Amazon Holiday Deals

Showing posts with label Fossil fuel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fossil fuel. Show all posts

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

Posted: 08 June 2009 0926 hrs

Public transport commuters. Doing the environment a favour? Think again.

PARIS: You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint - the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.

These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.

Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city - even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups - rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.

"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.

"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."

The pair gives an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 per cent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 per cent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure - railways, airport terminals, roads and so on - nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.

In fact, they add 63 per cent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 per cent to those of a train.

And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.

A saloon (sedan) car or even a 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.

"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.

So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.

For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.

The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.

The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.

It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft.

- AFP/il

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

Posted: 08 June 2009 0926 hrs

Public transport commuters. Doing the environment a favour? Think again.

PARIS: You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint - the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.

These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.

Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city - even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups - rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.

"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.

"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."

The pair gives an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 per cent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 per cent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure - railways, airport terminals, roads and so on - nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.

In fact, they add 63 per cent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 per cent to those of a train.

And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.

A saloon (sedan) car or even a 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.

"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.

So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.

For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.

The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.

The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.

It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft.

- AFP/il

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Survey: Arctic may hold twice the oil previously found there

updated 1 hour, 39 minutes ago

Story Highlights

  • The Arctic could hold almost double the amount of oil previously found in the region
  • U.S. Geological Survey did the first-ever broad assessment of the region's reserves
  • Arctic may be home to 30 percent of the planet's undiscovered natural gas reserves
  • Conservationists say oil and gas extraction could have dire effects on the ecosystem

By Azadeh Ansari

CNN

A new survey finds the Arctic could hold almost double the amount of oil previously found in the region.

(CNN) -- Continental shelves beneath the retreating polar ice caps of the Arctic may hold almost double the amount of oil previously found in the region, scientists say.

In new findings, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic may be home to 30 percent of the planet's undiscovered natural gas reserves and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil.

A team of scientists at the USGS collaborated with international researchers to conduct the first-ever comprehensive assessment of undiscovered oil and gas reserves within the Arctic Circle.

"We tried to put some boundaries on the range of possibilities and resources available in the Arctic," said geologist Donald Gautier, lead author of the survey, which is published this week in the journal Science.

Using geological analysis and probability modeling, researchers mapped out sedimentary rock deposits to estimate the amount of undiscovered oil and gas beneath undersea continental shelves. This survey, the first of its kind, could help oil and gas companies locate new troves of fossil fuels.

Researchers say that deep ocean basins have relatively low petroleum potential, but the Arctic is one of the world's largest remaining areas where oil and gas are accessible. Most of the reserves are projected to be in less than 500 meters of water -- roughly a third of a mile deep.

Undiscovered oil in the Arctic may account for almost 4 percent of the world's remaining conventionally recoverable oil resources, USGS scientists say.

"It would not mean that there would be any kind of a significant shift in global oil balance," Gautier said. "But this is especially significant for the Arctic nations."

Nations whose borders lie within the Arctic Circle are Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States. Although it's closer to North America, Greenland is considered part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

If significant quantities of oil were found off the coast of northeast Greenland, for example, that could mean the difference between Greenland becoming independent from Denmark or not, Gautier said.

"Based on our study, there are 40 [billion] to 160 billion barrels of oil north of the Arctic Circle," said Gautier. The USGS had previously estimated the Arctic is home to 90 billion barrels of oil.

The Energy Information Administration, a division of the Department of Energy, estimates that the world currently uses 30 billion barrels of oil a year.

Offshore oil exploration in the Arctic is still in its infancy, but ExxonMobil and other oil companies already have staked their claim and started drilling in the Mackenzie Delta, the Barents Sea, the Sverdrup Basin, and offshore Alaska.

"It makes sense to diversify sources of oil and gas, given that the U.S. is one of the biggest consumers of oil and gas," said Alan Jeffers, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil.

"We support public policy efforts that provide greater access to these resources. We think that the energy is needed for the country's needs, and would help improve energy security and supplies," he added.

But conservationists say more oil and gas extraction could have dire effects on the Arctic's fragile ecosystems, especially since many of the resources are controlled by countries and exempt from international environmental laws.

Drilling for oil in some areas of the Arctic could cause toxins such as arsenic, mercury and lead to be released into ocean waters, said Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"We need uniform, mandatory standards governing offshore oil and gas activity in the Arctic because activity in one country has the potential to affect the environment of the Arctic far beyond the country of origin," Speer said.

The assessment also projects that the Arctic's vast natural gas reserves will strengthen Russia's status as the world's largest producer of natural gas, Gautier said.

The USGS survey does not address the economic risks or technological challenges of extracting the Arctic's oil and gas.

"As new data become apparent, our understanding of the resources in the Arctic can change," said Gautier.

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Survey: Arctic may hold twice the oil previously found there

updated 1 hour, 39 minutes ago

Story Highlights

  • The Arctic could hold almost double the amount of oil previously found in the region
  • U.S. Geological Survey did the first-ever broad assessment of the region's reserves
  • Arctic may be home to 30 percent of the planet's undiscovered natural gas reserves
  • Conservationists say oil and gas extraction could have dire effects on the ecosystem

By Azadeh Ansari

CNN

A new survey finds the Arctic could hold almost double the amount of oil previously found in the region.

(CNN) -- Continental shelves beneath the retreating polar ice caps of the Arctic may hold almost double the amount of oil previously found in the region, scientists say.

In new findings, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic may be home to 30 percent of the planet's undiscovered natural gas reserves and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil.

A team of scientists at the USGS collaborated with international researchers to conduct the first-ever comprehensive assessment of undiscovered oil and gas reserves within the Arctic Circle.

"We tried to put some boundaries on the range of possibilities and resources available in the Arctic," said geologist Donald Gautier, lead author of the survey, which is published this week in the journal Science.

Using geological analysis and probability modeling, researchers mapped out sedimentary rock deposits to estimate the amount of undiscovered oil and gas beneath undersea continental shelves. This survey, the first of its kind, could help oil and gas companies locate new troves of fossil fuels.

Researchers say that deep ocean basins have relatively low petroleum potential, but the Arctic is one of the world's largest remaining areas where oil and gas are accessible. Most of the reserves are projected to be in less than 500 meters of water -- roughly a third of a mile deep.

Undiscovered oil in the Arctic may account for almost 4 percent of the world's remaining conventionally recoverable oil resources, USGS scientists say.

"It would not mean that there would be any kind of a significant shift in global oil balance," Gautier said. "But this is especially significant for the Arctic nations."

Nations whose borders lie within the Arctic Circle are Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States. Although it's closer to North America, Greenland is considered part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

If significant quantities of oil were found off the coast of northeast Greenland, for example, that could mean the difference between Greenland becoming independent from Denmark or not, Gautier said.

"Based on our study, there are 40 [billion] to 160 billion barrels of oil north of the Arctic Circle," said Gautier. The USGS had previously estimated the Arctic is home to 90 billion barrels of oil.

The Energy Information Administration, a division of the Department of Energy, estimates that the world currently uses 30 billion barrels of oil a year.

Offshore oil exploration in the Arctic is still in its infancy, but ExxonMobil and other oil companies already have staked their claim and started drilling in the Mackenzie Delta, the Barents Sea, the Sverdrup Basin, and offshore Alaska.

"It makes sense to diversify sources of oil and gas, given that the U.S. is one of the biggest consumers of oil and gas," said Alan Jeffers, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil.

"We support public policy efforts that provide greater access to these resources. We think that the energy is needed for the country's needs, and would help improve energy security and supplies," he added.

But conservationists say more oil and gas extraction could have dire effects on the Arctic's fragile ecosystems, especially since many of the resources are controlled by countries and exempt from international environmental laws.

Drilling for oil in some areas of the Arctic could cause toxins such as arsenic, mercury and lead to be released into ocean waters, said Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"We need uniform, mandatory standards governing offshore oil and gas activity in the Arctic because activity in one country has the potential to affect the environment of the Arctic far beyond the country of origin," Speer said.

The assessment also projects that the Arctic's vast natural gas reserves will strengthen Russia's status as the world's largest producer of natural gas, Gautier said.

The USGS survey does not address the economic risks or technological challenges of extracting the Arctic's oil and gas.

"As new data become apparent, our understanding of the resources in the Arctic can change," said Gautier.

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]