gardens in 1952 as a gardener and has worked as a plant collector since 1968.
'My favourite spot in the Gardens is by the ficus tree near Swan Lake. Even back then, swimming was not allowed in the lake. But when the Gardens' director wasn't around, I would secretly go for a swim. I also enjoyed swinging from the roots of the ficus tree.
'Of course, I did that only during my younger days.
'I met my wife here. It was love at first sight. Her family used to live nearby, and we spent our courtship days strolling in the gardens. We held our wedding here.'
Attacks from monkeys
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
DR CHIN SEE CHUNG, 62
Director of Singapore Botanic Gardens
The Batu Pahat-born Singapore Permanent Resident has been the Gardens' director since 1996
'I first visited the Gardens as a student during the late 1960s. There were monkeys then, and they were a big hazard. They would grab our schoolbags, and I would hang on to mine tightly.
'There are no more monkeys in the Gardens now. I'm not sure where they went.
'I remember the Palm Valley, the tembusu tree and Swan Lake from my first visit. The look and feel of the Gardens have not changed, but it is definitely busier now. There are more visitors, more plant displays and a greater diversity of plants.
'Back then, there was no place for visitors to get a drink. Now we provide water coolers, and there is a cafe and two restaurants.'
Morning glory
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
MADELINE LIM, 60, HOUSEWIFE
Madam Lim, who first visited the Gardens 17 years ago, now goes there every Saturday morning to exercise
'My family used to live in Bukit Timah, but somehow we didn't visit the Gardens when I was a child.
'I started coming here regularly only when my youngest daughter, now 26, was in primary school. I would send her to school before heading here for my morning walk. I did this every weekday for nearly 10 years.
'Once in a while, I would bring my three daughters here before going to church on Sundays. We would pack sandwiches, and they would feed the swans and fish in the lake.
'These days, I drive here every Saturday to exercise with a group. There is so much greenery and unusual plants to look at while you do that.'
Tree treats
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
SHELLEY EE, 53, HOUSEWIFE, AND DANIEL EE, 56, DIRECTOR
She used to visit the Gardens often as a child, as her home was nearby.
He visited the Gardens occasionally
'Our fondest memory of the Gardens was when we were newlyweds. My office was opposite the Gardens, while Shelley's office was in Tanglin Road.
'Two to three times a week, we would pack our lunch and head here. It was very warm at noon, so we would find the shaded areas. It was very lovely, as it was not that crowded then, and we had space to ourselves.
'When our three children were much younger, we also brought them here. Once, two of them got stung by bees.
'Even though the kids are now grown up, as a family we still come here for walks and jogs in the mornings, even though it is quite a drive from our home in the East Coast.'
catch it
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
BOTANIC GARDENS 150th ANNIVERSARY LINEUP
THIS MONTH
What: The Seed That Changed The World
When: Now on till April 30
Where: Botany Centre.
Info: Exhibition on the history of the rubber plant in Singapore.
NEXT MONTH
What: An Open Conversation With Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew: Greening Of A Nation
Info: MM Lee speaks on the inspiration and challenges for Singapore as a Garden City.
JUNE
What: Green Generation Concert
Info: Secondary school students and other local talent perform to spread the message of conservation.
What: 150th Anniversary Stamp Series
Info: Singapore Post launches a First Day Cover stamp series featuring iconic landmarks in the Gardens.
JULY
What: Darwin & Wallace: Their Stories & Their Expeditions
Info: An exhibition on naturalists Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who came up with the theory of evolution.
SEPTEMBER
What: Romancing Kangkong & Its Relatives
Info: There is more than one way to cook kangkong besides frying it in sambal. Celebrity chefs demonstrate what else you can do with the popular vegetable.
DECEMBER
What: Rainforests - The Human Challenge.
Info: The Singapore Botanic Gardens, together with Kew Gardens and the Prince's Trust charity group, hosts a worldwide touring photo exhibition of international rainforests.
Gardens through the years
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
1859: The Gardens is founded at its present site by an Agri-Horticultural Society. Planned as a leisure garden and ornamental park, the society eventually organises flower shows and horticultural fetes.
1874: The society hands over management and maintenance of the site to the Government, which puts Kew Gardens-trained botanists and horticulturists in charge.
1877: Kew Gardens in London sends 22 rubber seedlings to its Singapore counterpart, sparking an economic boom across South-east Asia
Late 1920s - late 1950s: The Gardens becomes a place for flora research. Laboratories are set up for experiments in orchid breeding and hybridisation, laying the foundation for a multi-million-dollar cut-flower industry in Singapore.
Mid-1960s: The Gardens play a part in the greening of Singapore. To meet the need for urban landscapes and recreational areas, the Gardens' staff introduce plants and supply planting material to increase the variety and colour in roadside and park plantings.
Early 1970s: It becomes customary to present Gardens-grown orchids as state gifts and to name orchid hybrids after VIPs in their honour. Among the first dignitaries to have their own orchids was Queen Elizabeth II, when she came to Singapore in 1972.
1989: Master Plan for the Redevelopment of the Gardens is announced. It aims to have better visitor amenities, botanical displays and research facilities.
1995: The National Orchid Garden opens. Located within the Gardens, it contains more than 1,000 species and 2,000 hybrids of orchids.
1998: The Visitor Centre, near the junction of Cluny and Nassim roads, opens. Amenities include a shop selling books and souvenirs, car parks, and a cafe, now called Casa Verde.
2005: Evolution Garden, closer to Bukit Timah Road, opens. It traces the development of Earth's flora.
2006: The Botany Centre, near Tanglin Gate, opens. It houses the herbarium and library collections.
2007: The Jacob Ballas Children's Garden opens to educate preschool and primary school children on the importance of plants in fun ways.
Garden trivia
Straits Times 11 Apr 09;
# The 63.7ha Gardens is home to 10,000 species of trees and flowers.
# One of the tallest trees in the Botanic Gardens is the Jelawai (Terminalia subspathulata) located in the Tanglin Core. It is about 50m tall.
# The Tembusu tree (Fagraea fragrans), depicted on the Singapore $5 note, is one of the oldest trees at Lawn E.
# The seeds of the candle-nut tree (Aleurites moluccana) are oily enough for them to be lit like candles. The tree can be found at the Eco Garden in Bukit Timah Core.
# The biggest branching inflorescence (a cluster of flowers arranged on a stem) in the plant kingdom is that of the Talipot Palm (Corypha umbraculifera). Each inflorescence has more than 20 million flowers. It flowers only once in its lifetime, after 30 to 80 years of growth, and then dies. There are mature Talipot Palms in the Palm valley that may flower soon.
# The native Tiger Orchid (Grammatophyllum speciosum) is the largest orchid plant in the world and can weigh as much as 1 tonne. See it at the National Orchid Garden.
Yahoo News 10 Apr 09;
LJUBLJANA (AFP) – Slovenian authorities Friday said they will cull 70 brown bears and 10 wolves this year to maintain a balanced wildlife population, but the hunting quota was markedly less than in the past.
"The current population of both species in Slovenia is rather favourable. They have enough living space and appropriate living conditions without any natural enemies," Environment Minister Karl Erjavec said.
Slovenia's bear population is thought to be about 430 while the number of wolves is estimated at between 70 and 100, according to the environment ministry.
In recent years, the Slovenian government had authorised the culling of around 100 bears annually, provoking strong protests from domestic and international wildlife groups who said the quota was excessive.
LiveScience.com 10 Apr 09;
The production of bioethanol may use up to three times as much water as previously thought, a new study finds, becoming the latest work that could burst the biofuel bubble.
A gallon of ethanol may require up to more than 2,100 gallons of water from farm to fuel pump, depending on the regional irrigation practice in growing corn, according to the study detailed in the April 15 issue of journal Environmental Science & Technology.
But the water usage isn't quite so high everywhere: A dozen states in the Corn Belt consume less than 100 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, making them better suited for ethanol production, the study found.
"The results highlight the need to take regional specifics into account when implementing biofuel mandates," the authors wrote.
Bioethanol, typically made from plant sources such as corn or switch grass, is often touted as a clean-burning alternative to gasoline or other fossil fuels, which give off significant amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
Other studies have questioned the benefits of biofuels, noting that they may require more energy in production than they provide; they may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as hoped; and the fertilizers required to grow the crops to make the fuel may exacerbate oceanic dead zones as a result of chemical runoff into streams.
Annual production of bioethanol currently sits about 9 billion gallons a year, but many experts expect this number to rise, sparking concerns over water usage in the production process, particularly in areas where there are already water shortages.
Previous studies estimated that a gallon of corn-based bioethanol requires the use of 263 to 784 gallons of water from the farm to the fuel pump. Butt these estimates failed to account for widely varied regional irrigation practices, the authors of the new study said.
For the new study, Sangwon Suh of the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, along with his colleagues, made a new estimate of bioethanol's impact on the water supply using detailed irrigation data from 41 states. The water requirements of the bioethanol produced in 2007 was possibly as high as 861 billion gallons of water from the corn field to the fuel pump, the researchers found.
The study was funded in part by USDA/CSREES and the U.S. Department of Energy and the Legislative Citizen's Commission on Minnesota Resources.
As companies make big cuts to investments in renewable energy, time is running out for Britain to take action to meet its targets on reducing carbon emissions
Robin Pagnamenta, Times Online 11 Apr 09;
Britain’s wind energy industry increased its call for state aid yesterday, after new figures showed that investment in the sector has collapsed by nearly 80 per cent.
The amount invested in British renewable energy schemes, including wind, solar and wave power, fell from £377 million during the first three months of last year to £79 million during the same period this year, according to figures from New Energy Finance, a research group that monitors industry trends. The figures have raised fresh questions over the Government’s ability to fulfil its pledge to slash Britain’s carbon emissions and produce more than one third of the country’s electricity from green energy by 2020.
Adam Bruce, the chairman of the British Wind Energy Association, (BWEA), said that the figures reflected the need for the Chancellor to introduce new measures to support the industry, which is struggling to secure finance because of the credit crunch. It is also suffering from the weak pound, which has driven up the cost of turbines and other equipment — most of which is produced outside Britain — and the falling price of coal, oil and gas.
There were signs yesterday that the Government was considering the inclusion of measures in the April 22 Budget to prevent the cancellation of large projects such as the London Array, a £3 billion scheme to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary, which Gordon Brown has backed.
Its developers are already seeking a bailout from the European Investment Bank to allow the scheme to proceed. Its 341 turbines would produce enough electricity for 750,000 homes.
Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, one of Britain’s “big six” energy companies and one of the project’s backers, told The Times he now thought that it would be impossible for the country to meet its target of generating 15 per cent of total energy from renewable sources by 2020, which amounts to 35 per cent of its electricity. The target is a key part of Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the Environment Agency, said that it was crucial to Britain’s future in the renewables sector that more funding, including public funding, was made available. “We’ve already seen some companies pull out. We will see more of these things happening if we don’t improve the funding,” he said. “Over the past 10-15 years we have tended to come too late to the table, as a country, when it comes to the development of renewable energy.”
Although investment in renewable energy has been falling everywhere in the recession, the British decline was unusually steep. Globally, investment fell by 53 per cent to £9.1 billion in the first three months of this year, compared with £19.3 billion at the start of last year, according to New Energy Finance. Delays securing planning consent and access to the national grid have compounded the problems.
The news comes as the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) prepares to publish a report next week that will warn that Britain must act now if it is to take the opportunity to build a thriving offshore wind energy industry that could employ as many as 70,000 people. The institute said that only 700 people were employed in the sector at present.
The BWEA is calling on Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, to introduce incentives and grants to support the industry in the Budget. It also urged the Government to accelerate planning decisions and reduce the cost to developers of hooking up schemes to the national grid.
Some companies, such as BP and Shell, have already left the wind industry, while others, such as Iberdrola Renovables, the world’s largest wind-farm operator, have cut their investment programmes.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said that Mike O’Brien, the Energy Minister, was exploring options to help the industry.
Carbon capture and storage is not being widely built today; the primary problem--it is expensive
Scientific American 10 Apr 09;
Human activity results in the emission of some 30 billion metric tons of climate change–causing carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. About half of the greenhouse gas is absorbed by the world's oceans and plants, among other natural processes, but the rest lingers in the atmosphere for a century or more, driving up annual CO2 concentrations by around two parts per million (ppm).
Those atmospheric concentrations have climbed from roughly 280 ppm in the 18th century before the widespread burning of fossil fuels to 386 ppm today—and continue to rise. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the coal-fired power plants built or planned since the turn of the 21st century will emit more carbon dioxide than all human coal-burning since the dawn of the Industrial Age: 660 billion metric tons over the next 25 years versus 524 billion metric tons emitted between 1751 and 2000.
"The next 25 years of investment would produce 26 percent more emissions than all previous human use of coal," says George Peridas, a mechanical engineer and scientist at NRDC in San Francisco. "This is a massive legacy and we cannot afford to let that happen."
Environmental groups like the NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Union of Concerned Scientists, and Clean Air Task Force (CATF) are pushing lawmakers to implement the kinds of policy—such as a cap-and-trade scheme to limit CO2 emissions—that would lead to widespread to adoption of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
"Environmentalists are talking about coal not because we love coal," says EDF's director of business relationships Mark Brownstein. "It's because we have to deal with coal in order to achieve the kind of CO2 reductions we need to make in the time frame we need to make them."
Most environmental groups agree that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century, a goal also shared by the Obama administration. But they differ on how that can be achieved. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace, for example, oppose CCS technology, preferring to push for more power derived from renewable resources, such as wind and solar energy.
CCS supporters, however, believe the technology is vital to reducing emissions quickly. "If we don't address the problem of coal, it's game over for climate change," says John Thompson, director of the coal transition project for CATF. The NRDC, for example, supports paying utilities $90 for every metric ton of CO2 buried at the first three gigawatts worth of coal-fired power plants with full CCS.
And that's because CCS is expensive. Today, three types of technology can capture CO2 at a power plant. One, as at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany, involves the oxyfuel process: burning coal in pure oxygen to produce a CO2-rich emission stream. The second uses various forms of chemistry—in the form of amine or ammonia scrubbers, special membranes or ionic liquids—to pull CO2 out of a more mixed set of exhaust gases. The third is gasification, in which liquid or solid fuels are first turned into synthetic natural gas, the most common being integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology; CO2 from the conversion of the gas can be siphoned off.
The primary problem with all of them is cost. Simply put, it costs money—and energy—to capture the CO2, ranging from as little as $5 a metric ton at natural gas projects like In Salah in Algeria to more than $90 a metric ton for certain gasification technologies. "The majority of cost for CCS is the first 'C': capture," says research engineer Howard Herzog at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) estimated in May 2007 that a new power plant burning pulverized coal and equipped with amine scrubbers to capture 90 percent of the CO2 would make electricity at a cost of more than $114 per megawatt-hour (compared to just $63 per MWh without CO2 capture). A similar integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant—in which coal is turned to gas before being burned—capturing the same amount would produce electricity for roughly $103 per MWh. For the consumer, the extra cost of carbon capture would therefore amount to about $0.04 a kilowatt-hour.
The DoE hopes to bring that price down. "In terms of total cost, they want to shoot for $10 per metric ton of CO2," says CO2 sequestration project leader Rajesh Pewar of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. "We are closer to the $50 per ton range right now."
Governments and utilities around the world are beginning to make plans to build more such expensive power plants. Vattenfall will expand the Schwarze Pumpe operation and convert several commercial boilers in power plants such as Janschwalde in Germany and Nordjylland in Denmark for CCS by 2015, according to Vattenfall's CCS spokesman Staffan Gortz. Statoil Hydro is building a CCS research site at its Mongstad refinery in Norway and France's Total has retrofitted a natural gas-burning power plant in Lacq with oxyfuel technology. And Australia and China are both building what will become zero-emissions coal-fired power plants using IGCC, dubbed ZeroGen and GreenGen, respectively.
"[China] is adding about one [coal] gasifier a month and has been doing so for four years," CATF's Kurt Waltzer says. "Since all of those gasifiers are in the business of making chemicals, fuels and fertilizers, they're all doing carbon capture. And what I suspect is China is doing more CO2 capture than anyone else. But all of that is being vented."
The Obama administration may even resurrect the FutureGen project—a 275 MW IGCC power plant that would capture 90 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions; the Bush administration had canceled it because of spiraling costs (which may have been miscalculated). The DoE has also offered at least $8 billion in loan guarantees for coal-fired power plants with CCS.
As a result, commercial CCS projects are springing up in the U.S. as well. Duke Energy is spending $2.35 billion to build a 630-MW IGCC power plant in Edwardsport, Ind. that may become the first commercial CCS project in the country—although it is designed to capture only about 18 percent of the CO2 it will generate in 2013. "It is our goal to make this one of the first demonstrations of CCS at a working power plant," says Angeline Protogere, a Duke spokesperson. "Coal powers about half the nation's electricity and we have to find ways to burn it cleanly."
Of course, such a demonstration plant will not address some of the other issues vilifying coal use, such as mountaintop-removal mining to get at coal seams or the toxic coal ash left over after burning. And all (or nearly all) of the greenhouse gas would need to be captured for a coal-fired power plant to be climate-friendly. But IGCC is capable of removing 90 percent or more of the CO2. "Our request is to look at 18 percent capture and sequestration," Protogere says. "That doesn't preclude going back and asking for a higher level later on."
Duke is not alone. American Electric Power will begin capturing just over 3 percent of the 8.5 million metric tons of CO2 emitted by its 1,300-MW Mountaineer Power Plant in West Virginia later this year and injecting the CO2 nearly two miles (3.2 kilometers) underground. The Erora Group plans to build a 630-MW IGCC power plant with CCS dubbed Cash Creek in Henderson County, Ky. Summit Power has proposed to build a 170-MW IGCC power plant in West Texas that would capture 80 percent of its CO2 emissions. BP and Southern Company have projects as well.
But previous plants, such as two proposed by the utility NRG in New York and Delaware, have fallen by the wayside. They were killed by the high cost of the technology and a lack of federal policy—a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax or some other mechanism effectively setting a price on CO2 pollution—to make them economically feasible, notes Caroline Angoorly, head of environmental markets at JP Morgan Chase, who formerly lead development of these projects at NRG.
Nevertheless, Oklahoma-based Tenaska is planning for two plants. One $3.5-billion plant in Taylorville, Ill., would gasify the high-sulfur local coals before capturing at least 50 percent of the CO2. Another $3.5-billion plant planned for Sweetwater, Tex., would burn pulverized coal to generate 600 MW of electricity while capturing its 5.75 million metric tons of emissions postcombustion with amine or ammonia scrubbers or, possibly, with advanced membranes that separate CO2 from other flue gases.
If postcombustion capture can be demonstrated commercially, "then the market for those existing coal-fired power plants is very large. There are at least two billion tons of domestic emissions from pulverized coal power plants," says Greg Kunkel, Tenaska's vice president for environmental affairs. "You can't tackle the larger problem [of climate change] unless you deal with those plants in some way."
And CCS can be equally well applied to other CO2-intensive industries: cement production, steel making and aluminum smelting, among others. They can even be combined with the burning of plant matter to create a "carbon negative" fuel that when burned removes more CO2 from the air than it puts in.
"CCS is [also] about these really large natural gas fields in Indonesia and Malaysia that have as much as 50 percent CO2 by content. It's just like Sleipner but even higher concentrations that are going to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere for want of $20 per metric ton of CO2," says engineer James Dooley, senior research scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. "[Coal] is the biggest market but, in the near term and in the developing world, CCS can reduce emissions from other sectors—and that has benefit."
But it is going to take time: research engineer Howard Herzog of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that the first new CCS coal plant in the U.S. won't be completed before 2015. "We may have by 2020 a handful, maybe even close to 10," he says. "If your goal is 80 percent cuts [in CO2 emissions] by 2050, then it's not big enough."
And it is also going to take money—at least $20 billion over the next decade, according to International Energy Agency estimates. Even industry group the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity estimates it will cost $17 billion for CCS to be available by 2025.
"We're going to have to do it, the same as adding wind, solar, nuclear power and conservation," says Julio Friedmann, leader of the carbon management program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "It's a climate imperative so let's get on with it."
After all, "for every five years of inaction, it requires an extra gigaton of reductions," says Gardiner Hill, manager of technology and engineering for CCS at BP's alternative energy arm. "Unless we get started now, we don't get the advantage of CCS and the emission reductions we need."
Editor's Note: This is the fifth in a series of five features on carbon capture and storage, running daily from April 6 to April 10, 2009.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07