What energy?

The Greenland ice sheet is 1.7 million sq km - a little smaller than Mexico
and three kilometres thick. If it melted completely sea levels would rise by seven metres

"Nuclear energy, if it is safely developed with safe reactors, is very ecological and it is absolutely necessary to protect the environment. Humanity is running into two major energy crises. The first is that we are going to run out of oil and our civilisation is in danger of collapsing in a few years from now."

"The second danger is an environmental danger. We are throwing out 25 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide [the main greenhouse gas] into the atmosphere and as an environmentalist I cannot accept that oil and gas remain the dominating energy source because we are going to destroy our environment."

"Of course, Greenpeace agrees fully with the fact that climate change is a real, serious problem and we have fought for years to tackle this, but we are not in favour of replacing the one serious environmental problem with the other and that is nuclear waste."

"Nuclear energy has this huge disadvantage which will be a major environmental problem for many generations after us, so we don't think this is the solution to climate change and there are much better solutions."

"The high-level radioactivity produced by France, which makes more than 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear energy, is the size of a football field and less than one metre high."

"The way this waste is managed is very very clean - it's not poured out into the environment, it is almost totally confined which is not the case for toxic industrial waste."

"I understand Bruno Comby is trying to minimise the waste. It stays radioactive and really dangerous for more than 100,000 years, which is a timescale that we humans cannot understand."

"We say if you want to start and improve the world you have to start with yourself, you can't just sit back and wait for others. So that's what we're doing and we're sure others will follow."

"I think you have seen a significant growth in the past three decades and that growth will be accelerated in the near future."

"The demand for fuel is rising rapidly all over the world - countries like China and India are going to ask for their fair share of the oil production, so that means demand is rising drastically and the EU has made directives in which it says we should concentrate on our own energy supply and our own fuels to be produced in our own countries. So I think biofuels can exist and grow and I think we should support it because the element of nature, the element of our environment, is at stake as well. Energy and environment are linked together and we should try to find a good solution which everyone can profit from."

"In Brazil, the production from sugar cane is economically viable with an oil price of around 40 dollars a barrel. In Europe, where production costs are somewhat higher, even 70 dollars a barrel [the current approximate level] is not sufficient."

"It depends on country to country. In Europe, the prices are higher because we have higher wages we have higher costs. We reckon with pure plant oil that we can compete with diesel when the oil price is between 80 and 90 dollars a barrel."

"In the meantime, we have received a tax incentive from the government which gives us a start ahead to explore the subject and we are quite successful because we have sold the whole production of our factory for the next three years."

Return to opening page	.
What Energy? No matter which way it is examined climate change is speeding up. Perhaps, it is impossible to reverse the change – but it should still be possible to hold our climate where it currently stands. Below are two articles – the first looking at the speed of the climate problem – the second considers the use of ‘nuclear’ or ‘biofuels’ as an energy alternative to fossil fuels. Greenland warming speeds rise in sea level From the Daily Telegraph 2006-02-17 Sea levels are rising quicker than previously thought because the amount of water Greenland's glaciers are dumping into the Atlantic Ocean has almost doubled in five years, according to research to be published today. Scientists who carried out the first comprehensive analysis of changing speeds of the glaciers on the world's largest island were shocked to discover that many have doubled in speed within the past decade. Warmer temperatures are "lubricating" the glaciers and have driven a 150 per cent increase in the amount of ice they are delivering to the ocean between 1996 and last year. The latitude at which this is happening is moving north. The researchers fear that as a result current estimates that sea levels will rise by up to 90cms during the 21st century could underestimate the problem. While there have been previous isolated reports of particular glaciers speeding up, the research presented yesterday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in St Louis is the first detailed study showing the effect is widespread across Greenland. Eric Rignot, of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, the leading author of the study, said: "Climate change can work in different ways, but generally speaking, if you warm up the ice sheet, the glacier will flow faster. "The southern half of Greenland is reacting to what we think is climate warming. The northern half is waiting but I don't think it is going to take long. If more glaciers accelerate farther north, especially along the west coast, the mass loss from Greenland will continue to increase well above predictions." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that global sea levels will increase by 10-90cms over the next century. Last century they rose by 10-20cm. Previously models of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet have been based mainly on airborne laser altimetry and have suggested that while the interior is reasonably stable, the periphery was thinning, especially in areas where glaciers meet the sea. Dr Rignot and colleagues set out to obtain accurate measurements to help to build a clearer picture of Greenland's current and future contribution to rising sea levels. They collected satellite data on the speeds of 27 glaciers and made estimates for two others. The velocities of several large glaciers had doubled in recent years to 12km per year, making them among the fastest flowing in the world. The scientists found that warmer air temperatures have increased the overall shrinkage of the Greenland ice sheet from 91 cubic km per year in 1996 to 138 cubic km per year in 2000 and to 224 cubic km per year in 2005. About two-thirds of this was caused by the dumping of ice in the Atlantic by glaciers and so the ice loss attributable to glacier flow grew by 150 per cent from 60 cubic km a decade ago to 150 cubic km last year. On this basis Dr Rignot, whose work is published in Science, concluded that Greenland's contribution to rising global sea levels increased from around 0.23mm per year in 1996 to around 0.57mm per year in 2005. top The Greenland ice sheet is 1.7 million sq km - a little smaller than Mexico and three kilometres thick. If it melted completely sea levels would rise by seven metres Beyond oil and gas February 2006 by Andy Clark "Humanity is running into two major energy crises, the first is that we are going to run out of oil and our civilisation is in danger of collapsing in a few years from now." "The second danger is an environmental danger. We are throwing out 25 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide [the main greenhouse gas] into the atmosphere and as an environmentalist I cannot accept that oil and gas remain the dominant energy source because we are going to destroy our environment," Bruno Comby. This week in the forum a two part special on energy. In the first half of the programme we focus on nuclear power, which is undergoing somewhat of a revival, and in the second part of the show the focus is on biofuels. Nuclear power: Is nuclear energy about to make resurgence as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels? The issue was on the agenda again this week in the Netherlands when a junior minister said more nuclear plants might have to be built if the Dutch wanted to hit targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A few days later he was backtracking like mad and the government said it wouldn't be building any more nuclear power plants anytime soon. But nuclear fuel is being considered elsewhere in the world as a 'green' alternative. Underlying this thinking is the idea that nuclear power may prove essential as governments seek to cut back their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions and as such won't contribute to global warming - but of course there are downsides. The risk of a devastating accident is ever present and then there's the nuclear waste. Should nuclear energy be given a boost? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? In this edition of Amsterdam Forum host Andy Clark is joined by Bruno Comby, the president of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, and Rianne Teule, a campaigner on nuclear energy from Greenpeace Netherlands. Key quotes: Bruno Comby on the need for nuclear power: "Nuclear energy, if it is safely developed with safe reactors, is very ecological and it is absolutely necessary to protect the environment. Humanity is running into two major energy crises. The first is that we are going to run out of oil and our civilisation is in danger of collapsing in a few years from now." "The second danger is an environmental danger. We are throwing out 25 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide [the main greenhouse gas] into the atmosphere and as an environmentalist I cannot accept that oil and gas remain the dominating energy source because we are going to destroy our environment." Rianne Teule on why she thinks it's a bad idea: "Of course, Greenpeace agrees fully with the fact that climate change is a real, serious problem and we have fought for years to tackle this, but we are not in favour of replacing the one serious environmental problem with the other and that is nuclear waste." "Nuclear energy has this huge disadvantage which will be a major environmental problem for many generations after us, so we don't think this is the solution to climate change and there are much better solutions." Bruno Comby on France and waste: "The high-level radioactivity produced by France, which makes more than 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear energy, is the size of a football field and less than one metre high." "The way this waste is managed is very very clean - it's not poured out into the environment, it is almost totally confined which is not the case for toxic industrial waste." Rianne Teule on nuclear waste: "I understand Bruno Comby is trying to minimise the waste. It stays radioactive and really dangerous for more than 100,000 years, which is a timescale that we humans cannot understand." Biofuels: "We say if you want to start and improve the world you have to start with yourself, you can't just sit back and wait for others. So that's what we're doing and we're sure others will follow." Hein Aberson. • Demand for oil is increasing and new supplies are proving ever more elusive - it's a powerful combination. • And with current oil prices at around 60 dollars a barrel, minds are certainly being concentrated in the search for alternatives to oil. • As the name suggests biofuels provide an alternative to oil by providing fuel from plants. • Backers hail the green credentials of such fuels, saying they can help in the fight against global warming, make countries more energy self efficient and even help tackle poverty. • There are two major types of biofuel, ethanol, also known as ethyl or grain alcohol, and biodiesel. • Ethanol can be distilled from sugar cane, and corn and rapeseed are two of the main sources for the oil which goes on to become the biodiesel. • It may all sound like some wild hippy experiment, but this a serious business and these fuels already account for one percent of world supply. • The EU wants supply from biofuels to rise to over five percent in the next five years. • But can these fuels make an even bigger push and come to challenge the dominance of oil? Hein Aberson from the Dutch biofuel company Solar Oil Systems and Dolf Gielen from the International Energy Agency for the programme joined forum host Andy Clark. Key quotes: Dolf Gielen on whether or not the biofuel age has begun: "I think you have seen a significant growth in the past three decades and that growth will be accelerated in the near future." Hein Aberson on the biofuel age: "The demand for fuel is rising rapidly all over the world - countries like China and India are going to ask for their fair share of the oil production, so that means demand is rising drastically and the EU has made directives in which it says we should concentrate on our own energy supply and our own fuels to be produced in our own countries. So I think biofuels can exist and grow and I think we should support it because the element of nature, the element of our environment, is at stake as well. Energy and environment are linked together and we should try to find a good solution which everyone can profit from." Dolf Gielen on economic viability of biofuels: "In Brazil, the production from sugar cane is economically viable with an oil price of around 40 dollars a barrel. In Europe, where production costs are somewhat higher, even 70 dollars a barrel [the current approximate level] is not sufficient." Hein Aberson on economic viability: "It depends on country to country. In Europe, the prices are higher because we have higher wages we have higher costs. We reckon with pure plant oil that we can compete with diesel when the oil price is between 80 and 90 dollars a barrel." "In the meantime, we have received a tax incentive from the government which gives us a start ahead to explore the subject and we are quite successful because we have sold the whole production of our factory for the next three years."
meditations	top

What Energy?