 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Doomsday Scenarios
By Antonio C. Abaya Written Nov. 7, 2006 For the Standard Today, November 09, issue Sometimes it is so depressing to get up in the morning and be confronted with doomsday scenarios in the newspapers and on the Internet. But last week was especially bad. Within days of each other, a major economist painted the bleakest picture yet of the world economy if nothing was done to reverse global warming, and a group of scientists warned in the science journal Science that over-fishing would lead to a �global collapse� of the fishing industry by, hold on to your boneless bangus, the year 2048. Sir Nicholas Stern, identified as a former chief economist of the World Bank, wrote in a 700-page report commissioned by the British ministry of finance that unless global warming were tamed soon, some 200 million people worldwide would become refugees as a result of floods and droughts, the global economy would spiral into recession and depression, and the cost of repairing the damage would reach $6.98 trillion. According to the British newspaper The Observer, that price tag would exceed the cost of World War I, World War II and the Great Depression of the 1930s combined, and would render large parts of the planet uninhabitable. To fight global warming, Stern recommends a budget equivalent to one percent of global GDP, or about $240 billion, and the drafting and signing of a new international protocol next year � instead of 2010-2011 when the current Kyoto Protocol expires � on reducing greenhouse gases. But Stern himself warns that even if the world were to somehow suddenly stop polluting the planet today, the slow-growing effects of carbon already in the atmosphere would continue to warm the planet for another 30 years, with sea levels rising for a century. That makes it sound so irremediably hopeless, doesn�t it? Even if all burning of carbon fuels and all emissions of carbon gases were miraculously stopped today � which is infinitely more than what the Kyoto Protocol calls for � the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere would continue global warming until 2036, melting the polar ice caps and the Himalayan and Alpine glaciers, and raising sea levels all the way to the year 2106. And since it is humanly impossible to stop burning carbon-based fuels anytime soon, until a viable alternative technology is developed and fine-tuned and propagated, global warming will be with us way beyond the year 2036 and ocean levels will continue to rise beyond the year 2106, based on the gloomy prognosis of Stern.. I recall writing a column on global warming in the late 1980s, citing data and projections then that if the ocean temperature were to rise by half a degree Celsius every years, by the year 2030 sea levels would rise by about one meter. That would turn much of Bangladesh , for example, and even our Central Luzon plains into marshes, and put Malabon and Navotas permanently under water.. The way the Stern Report puts it, there is no solution to global warming until way beyond 2036, and no stopping the rise of sea levels until way beyond 2106. He recommends that the global community set aside $240 billion now to counter the effects of carbon dioxide emissions, which is the biggest source of greenhouse gases. But he does not spell out � at least not in the excerpts from his Report that have come out in media � what specifically needs to be done. There is no doubt about it anymore: the world has to be weaned from its dependence on carbon-based fossil fuels.. Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in England in the 18th century with the invention of coal-burning industrial machines, mankind�s voracious appetite for fossil fuels has grown exponentially. The invention of the internal combustion engine, - for use in land, sea and eventually air transport � has made dependence on carbon-based fossil fuels total and irreversible. It was na�ve to expect the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 that would have limited the growth of its economy. It is even more na�ve now to expect China and India to accept that same economy-crimping Protocol. Only a new energy paradigm that does not sacrifice economic growth is going to gain universal acceptance, and that new energy paradigm consists in declaring independence from carbon-based fuels and adopting, as a deliberate national policy, other energy alternatives.. So far only two countries have embraced this new paradigm. In 2002 Iceland set as a national policy the switch from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based one. (See my articles Hydrogen Economy [ Dec. 26, 2004 ] and Learn from Iceland [ Aug. 19, 2005 ]). In 2005, Sweden announced that it too would, as a national policy, take steps to stop depending on carbon-based fuels, but it did not spell out what options it would pursue. Admittedly, it is relatively easy for Iceland and Sweden to declare themselves independent of carbon-based fuels. Iceland has a small population (296,000) but has vast geothermal resources. Sweden also has a relatively small population (10 million) but with almost unlimited hydroelectric potential from its rivers. The point, however, is that both countries are very wealthy and are at the same time at the cutting edge of science and technology. Having realized the enormous harm that carbon-based fuels have caused and are causing the planet and having come to the decision to reject such fuels, they would use their considerable scientific and technological resources to develop non-carbon alternatives, not only for themselves, but also for the potentially huge global market. President Arroyo would do well to send a technical team to both countries to establish cooperation in the development of these alternatives. What are the non-carbon alternatives? They are nuclear fission (the splitting of heavy atoms into lighter atoms), nuclear fusion (the fusing of light atoms into heavier atoms), geothermal (from the heat of volcanoes), solar, wind, hydro and fuel cells. Bio-mass and ethanol are based on carbon molecules (cellulose and alcohol, respectively) and, when burned, will still result in carbon dioxide. We can forget about nuclear fusion as this technology is still decades into the future. Solar energy is suitable for small users, such as in remote islands, but not for large towns and cities. The biggest operating solar farm in the world is run by Cepalco in Cagayan de Oro City, but it generates less than one megawatt despite occupying more than one hectare of real estate. Wind turbines at present have a maximum rating of only 1.6 mw each and, as the Chevron advert on cable TV says, it would take 20,000 such turbines to power a city like Paris . So, realistically, the options are down to nuclear fission, geothermal, hydro-electric and fuel cells. But not every country has geothermal resources, and not every country has enough hydro potential to supply all its energy needs. If you have heard gushing endorsements of deuterium, please know that this is a hoax. There is/was actually a company in Cubao selling shares in a deuterium exploration corporation. But anyone with a background in physics or chemistry would know that it is a hoax. Deuterium is a heavy isotope of hydrogen, found in seawater all over the world as deuterium oxide, and is the preferred fuel for nuclear fusion, but the technology for fusion � which aims to duplicate the thermonuclear reaction in the Sun � is decades away. It was only last year that the most technologically advanced countries of the world � the US, the European Union, Russia, Japan, China and South Korea � finally agreed on the location (in Southern France) of their joint fusion research facilities. Physicists have been able to generate electricity in their laboratories from the fusion of deuterium atoms, but only in minute wattage and only for milli-fractions of a second at a time. There is not a single nuclear fusion reactor operating in the world, even as an experimental prototype. The technological problems are enormous, such as raising the temperature to one million degrees Celsius � so that deuterium atoms fuse into helium atoms � without vaporizing everything and everyone. It is done with giant magnets, but the risk of catastrophic accident cannot be discounted. The development of fuel cells is much more advanced. Fuel cells generate electricity by combining oxygen (from the air) and hydrogen (ideally from water, at present from natural gas) in an acidic solution, and the resulting effluent or exhaust is nothing but water vapor. No radioactivity, no pollution, no possibility of catastrophic accidents (such as Chernobyl ), not even noise. Regular readers of this column know that I have been pushing for fuel cells ever since I was invited to Los Angeles in 1995 for a briefing on fuel cells by the corporation that supplies NASA with fuel cells for its space-ships. There are hundreds of cars, trucks, buses and vans operating on fuel cells in the US, Canada, Japan and Europe as experimental prototypes. Some car manufacturers in the US , Japan and Germany have developed commercially available hybrids that combine internal combustion engines with fuel cells. There are also scores of stationary fuel cell generators in various countries that have been operating continuously for years. The technology is well developed. The biggest problem seems to be the cost. Electricity generated by fuels cells is said to be five to ten times more expensive than electricity generated using coal or bunker oil. But if Mr. Stern�s requested budget of $294 billion for combating global warming were raised, even only partially, fuel cells should - and no doubt would - be a priority project. Iceland , the only country so far to have set its sights officially on a hydrogen-based economy, may have taken the first step in avoiding Mr. Stern�s doomsday scenario. It is worth looking into, if you ask me. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to �Doomsday Scenarios�
Hi, Just on your point about fuel cells, where do you think the hydrogen for the cells is going to come from? In order to get hydrogen for use in a fuel cells, you need energy to reduce it from water and this energy would need to come from somewhere, where? fossil fuels? (No, from solar or wind energy. My preference is wind. ACA) Secondly, due to the second law of thermodynamics which states that no process can entirely convert heat energy into work, you would actually need MORE energy to make the hydrogen then you would get back from the fuel cells.......... (That is true if you consider the extraction of hydrogen from water, and the use of that hydrogen in fuel cells, as one continuous system. But if you treat the two as separate systems, which they are, then it becomes viable. True, the total cost of the energy thus produced would be even higher than the cost of energy derived from carbon-based fuels. But if you input the deleterious effects of carbon fuels on the environment, on people�s health, on the wars caused by the scramble for oil, etc, hydrogen would, I am sure, come out cheaper. ACA) . Hydrogen is not viable. Carbon sequestration of fossil fuel burn-off is the only way to go. (How do you sequester the carbon dioxide (and solid particulates) from the exhaust of 400 million motor vehicles, which will become 600 million motor vehicles by 2050? ACA) Daniel Miller, [email protected], Nov. 08, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, I read your article "Doomsday Scenarios" and wanted to make a comment in regards to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. "Fuel cells generate electricity by combining oxygen (from the air) and hydrogen (from water)" Yes that's true, but we need to use energy to get that Hydrogen from the water. As you know water is just Two Hydrogen atoms bonded to an Oxygen atom (H2O). If you want to use the Hydrogen atom, you have to break the bond. Bond breaking requires energy. I view the Hydrogen fuel cell as an important step forward, only if we are using renewable energy to supply the Hydrogen. E.g using photolysis to break the bonds or using an electric current from a wind turbine or a solar panel. Thank you for your time :) (Exactly. In my earlier articles on fuel cells, which can be accessed in www.tapatt.org, I proposed that wind turbines be used to extract hydrogen from water by electrolysis. ACA) John Said, [email protected], Australia , Nov. 09, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I read you article in the Manila Standard with much interest and was surprised to read that the media report that The Stern Review does not offer specific recommendations or solutions to going carbon neutral or mitigating carbon intensive practices. I am glad to see you regularly devote attention in your articles to sustainable energy solutions and to inform the reading public. The Stern Review actually does offer some very clear options and recommendations as to what both states and individuals can do (please see attachments of the summary of the report, quote below). The Philippines has been slow to join the carbon bandwagon but a few CDM projects have been registered so far, thankfully (see article blow on Ecosecurities and Phil Biosciences). It would be interested to know if President Arroyo has a nation policy with regard to energy independence and weaning the country away from carbon intensive sources of energy while moving towards renewable resources, such as geothermal technology to which the Philippine geography is particularly well-suited. In light of the carbon intensive nature of oil and gas consumption, as well as its current high price (which may be sustained in the long-term due to the limited resources of this commodity), the Philippines might do well to start investing in cleaner fuels and technologies such as biofuels (ethanol sourced from sugar cane, 94.5% of Brazilian cars are equipped to use this fuel). Other CDM initiatives involving the transfer of cleaner technologies to developing countries (such as the Ecosecurities investment mentioned below) offer sustainable options to cash-strapped economies that would still like to do their part in the mitigation of greenhouse gases. (President Arroyo has a policy of searching for alternative sources of energy, but her vision is limited to biofuels and biomass. She does not know anything about hydrogen fuel cells and Iceland. ACA) I hope more of these initiatives may come not only from the private sector but especially from the Philippine government. It is imperative that the national government provides strong leadership in this sector as well, involving a clear regulatory framework so that companies interested in transferring cleaner technologies may continue to come to the Philippines, but also and perhaps more importantly, that this issue may acquire broader exposure among the Philippine public. Hopefully this issue may also gain a foothold in the corporate boardrooms of Philippine companies and result in tangible efforts that involve different sectors of society. Thank you in advance for you time. Kind regards, Henry Mananquil-Bakker, [email protected], Nov. 09, 2006 Media & Events, European Climate Exchange Amsterdam, The Netherlands wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Many words wise and speculative but no - not any mention of the underlying reasons for many of current problems , i.e. over (and growing) population and over-consumption. A biological system is over-populated when there is depletion of resources, pollution, crowding out of other species and disease. I am puzzled as to why intelligent observers such as you may know this but focus on the effects such as global warming rather than fundamental causes which are population and consumption. Is it because we feel helpless to change this equation? Ed James, [email protected], Nov. 09, 2006 MY REPLY. No, it is due more to ignorance. Filipinos do not realize, for instance, that even if our population growth rate were to go down from the present 2.3% to only one percent, we would still have a population of 424 million by the year 2100, and 205 billion by the year 3000. I have written several articles on population, which may be accessed in the website www.tapatt.org. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir: Good article on the prospect of our global environment and its potential impact on our economy. Without detracting from the urgency of addressing the issue of global warming, you may also want to mention a few other opinions that considers Stern's projection a bit on the pessimistic end ('Stern Warning' The Economist 4 Nov 2006). Stern has relied on very new predictive models to project a much higher temperature rise consequent to an increase in CO2 levels. Controversy over interpretations of fossil data ('In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming', The New York Times, 8 Nov 2006 ) only proves that such models are far from definitive. All this of course does not take away from the central arguments and imperatives of the global warming issue: that it is happening at a rapid pace, at a period when our fossil fuel consumption is exploding, and that any action now to mitigate the trend is better than waiting for some future miracle to happen. While considering the alternatives (future and present), you mentioned biomass and biofuel as being out of the play owing to their being producers of CO2. This is only one side of the story. These technologies are in fact considered carbon neutral, as theoretically they can sequester carbon from the atmosphere as much as they release it. There are a number of other criticisms (mostly ecological and ethical) in the use of biomass for energy, but it is hard to envisage a portfolio of future energy sources that excludes it. For one, the ability to harness energy from the sun through photosynthesis is one of the most efficient energy transformational processes there is in nature. A number of venture-scientists-- among them Craig Venter, one of the principal actors in the sequencing of the human genome--are already diving into synthetic biology (artificial or reconstituted cells) for our next energy resource. It is not far fetched that in the near future, we will be getting our electricity or powering our cars from those gooey green ponds. Bernardo Vidal, [email protected], Nov. 10, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished) PEPOT TELL ABAYA THE STERN REPORT HAS BEEN ALREADY REPUDIATED, AND IS IN THE CATEGORY OF JUNK SCIENCE. STERN WENT MAD WHILE AT WORLD BANK. WOODY ELDRIDGE, [email protected], Nov 10, 2006 MY REPLY. Repudiated by whom? And why would the British Ministry of Finance commission a madman to write that Report? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Iceland , if projections will materialize, may escape global warming but it can't escape the global consequences of global warming. Perhaps they may open their doors to people from Navatos, Malabon and central Luzon . AL Jose Leonidas, [email protected], Nov 10, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, What can I say except BRAVO!!! to your article. By the way, the ADB also commissioned a Climate Change Study in the early 90s. It identified specific areas in Asia that will be submerged in so many decades. I read the Philippine Report and read the places that will be flooded by the rising tide. Fuel Cells are really the Future of Energy. Mercedes Benz started using them with their trucks/buses and even cars as early as late 2004 for its "A" Models. The MB buses made or to be made in China will also use Fuel Cells. Even the futuristic Concept Car of Toyota is to run on Fuel Cells. Rick Ramos, [email protected], Nov. 10, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, As usual ,I enjoyed reading your latest (Doomsday Scenarios), but I feel that I must comment. You quote Sir Nicholas Stern at length and reiterate the comments from the 'British newspaper The Observer'. But Tony, you know that you should never take what you read in 'the papers' as gospel. (I find that advice rather condescending. I have not been to Iraq and Afghanistan, but I am convinced there are on-going wars there from what I have read in �the papers.� Don�t you do the same? You should never say �never.� ACA) Now it is POSSIBLE that the predictions will one day come to pass, but how PROBABLE ( I use the word probable as in statistical probability) is it that either of the two outcomes mentioned by Stern [ a) if we carry on as at present or b) if we start to spend one percent of global GDP on 'the problem' ] will happen. I ask you this: -When did you last hear of any predictions made by an economist (even a former chief economist of the World Bank) being anywhere near accurate for more than a month or two in advance, let alone 100 years!! (I do not know if he made any predictions, but the recently departed Milton Friedman was listened to with rapt attention by Ronald Reagan and your Margaret Thatcher. He must have been right sometimes. ACA) -Economists are good at explaining why something has happened on the basis of analysis of past statistics, but once they start to extrapolate from those statistics, their results tend to go haywire (it is not their fault, just a mathematical truth) . -in the case of Stern the water has been further 'muddied' by the fact that the global warming figures he has used are themselves the predictions of other people who have used 'extrapolation'. And into the bargain not the predictions of all people who have carried out the exercise, but only a consensus of some of them. -More cynically, I could point out that Sir Nicholas Stern was commissioned by the British treasury department who are only too eager to find forms of taxation that they can propose on the basis that ' it is only for your own good' !!! Also, if I may touch on another point which I raised with you when you published articles Hydrogen Economy [ Dec. 26, 2004 ], but which you appeared to dismiss. -'Hydrogen Economy' is not an alternative energy source, it is a method of utilizing energy temporarily stored within hydrogen molecules, which (especially in the case of mobile applications like vehicles and aircraft) has the advantage of only discharging water without any 'greenhouse gasses' into the surrounding environment. (By the same logic, carbon-based fuels are not a source of energy either. We are merely releasing the energy temporarily stored in the hydrocarbon molecules. ACA) But the energy 'stored' in the hydrogen molecules has to come from somewhere. So if the energy for the 'energised hydrogen' is obtained from a 'dirty' source, it does not solve the problem. (That is true if the hydrogen is sourced from natural gas or methane, which are carbon-compounds. But if the hydrogen is sourced from water, through electrolysis, then it is not �dirty.� ACA) I quote "In a hydrogen economy, once sufficient renewable energy (a separate problem which a hydrogen economy per se does not address or solve) like wind, wave and nuclear etc hydrogen fuel could be manufactured using these renewable energy sources, replacing gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel for transportation. Alternatively if carbon-containing energy sources (methane and fossil fuels) were still used in the manufacture of the hydrogen, there would need to be some form of 'carbon capture' process if no greenhouse gasses were to be released (another separate problem which a hydrogen economy per se does not address or solve)" Using water as the source of hydrogen is a 'red herring' as the water needs to be electrolyzed (by an electric current) to generate the hydrogen and the energy for this still needs to come from somewhere. (Electrolysis of water can be done using electricity generated by wind turbines. I realize that this would raise the total cost of the electricity from fuel cells even higher than they are at present. But if you input the harm done by carbon-based fuels, and the cost of mitigating that harm, the net difference may not be as significant. ACA.) John Adams, [email protected], United Kingdom , Nov. 11, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony: If you haven't read Michael Crichton's 2004 Novel, State of Fear, you may find it interesting. As a story, it's a good read, and the footnotes and bibliography are most interesting. All the best. John Follansbee, [email protected], Florida, Nov. 11, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Global warming is a reality. Unless we do something proactive about it now, the world will be in big trouble. There are two existing holes in the ozone layer - in Antarctica and in Australia . The one in Antarctica was recently reported to have grown to 500 square miles in size. There was an earlier report that it shrank after a conscious effort to ban the use of aerosols and chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs, and curtail the burning of fossil fuels, but the recent forest fires in California and Indonesia are expected to result in damaging effects on the ozone layer. The only remaining solution to this environmental dilemma is to promote alternative sources of energy, and we have to do it fast if we want to save our planet. You're right about Iceland . It's a pollution-free country. That's because it derives its energy from their enormous geysers and thousands of hot springs . Iceland uses only three percent of its available power with a population of only 222,000. It's a democratic and independent country with hardly any crime. Sounds like an ideal place to live in, but can we survive with six months of sun and six months of darkness, limited TV viewing, no guns, and controlled liquor consumption? I guess this is not the lifestyle of the normal Filipino. Regards, Yett Montalvan, [email protected], Nov. 11, 2006 MY REPLY. But following the lead of Iceland in shifting to a hydrogen economy does not mean we will also have six months of sun and six months of darkness., limited TV viewing, no guns and controlled liquor consumption. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Awesome GM vehicle. This was sent from England, It is almost too good to be true. What a Future for the next generation in mobility. Go to this link and watch all 5 minutes of this video. It will astound you. Future GM car http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM Gene Gregorio, [email protected], Nov. 08, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony: Glad to see you are working on this vital, crucial topic for the future prosperity of the RP. My amateur read is that solar and wind are practical for electricity generation, but for car/truck/bus there is no short-term alternative to fossil fuels. And China�s and India�s needs are huge for the next several years. Hydrogen is simply too far off in the R&D cycle. As far as I can judge, the Brazil ethanol moves for cars/trucks/buses are unique to Brazil . Maybe some Makati Jaycee Senators have something to offer. [They are a talented bunch.] Your brother Ramon knows well the northern Mindanao situation, so you have an important asset in him. Please give him my warm regards. I'm sadly out of touch. [I also miss your sister's blueberry cheesecake!]. Woody Eldrige Wood, [email protected], Nov. 23, 2006 PS As this debate goes on, suggest you watch moves by Singapore . wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Just saw your doomsday article on global warming and eminent collapse of the fishing industry. Your columns have always been stimulating, with some hyperbole now and then to make a point well. Yes, science is advancing awareness of the grave threats to the global environment, with technology opening up greater possibilities for mobilizing solar energy bathing earth daily equivalent to the total power generated a year by ma-made plants. Yes, the race is on, driven by incessant rise in price of depleting crudes and fears of irreversible damages to our world to tap renewable energy, including the photons in sunlight. CEPALCO has taken the lead in installing the largest solar farm not only in the Philippines but in the developing world and should be congratulated for this initiative. The German government, through a policy mix of heavy tax on crude oil with mandated link of solar units to the electric grid system, has nudged forth the largest photovoltaic power farm system of over 20 MW. I visited the CEPALCO solar farm recently in the company of your engineers and was deeply impressed by their knowledge of the technology and functioning of the system. The solar plant is an outstanding achievement in mobilizing the finances and the technical team to get the task done without special incentive from Government. Congratulations. Ernest (Leung), [email protected], Nov. 27, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |