Green Science

Green Energy: Sustainable Electricity Supply with Low Environmental Impact by Eric Jeffs (CRC) defines the future of the world’s electricity supply system, exploring the key issues associated with global warming, and which energy systems are best suited to reducing it.

Electricity generation is a concentrated industry with a few sources of emissions, which can be controlled or legislated against. This book explains that a green sustainable electricity system is one whose construction, installation, and operation minimally affect the environment and produce power reliability at an affordable price. It addresses the question of how to build such an electricity supply system to meet the demands of a growing population without accelerating global warming or damaging the environment.

The green argument for conservation and renewable energies is a contradiction in terms. Although they produce no emissions, because renewable systems are composed of a large number of small units, a considerable amount of energy is required to produce, erect, and maintain them. This book is a response to that conundrum, answering key questions, such as:

How can renewables be exploited to contribute the greatest energy input?
Should coal be used for clean fuel and chemical production rather than for power generation?
How quickly can we start to build the Green Energy system?

The author has more than forty years of experience as an international journalist reporting on power-generating technologies and on energy policies around the world. Detailing the developmental history, and current state, of the global nuclear industry, he discusses the dire, immediate need for large quantities of clean, emission-free electric power, for both domestic and industrial uses. This book details how current technologies—particularly nuclear, combined cycle, and hydro—can be applied to satisfy safely the growing energy demands in the future.

Excerpt: Anyone reading this book within five years of its publication will almost certainly not live to see the year 2100. The youngest could by then be over 110 years old. But for however long they live the quality of life that they will experience will depend on decisions taken in the first twenty years of this century, and critical to that is having enough food to eat and a secure supply of energy.

The other issue is the reduction of biodiversity and the extinction of species through loss of habitat and of food. This is undoubtedly due to the rapid growth of the world population. More people mean a greater demand for water, for food and for energy which until now we have largely been able to provide, but for how much longer?

Not only that, but in 2009 the world is now gripped in a financial crisis which was triggered by widespread bank mismanagement in the United States and Europe, and the effects have spread throughout the global banking system. The one benefit may be that low interest rates will continue for several years, which would help the development of the electric power system

Climate change is not the extrapolation of a small increase in temperature which has grown relatively slowly in the last 150 years, but rather the result of events which enhance or destroy the local environment, such as deforestation or change of land use which increase the discharge of the greenhouse gases. Well known examples are the reduction of the surface areas of the Aral Sea, in Russia, Lake Chad, in North Africa and Lake Mead, in the United States, and the destruction of millions of hectares of rain forest in South America, Africa and Indonesia, and which can all be attributed to the demands of an increased population.

The issue at the start of the twenty-first century must be not whether it will be unbearably hot in 100 years time but that the world population, which has trebled in the last 60 years, will not have trebled in the next 60, which would bring it to more than 20 billion by the end of the century; and that there will still be enough food, water, and energy to sustain our standard of living.

What will be the factors shaping future demand for electricity and what economies in its use can be achieved? Conservation is already at work in the important areas of lighting and thermal insulation. Several countries are now marketing low energy fluorescent units to replace the traditional incandescent light bulbs, which are now being withdrawn from sale after more than a hundred years of regular use,

Energy technology is at a cross roads. The need for energy is essential to our way of life, and what matters now is that we must produce it without damaging the environment. Electricity is the one technology where we can make a significant improvement in our condition in a relatively short time, while at the same time catering for an increased energy demand from a larger population.

Per capita consumption of electricity has not significantly changed in the last thirty years but there are more people around. If the population continues to increase to 20 billion by the end of the century what would be the global demand for electricity?

If we take a median figure of 5000 kWh/year per capita, based on present European consumption, then 20 billion people would consume 100,000 Twh per year, which would have to be supplied by 12 000 GW of plant that must be available for 365 days a year. Looked at another way, that is 7500 examples of the EPR 1600 MW reactor or equivalent must be in operation by the end of the century.

Even if the average per capita consumption over the world is only 2000 kWh/year it would still mean 3000 EPR would have to be built or 32 per year brought into operation. Given that the present order book of eighteen units is unlikely to be in service much before 2020, we are already behind schedule. It would be an impossible task if it were all to be done with 5 MW offshore wind generators where 320 units would provide the same energy, assuming the wind was blowing continuously, as one of the nuclear plants.

Kyoto convinced European Governments of the arguments for renewable energy and conservation. But there is an underlying contradiction in terms. Conservation is an understandable concept: you use less energy to achieve the same end result. But to build our future energy system on renewables we require per megawatt of capacity, at least two-hundred times as much steel, and more than a hundred times as much cable for a grid connection. Is this really sustainable; is this what the Green argument is really all about, or is it just one gigantic confidence trick?

Nine years into the twenty-first century two big energy issues have emerged: the revival of nuclear power, and the cleaning up of coal. There is growing public support for nuclear energy which is not matched by that for coal. Globally coal accounts for nearly 40% of electricity generation. But against that is the requirement for clean combustion at a time when there are growing moves to curtail emissions of carbon dioxide.

The world has been through a period of political manipulation of energy supply, with the Green infiltration of political parties, notably in Germany, which stopped development of PBMR, the importance of which was that it was an intrinsically safe, small gas-cooled reactor which could work with a Thorium fuel cycle and be installed anywhere in the world as a clean emission-free source of energy. Green protest has effectively delayed this development by more than thirty years, since the prototype units in South Africa and China will not be in operation much before 2014.

Politicians hold the power to get things done; but the big problem is to build a low-carbon electricity supply system which can meet higher levels of electricity demand from an increasing population and with the same reliability as now.

The Green Movement's argument which says that more efficient use of energy, combined with improved insulation and supported by renewable energy is not practical. There is not the industrial capacity to achieve it, as shown by the low contribution it makes to existing electricity supply. These same people advocate the practice of CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) and not just for coal-fired power plants but everything burning fossil fuels. Does this include the central heating boilers in our homes?

It is easy to look at an established industrial practice and suggest that it could be applied to power plants. But CCS would have to be applied on a much larger scale; the technology for that is not proven. We don't know what it will cost to operate, and we don't know when it could be applied.

So this again is a non-starter. To use thousands of MWh of energy and millions of dollars building systems to add on to coal-fired plants so that they produce less energy from the same amount of fuel, but with only 10% of the emissions and a much higher cost per kwh for the power produced, is nonsense. If we are serious about reducing emissions, then we should not be burning coal to generate electricity at all.

The other issue is how do we move around the world? Batteries are not sufficiently developed to be an alternative propulsion system for cars. Even if this were possible and an electric car with a top speed of 150 km/h and a range of 500 km before it had to be recharged, were to be developed in the next twenty years, the power plants would have to be built to supply random charging energy to several billion vehicles.

Is an electric car which does not match the performance of present gasoline-engined cars an acceptable concept? If nothing else we have to build the power plants to charge the batteries as the market develops. If instead the power were to be generated on board, with a fuel cell, then the hydrogen fuel has to be generated by electrolysis of water, which would require more power plants to supply the energy to produce it

So the issue is not what sort of car we drive but rather that it will require electricity either to charge batteries or to produce and deliver the fuel. Electricity demand at the end of the century, regardless of the level of global population, will be substantially higher than it is now, because of the increased demand for transport. Even if we don't travel so much by car, but use high-speed trains to a far greater extent than at present, this will be a further increase in demand for electricity.

The alternative low carbon electricity supply is available with the present technology, which we have largely ignored in recent years. There is growing public acceptance of nuclear power which has been an emission-free source of electric power and heat for at least 60 years. License extensions, particularly in the United States, mean that nuclear plants brought into service after 1970 will not shut down until at least 2030. This will give more time for new plants to be built and the coal-fired capacity to be shut down.

The ideal low-carbon system would comprise nuclear power for base load, combined cycle for mid and peak load with hydro for peak and stand-by duty, and such other renewables as are available. Combined cycle already has much lower emissions than the best of the present coal-fired plants, and their flexibility of operation would mean that they need not operate for much more than 14 hours/day

This low carbon energy system can be also more economic in materials and energy use in construction because it is built up from a few large units of high output and not large numbers of small units of limited output and availability. In fact the less energy we put on certain renewables the more energy will be saved from the one-off processes of manufacture and construction of each generating plant. After all, a program to reduce energy consumption must also include greater energy economy of manufacture.

A further route of technology would be to recycle the millions of tons of plastic scrap from bags to bottles and convert it to diesel fuel. The paper industry uses more recycled paper than in the past although some virgin pulp from sustainable forests is still required for the best grades.

For low-carbon energy the technological challenges are to produce more efficient gas turbines and smaller gas-cooled nuclear reactors which will open up the industrial market particularly in operations such as coal gasification; any process in fact which must produce the required energy by burning some of the feedstock. As an electricity generator it can be applied to smaller networks and Island systems so that many more people can have access to emission free electricity supply.

Electricity supply is not the only combustion process to be cleaned up. Already some industrial emissions have been reduced as the result of deregulation and the market it created for combined heat and power. However, deregulation has not seen an increase in district heating. Some European networks were extended in the 1970's following the oil crisis of that time, but electricity supply is now focused on generation technologies to reduce emissions and improve efficiency.

The public supply of heat is unlike the other privatized energy services. The gas pipe entering the house and the electric power cable are simply the terminals of a public network to which several companies supply to others that deliver to individual consumers. District heating is a network in a small area tied to one particular power plant and consumers cannot change supplier as they can for electicity or gas.

However a wider application of district heating and cooling would concentrate emissions unless a nuclear heat source were to be used, when there would of course be no emissions. Thirty years ago district heating from nuclear power plants was being discussed in Sweden, Germany and Switzerland, but the only schemes ever built were a small one based on the Beznau nuclear station near Baden, Switzerland. A larger scheme, serving three towns in western Slovakia, and based on the Bohunice nuclear plant has been operating since 1997.

Houses of the future may be somewhat different. New houses will be built with double or triple glazing, cavity wall and roof insulation to reduce energy demand for space heating, and have low energy lighting units. But what will be the method of heating?

Will the default system still be a condensing gas boiler, or will the lower demand be met by a micro-CHP unit? Such a system would generate electricity which, when not required by the householder, would be sold to the public supply. Hot water for washing and space heating would be supplied by the heat recovery boiler.

Alternatively, with the development of lower cost photovoltaics, there is the potential to install small assemblies on the sun-facing roof of every new building. This could be written into building codes so that solar electric units would be installed as appropriate on all new houses.

Equally either photovoltaics or the micro-CHP system could be back-fitted on existing houses.

But before this can be done there must be proper legislation in place to define the rights of the householder and the conditions under which he can trade electricity. There is also the need for intelligent meters which can record power imported and exported. But it also requires an intelligent grid to be able to respond to thousands of consumers with just a few kWh to sell at random.

The intelligent grid is already being planned as part of the investment in refurbishment. Building new power stations on the sites of old plants is not confined to nuclear stations. Combined cycles built on the sites of old steam plants are numerous and take advantage of the existing grid connexions. In fact grid voltages have not increased since the 1970's when the existing 735, 500 and 400 kV systems were installed.

Look back fifty years, to a time when the first nuclear power stations were coming into service. Coal was losing one market after another: railways, ships, town gas, and domestic heating. Whatever was put in its place whether oil, natural gas, or electricity, was cleaner and easier to use and did not have the high level of gaseous emissions and of ash, associated with coal. It seemed that nuclear energy might even remove coal from power generation.

It didn't happen, because, the introduction of larger generating sets with higher steam conditions increased the efficiency of coal firing and gave it a competitive advantage. FGD and other measures in the 1980's added to the cost so that nuclear power even with the previous generation of reactors now had a competitive advantage which can only increase as environmental charges for carbon emission are piled on to fossil fuels.

Now with concern over climate change the simplest way to cut carbon emissions would be to remove coal from electricity generation altogether. Even with gas-fired combined cycle, there would be a significant reduction of emissions and in the short term this could bridge the gap between closure of a coal-fired plant and the completion of the nuclear plants to replace it.

Gas is the only fuel for which a practical CCS process has been developed and put into commercial operation. There are industrial combined heat and power schemes mainly in the Asian fertiliser industry where there is a commercial value for the recovered gas. This could be the only application of CCS other than possibly slip-stream applications on large steam plants near to oilfields: where there is a commercial market for the carbon dioxide tor enhanced oil recovery.

This is all that we can do to have an immediate effect because we still have to cope with the problems of oil as a fuel for transport. There are many professionals who depend on large diesel engines to drive trucks or tractors or fishing boats, so that the price of oil, which in 2008 shot up to over £140/bbl and has fallen back to to around $70/bbl, is in all countries a critical factor in the cost of food production and general transport which cannot be compromised.

Electric vehicles have been around a long time for local delivery work, and use rechargable batteries as the power source, which limits their range and speed with the regular starting and stopping. An electric car would not have the same pattern of operation and would be a somewhat lighter vehicle. Some hybrid vehicles have gasoline engines charging lithium-iron batteries for the electric drive motors. But a car which is not compatible in performance with current vehicles, particularly in its range, is unacceptable.

In California hydrogen filling stations are now available and can supply safely liquid hydrogen to power a fuel cell which drives the electric motors. Cars so equipped have a range of at least 500 km and acceleration to match a gasoline-engined vehicle. To extend this market will require power plants to produce the hydrogen and the combustion product from the cars will be water vapour. So that while, today it is marginally warmer in a city than in the surrounding countryside, in future it may be more humid as well as the hydrogen-powered vehicle population increases.

To produce the hydrogen will require energy and the logical method is by electrolysis of water. This can be done by a nuclear plant or the intermittent operation of wind farms could cause them to be detached from the grid and dedicated to hydrogen production. The hydrogen distribution system must be based on present filling stations, as is starting to happen in the United States.

Bio fuels have been with us a long time, particularly in Brazil, where ethanol made from bagasse dates from the first oil crisis of the 1970's. Biomass power plants burning wood chips and sawdust, or crop residues such as bagasse and rice husks are using waste plant material, and are generally built close to their source

But how much land, if any, can we give over to grow biomass for fuel production in the face of a growing global population. It's all very well to say that today only 3% of the world's arable land has been given over to bio fuels, but how much will be used by 2050 when there might be half as many more people on the earth as there are now.

The basic problem is that Green influence has been moving us in false directions and we are beginning to see where these are leading us. Coal may be the most abundant fossil fuel but it is the least efficient generator of electricity. It has done much environmental damage with acid rain and smog, and the effects on public health.

Yet to strip out carbon dioxide from the flue gases, using a process which is only now at the pilot-plant stage, creates more problems than it solves and to do that on every fossil-fired power plant and industrial boiler "to save the planet" is not practical.

A Green Electricity Supply System which does not damage the environment can be built on the existing technology. Whatever is the future demand for electricity it will surely include hydrogen production to supply a growing global vehicle population.

Nuclear construction is expected to pick up after 2010. Five years later, new, smaller, gas-cooled reactors will have the potential to extend application of nuclear energy to industrial processes, district heating, and hydrogen fuel production.

In two hundred years time will historians look back on this time as a period in which our political leaders had such a poor grasp of technology and some were so fearful of it that they were more concerned to placate public opinion rather than to lead it. We have had the technologies to create a low carbon energy system, for fifty years but lacked the will, or should one say the courage, to implement it.

Finland's government decided almost as soon as the ink was dry on the Kyoto agreement that the only way to meet their emission targets was to build another nuclear power plant. Why did none of the other Kyoto signatories follow suit? In fact, they have all gone down the renewables route and some look on nuclear as an option of last resort.

Yet if we look to the Far East and the ongoing nuclear energy programmes of the major powers there, it is evident their aim is to have a green energy system in the future, which is capable of meeting the projected electricity demand.

The rest of the world has to wake up to the fact that we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels any more than we have to. We should be working to set up the truly green energy system with the minimum emissions and the maximum efficiency. It must be able to meet the needs of society with an adequate reserve margin for security, and minimum impact on the environment. This is what a green energy system is really all about.

Caching the Carbon: The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage edited by James Meadowcroft, Oluf Langhelle (Edward Elgar) Over the past decade, carbon capture and storage (CCS) has come to the fore as a way to manage carbon dioxide emissions contributing to climate change. This book examines its introduction into the political scene, different interpretations of its significance as an emerging technology and the policy challenges facing government and international institutions with respect to its development, deployment and regulation.

The focus of the book is on the construction of arguments about CCS in the public sphere, the coalitions of actors who have articulated distinctive perspectives on CCS and the varied strategies governments have adopted to integrate it into climate and energy policies. The authors analyse the issues decision-makers now confront in encouraging the uptake of the technology, managing uncertainties and regulating attendant risks. The book includes case studies of the reception of CCS in seven OECD countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. Developments in the EU form the subject of an eighth case study. The authors point to the political significance of CCS as a mitigation option offering a way forward for fossil fuels in a carbon constrained world, while also emphasizing the uncertainties that surround its future development and deployment.

Students, scholars and researchers from a wide variety of fields who are interested in climate change, energy policy, and the politics and policy of the environment will find this book illuminating, as will officials and policy makers in international organizations and governments.

Excerpt: Over the past decade carbon capture and storage (CCS) has increasingly come to the fore as a possible option to manage carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that are contributing to human-induced climate change. This volume is concerned with the policy and politics of CSS in the advanced industrialized countries. It is focused on the way CCS has been brought into the political realm, with different interpretations of the significance of this emerging technology, and with the policy challenges faced by governments and international institutions with respect to its development, deployment and regulation. The book will consider the place that CCS is assigned in greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies and future energy trajectories, and the controversies that CCS has generated in the policy and political domains.

In conceptual terms CCS is straightforward. The idea is to avoid the harm caused by the release of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels (and certain other industrial processes) by trapping the emissions at source, and ensuring that they are locked away into the distant future. In practice, of course, things are more complicated. CCS requires the large-scale integration of technologies for the capture, transport and long-term storage of carbon dioxide. It entails significant costs, both in terms of capital investment and ongoing energy and resource inputs. Yet the precise level of these costs remains uncertain. Moreover, CCS is not without risks for the environment and human health. And a host of liability and regulatory issues must be addressed before large-scale deployment goes forward. As debate about the urgency of action to address climate change continues, questions concerning the appropriate place of CCS within the portfolio of GHG abatement strategies are coming to the fore. Public attitudes towards this emerging suite of technologies remain relatively unformed. Governments are varied in their enthusiasm and level of support for CCS. And while many experts in the climate change area see CCS as an essential element in the arsenal of mitigation tools, a number of vocal opponents are now criticizing CCS as no solution at all.

Such controversies related to the role of CCS in addressing climate change, and to the policies put in place to support and regulate CCS, are the focus of this volume, which includes chapters on the reception of CCS in a number of major industrialized states.

1 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

CCS involves three basic steps: capture of CO,, transport to a suitable disposal site, and long-term storage. With respect to capture, attention is primarily directed at major point source emitters, particularly fossil fuel-fired power stations, but also other large industrial facilities including those associated with the production of oil, gas, chemicals, steel and cement. About 60 per cent of global fossil fuel emissions come from such stationary sources, which each release more than 0.1 megatons of CO, per year (IPCC 2005, p. 22). Approaches to capture include post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxyfuel technologies. In the first case, CO, is separated from flue gases after the combustion of the primary fuel. In the second case, the primary fuel is transformed to produce hydrogen, and CO, is removed before combustion. In the third case, fuel is burned in an oxygen environment, resulting in a CO2-rich waste gas stream. Whichever approach is employed, the CO, is then dehydrated (the presence of water makes the gas highly corrosive) and compressed for transport.

All these processes have substantial energy requirements. According to the IPCC, in power generation 'capture and compression need roughly 10-40 per cent more energy than the equivalent plant without capture' (ibid., p. 22). They cite estimates of increased fuel consumption per kilowatt hour of electricity produced at a plant capturing 90 per cent of CO, emissions of 11-22 per cent for natural gas combined cycle plants, 14-25 per cent for coal-based integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems, and 24-40 per cent for new supercritical pulverized coal plants. These additional energy requirements mean that the CO, emissions avoided by a CCS-equipped plant (as compared to a similar conventional plant with the same power output), are less than the total CO, sent for storage. Of course, over time technological improvements in capture technologies may substantially decrease this energy penalty. Today capture technologies are in slightly different states of development. Post-combustion capture using liquid solvents and pre-combustion capture have both been employed in commercial systems (for the production of CO, and hydrogen). Oxyfuel combustion remains in the demonstration phase. None of these technologies has been applied at full scale in a commercial size fossil fuel power plant and integrated into a complete capture/transport/storage

system.

Transport of captured CO, can take place by pipeline or in an ocean tanker, much like liquefied natural gas. Transport imposes additional costs (construction and operating costs for pipelines or tankers), so it is advantageous to identify major sources in close proximity to storage sites. Technologies for the transport of CO, are mature.

Storage options for captured CO, include: geologic sequestration (in abandoned oil and gas wells, saline aquifers, or deep coal beds); ocean storage (either in the water column, or in liquid form on the deep ocean floor); or mineral carbonation (producing magnesium carbonate and calcium carbonate solids). Presently interest is focused principally on geologic storage. Ocean storage would involve injecting the CO, into the deep ocean (below 1,000 metres) where it would dissolve in seawater, or perhaps onto the very deep ocean floor where it would pool as a liquid. Much of the CO, that has been emitted since the Industrial Revolution has been taken up by the oceans through natural exchange with the atmosphere (500 GtCO2 out of 1,300 GtCO2), and CO, injected at depth could be expected to remain in the oceans for hundreds of years (ibid., p. 37). Nevertheless, concerns about the environmental implications of ocean acidification and the temporary nature of storage, legal issues related to ocean disposal, and indications of public unease with this approach, have seen interest in this option wane. Mineral carbonation would safely isolate stored CO, for geological time-scales, but the energy requirements and environmental disruption implied by movements of rock on the necessary scale (for mining and disposal) pose serious challenges, and it is currently being pursued in specific contexts — for example, where accessible geological storage sites are not available.

With respect to geological storage, there is already considerable experience injecting CO, underground for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and oil and gas fields constitute an attractive early application for CCS as continued fossil fuel extraction provides a significant revenue stream for storage operators. This is also potentially the case for injection into deep coal deposits, which permits the extraction of 'coal-bed methane', although there is more uncertainty about this technique. The largest storage potential, however, is provided by deep saline aquifers.

Once injected, a number of processes contribute to retaining the CO, in the underground formation, including 'physical trapping' (by impermeable cap rock that overlies the injection level, and by capillary forces in the pore space) and `geochemical trapping' (as the CO, dissolves in the underground water, and eventually reacts chemically with the rock to form solid carbonate minerals). Careful site selection, injection procedures, underground modelling, and monitoring, would ensure that the combination of these mechanisms would minimize any leakage into ground water or the atmosphere.

Potential environmental impacts of CCS can be conceptualized on three levels: (i) local issues related to the accidental release of CO,: (ii) global climate risks from large-scale releases of CO,; and (iii) other impacts linked to the deployment of the technology. These problems can in turn be related to the three stages of the CCS chain: capture, transport and storage. Local risks would impact workplaces and communities at sites of CCS activity. At low concentrations CO, can cause biological effects and at higher concentrations there is risk of asphyxia, so accidents at capture, transport or storage facilities could pose dangers to workers or local communities. Leakage could also cause local ecological disruption. Global climate risks would be posed by any large-scale (sudden, or slow long-term) release of CO, from storage sites. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is confident that leakage rates would be very small for well-selected and -operated storage venues, arguing that it is very likely that more than 99 per cent of stored CO, would remain isolated from the atmosphere for 100 years and likely that more than 99 per cent would be retained over 1,000 years. Other environmental impacts result primarily from the additional energy requirements of CCS, and from the construction and maintenance of large-scale infrastructure (capture facilities, pipelines and injection sites). The reduction in overall efficiency of a CCS-equipped power plant means that a larger installation is required to produce the same power output, and a greater throughput of materials (fuel, water and so on) is also necessary. Increased fuel for a coal-fired plant would imply more mining and bulk transport, generate additional solid waste, and require more materials for the control of air pollutants. Improvements in capture technology have the potential to reduce these effects.

When considering such risks it is important to remember that the reason for undertaking CCS is to contribute to the abatement of GHG emissions and the management of global climate change. And models suggest that the availability of CCS could substantially reduce the cost of meeting significant emission reductions over the course of this century.

The focus of this volume is the policy and politics of CCS. It includes case studies of the reception of CCS in seven OECD countries — Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. Developments in the European Union as a whole form the subject of an eighth case study. Although the climate abatement effort in large developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa will ultimately be critical, this study is concentrated on CCS in the developed world. According to the terms of the UNFCCC these countries have the responsibility to act first in mitigating climate change, and it is here that research and experience with CCS is currently most advanced.

In terms of the selection of individual countries, priority was given to those for which CCS was already emerging as a potentially critical mitigation pathway. Australia, Canada, Norway and the United States are major fossil fuel producers and exporters. Australia and the United States are heavily reliant on coal for electricity generation (79 and 49 per cent, respectively), and this is true also of certain regions of Canada. To this group were added three additional countries — Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Each of these has substantial remaining reserves of fossil fuels and is reasonably dependent on such fuels in the electricity sector (50, 35 and 55 per cent, respectively). They have also engaged substantively in the climate change policy arena, and shown considerable technological and policy interest in CCS. Thus the study does not include countries without significant domestic fossil fuel production, such as Sweden, France, or Portugal.

The EU forms the subject of an eighth case study because of its importance for policy developments in the three EU member states included in the volume (Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), the essential role this emergent political unit is now playing in international negotiations around climate change, and the potential to gain broader insights about CCS developments in Europe as a whole.

Each of these eight case studies discusses a series of basic issues concerning engagement with CCS within the specific jurisdiction, which provides a foundation for the subsequent comparative analysis. These include: structural characteristics of the national economy and energy system; the evolution of the policy stance on climate change; key actors involved in CCS; the current government policy framework around CCS; the link between national developments and international processes; factors which account for the particular national reception of CCS; important fault-lines among policy actors relating to the development of CCS; and emerging issues.

While these studies engage with common themes, contributors were encouraged to develop their own analysis about debates around CCS in each jurisdiction. Authors have written in more detail about issues that assumed particular importance in the specific context, and have engaged at greater length with themes about which they possessed greater knowledge. The result is chapters that not only provide parallel case studies, but also present a series of complementary discussions on various dimensions of the policy and politics of CCS. Moreover, as they go through the volume, readers will discover that individual authors have somewhat differing assessments of CCS, with some enthusiastic about its potential as a climate mitigation option, while others remain more sceptical. This plurality of perspectives was a great advantage to the research team that produced this volume, and it can provide readers with further insight into the complex and nuanced world of the politics and policy of CCS.

After the eight individual studies come two additional chapters. The first presents a synthesis of the specific studies and a comparative analysis of developments in the different jurisdictions. The intention is to highlight similarities and contrasts across the cases, and to present some general conclusions about the evolution of politics and policy around CCS within this selection of developed states. The final chapter is more reflective and forward looking, engaging with a series of themes that emerge from the earlier portions of the volume, and exploring their implications in some detail.

Creating Ecological Value: An Evolutionary Approach to Business Strategies and the Natural Environment by Frank Boons (Edward Elgar) Firms adopt a wide variety of ecological strategies, ranging from the development of innovative products with reduced environmental impact to lobbying against governmental attempts to set standards for the way in which firms deal with the natural environment. This book explores this variety and is the first to provide a coherent evolutionary approach to the ecological strategies of firms.

Drawing on insights from organization and management sciences and innovation studies, the author outlines an evolutionary framework enabling a deeper understanding of how firms shape ecological strategies and interact to create inertia or change at the level of systems of production and consumption. This framework is applied to the coffee and automobile production and consumption systems, yielding insight into the complex dynamics through which such systems evolve in dealing with ecological impact. The book advances theoretical insight into business strategies and the natural environment and illuminates the dynamics of production and consumption systems.

Scholars, students and practitioners from organization and management sciences, innovation studies and industrial ecology interested in the relationship between business and the natural environment will find this book invaluable.

Excerpt: As a result of these conditions a major issue for firms in developing their ecological strategy is this: what are the ecological impacts that should be considered? There is no easy answer to this question, which is part of the reason why ecological strategies, even among firms that use similar production processes, may display a large diversity.

Any problem definition combines facts about the world with values, based on which the factual situation is judged to be unwanted. Consider the issue of acid rain. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide gases occur in natural ecosystems in tightly balanced cycles. Emissions of the same substances from coal burning power plants, industrial processes and automobiles may disturb these balances which results in acid rain. This rain then leads to acidification of lakes and streams, resulting in the collapse of local ecosystems as well as a decline in the growth of certain types of forests. In order for the disturbance of these ecological balances to become a societal ecological issue, it first needs to be identified, which in the case of acid rain was done already in 1852. Then, some actor needs to perceive it as problematic, in terms of valuing the freshwater and forest ecosystems. that are negatively affected. This actor then needs to gain support for this problem definition to promote it beyond an individual nuisance. The first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 provided the platform for a number of Swedish scientists to define acid rain as a public problem.

Any problem definition implies someone or something to be responsible for it. Thus, problem definitions become contested when those who are made responsible by one definition seek to evade it by proposing another definition. As sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide occur naturally in ecosystems, several representatives of industry contested the need for them to take action, pointing to other sources such as volcano eruptions or forest fires as major causes of an increase in acid rain. Also, acid rain transcends judicial boundaries and often emissions in one region or country negatively affect ecosystems in other places This connects the ecological issue with the complexities of international governmental coordination.

So even though ecological problems have a physical basis they also include value elements. It never is a purely objective statement about the state of ecosystems; instead, it combines such factual information with value statements which highlights certain linkages between the facts as well as values that serve to argue why a specific state is seen as problematic. As a result, some problems rise on the public, political and corporate agenda, and problem definitions change over time.

Ecological problems are socially constructed in the sense that there are social processes which shape their definition as well as their importance in society at a given point in time. Part of these processes deal with the formulation of the problem. This involves the way in which the elements of the problem (facts, values) are brought together. Facts are often provided by scientists who find that some aspect of an ecosystem is changing. Even though we might wish that scientists can give us the 'true facts', the sometimes heated debates that surround specific issues show that this is often not possible. The controversy around Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist 2001 is a good illustration. This book, published by a respected scientific publisher, presents 'the real state of the world'. The main message is to assess what the author calls 'the litany': the, in his view, overly pessimistic message about global environmental degradation that finds its way into media and policy debates. In more than 500 pages, using many graphs and statistics, problems such as climate change, poverty and hunger, and air pollution are described. Almost without exception the conclusion is drawn that problems are becoming less severe. After its publication the book was welcomed by some, but at the same time heavily criticized by scientists and environmentalist groups. Much of the discussion centred on the way in which Lomborg presented data, allegedly constructing a picture that served the point he wished to make.

Another part of the process of problem construction is that through which a specific problem gets attention and rises on public, political and corporate agendas. To some extent this depends upon incidents that cannot be predicted. But actors that for various reasons attach importance to the problem try to place and keep it upon the agenda of societal decision makers, who are restricted in terms of the number of problems with which they can deal.

The social constructionist view on ecological problems has several implications regarding firms and their ecological impact. First, in developing their ecological strategies firms have to deal with ecological problems as they are defined within the society in which they operate. Their view may be different from that societal definition and this implies that they may try to influence societies' definition in the direction of their own perspective. Up until now I have not provided a definition of an ecological strategy. Based on the preceding argument I define such strategies as the way in which firms deal with their ecological impact. 'Dealing with' should be understood in two ways: it refers to efforts to reduce that ecological impact as well as efforts to affect the way such impacts are defined at a certain place and time by relevant others — competing firms, governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and public media.

The socially constructed nature of ecological problems is also the basis for another central concept in this book: definitions of ecological value. This term refers to the way in which a firm perceives its ecological impact and the solutions it sees for dealing with these impacts. As will be argued in Chapter 4, a definition of ecological value is part of the strategic perspective of a firm. It contains the cognitive and evaluative elements of the managerial frame of reference that relates to ecological problems. Definitions of ecological value become established, are maintained and are subject to change through the activities of the firm. The framework developed in this book thus distinguishes patterns of actions (ecological strategies) and frames of reference (definitions of ecological value). Over time these become engrained into the organizational routines of the firm.

While this combination of concepts will enable us to understand to some extent the way in which ecological strategies are formed and maintained, they only focus on the individual firm. As indicated by the socially constructed nature of definitions of value, as well as the general meaning of the concept of strategy (which deals with the positioning of a firm into its context), we need to include in the framework an approach to look at the context in which firms develop their ecological strategy.

SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE

Several approaches have been developed to help us understand the way in which the ecological strategies of firms are shaped. The most important ones will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Some of these focus on regulation as a primary shaping factor, as governmental laws and permitting systems define what is legally acceptable behaviour for a firm. Others look at the organizational competences of a firm and explain the ecological strategy as an outcome of the application of specific abilities such as lobbying or developing new products. Still others view the accepted practices within a sector of industry as a central explanatory factor. Each of these approaches helps us to see part of the picture. However, in my view a perspective is needed that allows us to address the interrelation between these, and other, factors. In other words, we need a systemic perspective if we want to increase our understanding of the ways in which ecological strategies of firms are shaped, as well as the way in which they combine to produce ecological impact at the societal level.

In this book I will look at firms as part of a production and consumption system (PCS)." Such a system consists of the economic actors (firms and consumers) involved in the production and consumption of a set of products and/or services and the material and energy flows they generate. The system encompasses the life cycle of a product from the extraction of necessary raw materials, the production of parts and assembled products, the use of the finished products, as well as the waste that results from it being discarded. In addition, NGOs and governmental agencies that try to influence the activities of these economic actors are part of the PCS. Any PCS links to natural ecosystems in numerous ways: at some locations the natural resources are extracted that provide the raw materials and energy; at other locations intermediate and end products are produced which result in various impacts on local and supralocal ecosystems; consumption of the product and the resulting waste again has impacts at still other locations. Also, the transportation of materials, intermediate products, end products and resulting waste imposes additional ecological impacts.

A first reason for looking at a PCS has to do with the interrelatedness of these impacts. If we limit our view to an individual firm possible spill-over effects to other parts of the economic system are left aside. An example of this interrelatedness is when a dairy company chooses to replace reusable glass bottles with milk cartons. Through the weight reduction the ecological impact of product transports is reduced while the ecological impact of materials used in packaging production is increased. Another example is the so-called rebound effect. This refers to the possibility that reducing, for instance, the amount of energy necessary to burn a light bulb has the effect that consumers choose to let it burn longer, thus offsetting the gain." In a systemic view it becomes visible how choices in one part of the system have consequences for the ecological impact in other parts of the system. Looking at larger socioeconomic systems allows the inclusion of such spill-over effects in the assessment of ecological impact.

A second reason for taking a systemic perspective is that substantial innovations may be necessary for reducing the ecological impact of human industrial activities. Such innovations are the result of networks in which knowledge institutes, governmental agencies and economic actors interact." Such networks may display systemic lock-in, which refers to the fact that many activities and products depend on other products and services, such as mobile phones which require an infrastructure before they can be used. Changing one part of such a system is difficult without changing the other parts and as a result systemic lock-in can frustrate change. Understanding the ecological strategies of firms requires that such systemic linkages are taken into account.

Finally, firms base their activities in part on specific sets of beliefs on the outside world. Such mindsets are not unique to individual firms. They are created and maintained across groups of firms, consumers and other organizations with whom they interact. Part of this mindset is their definition of ecological value. As will be shown in the chapters that follow such definitions are often shared by groups of firms and other actors within the PCS. An analysis of the evolution of these definitions thus requires an analysis of the way in which such collective mindsets develop and are maintained over time and the ways in which they can be challenged by alternative beliefs about the world. Within a PCS over time groups of actors collectively construct specific views on what are the ecological effects of production and consumption activities, and preferred ways of dealing with such effects. Shared definitions of value can emerge whenever a number of social actors interact and they can thus differ for social groups. Within a PCS firms and other organizations may interact mainly within geographical boundaries and create distinct definitions of ecological value. A systemic perspective allows us to analyse the way in which such groups come into existence and the way in which they interact to make one definition dominant or create new ones.

A consequence of this systemic perspective is that I will draw on several research fields such as innovation studies and organization and management studies, and within them, on several theoretical approaches.

Throughout the book I will make clear how these fit together in a theoretical framework which builds on the social contructionist view.

A GLIMPSE OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK

In the chapters that follow I present and apply a theoretical framework that builds on the social constructivist perspective introduced above. The framework aims to answer the following two questions: 'how do firms define the impact of their activities on the natural environment, and what leads them to develop certain activities to deal with this impact?' and 'in what way do the ecological strategies of individual firms interact to shape the dynamics at the level of production and consumption systems?'

A first step is to develop a more precise understanding of production and consumption systems in terms of a set of actors around a set of technologies. Even though the argument focuses to a great extent on the consequences of human action being shaped by sets of beliefs and values, technological change is a key issue when considering ecological strategies. Such change is generally deemed necessary in order to bring our activities within the bounds of metabolic consistency. In Chapter 3 I will make clear that technological change is not an exogenous force but instead interacts with the social structure and culture of the actors that develop and bring to the market new ideas. In other words, technological change evolves along technological trajectories which are in part socially constructed. The existence of such trajectories can also be used as a basis for a typology of strategic perspectives: some firms are satisfied with defending their position at one point on this trajectory; others aim to move along the trajectory; while still others formulate their strategies in terms of constituting trajectories that compete with existing ones.

In Chapters 4 to 8 three levels of analysis will be covered: the individual firm, the resource networks in which the firm engages to achieve its goals and the PCS in which the firm operates. Table 1.1 provides an overview of these levels.

Chapter 4 deals with the individual firm and contains a further elaboration of the typology of stable, dynamic and transformative strategic perspectives. These are made up of four elements, of which two have already been introduced: the definition of ecological value and the set of activities of a firm regarding their ecological impact, that is, their ecological strategy. The other two elements are the more general strategic orientation of a firm, and the organizational routines employed by a firm. These elements are shaped and maintained by internal dynamics of firms that will be explored as well.

Chapter 5 deals with the second level of analysis: the resource networks that consist of the direct linkages a firm establishes with other actors in order to obtain the resources it needs for achieving its aims. Four crucial resources are distinguished: materials and energy, knowledge, rules and societal demands. The chapter concludes with observations on how firms deal with the simultaneous acquisition of these resources.

In Chapter 6 and 7 I analyse two production and consumption systems more extensively. In Chapter 6 the coffee PCS is presented. This is also a global system but I will focus on the Dutch market and how it connects to producing countries. Over the past decades various types of sustainable, organic and ecological coffee have been introduced on the market. This case thus shows an interesting diversity in terms of definitions of ecological value and provides insight into the way in which such diversity emerges and what are it consequences.

Chapter 7 presents the automobile PCS. This systems is interesting as ecological strategies are increasingly having an impact on competitive positions. This case also shows the complexity of a PCS as a global industry where national markets remain important and several competing technologies/approaches to deal with ecological impact are currently under scrutiny.

The extended case studies from Chapter 6 and 7 provide the background against which the third analytical level can be addressed: that of the PCS. The case studies show that a PCS is made up of various organizational fields. In Chapter 8 I draw on evolutionary theory to uncover the mechanisms that operate within and between such fields to create, maintain and eliminate diversity in the ecological strategies of firms.

Chapter 9 serves to integrate the insights at the three levels of analysis and provides a summary of the theoretical framework including a list of propositions that can guide further empirical research. It also contains a discussion of theoretical and practical contributions.

Before diving into all of this, Chapter 2 takes a step back by looking at the way in which definitions of ecological value have evolved since the late nineteenth century. While this is a highly generalized account it provides a sketch of the historical background against which we can analyse current ecological strategies.

Do It Gorgeously: How to Make Less Toxic, Less Expensive, and More Beautiful Products by Sophie Uliano (Voice Hyperion) It's official: In these tough times, clueless is out--and crafty is in. For both financial and environmental reasons, life is all about doing well with what you have. But that doesn't mean you can't still be fabulous. Do It Gorgeously shows you how to make nearly everything you would otherwise purchase: From the kitchen to the nursery, from your medicine cabinet to your makeup drawer, you'll be astounded by how easy and inexpensive it is to make safe and eco-friendly products for your family. You deserve to have it all--and now you can do it yourself!

Excerpt:

Deep down we all are infinitely resourceful—our latent skills are waiting to be honed. You can do anything you put your mind to. Perhaps it's time to experiment and to discover what you may be really good at. If you've found yourself commenting over the past few years that you are either "terrible at baking" or "can't sew to save your life," the time has come to remove that scratched record from the turntable and replace it with a snazzy mental application that will have you believing anything is possible.

What about the cool factor? In your community, is it considered cool or creepy to make a lot of your own stuff? Where I live, the tide is slowly turning. Up until a few years ago, whenever I thought of sewing, I couldn't shake this image of a family that sat in the front pew of the church I went to when I was growing up. The mom was obviously glued to her sewing machine 24/7 and spent every moment of her existence whipping up the most dreadful matching creations for herself and her two daughters. The three of them would arrive looking like pink, fluffy cupcakes—the henpecked husband trailing behind. Recently, however, hip and trendy sewing classes are cropping up all over town. A secondhand Singer sewing machine from eBay is a badge of honor—especially when you can rewind the bobbin while carrying on a juicy conversation with a girlfriend.

Women are hardwired to multitask, but sadly, much of this god-given talent goes into juggling e-mails, IMs, texts, tweets, and phone calls. Do you ever feel burned out at the end of the day just from sitting at your computer? Do you find yourself comparing prices at the grocery store while listening to your girlfriend whine about her husband on your earpiece? Do you sometimes crave silence, and yet you're too afraid to turn the whole blinking, beeping, ringing mess off? If your answers are affirmative, it might be time to wean yourself off the tech addiction.

The problem is that one addiction needs to be replaced with another. I can't turn everything off and then expect to slide into a dreamy, serene state. My mind is still working overtime and I need to be "doing." To my joy, I have found that sitting down to sew a few buttons on my daughter's shirt or putting aside an afternoon to bake has undreamed-of rewards. I not only get to focus on a single thing—which is basically meditation—but my breathing becomes deeper, my shoulders ease away from my ears, and I get the intense satisfaction of having gotten something done, when the afternoon might well have been spent dithering around on Facebook or deleting acres of Spam e-mails.

My mission is to take DIY out of the pages of glossy magazines and the hardware store and make it a reality in my own life. I want to do it myself and do it gorgeously. I am ready to roll up my sleeves, get my hands dirty (feet still planted firmly in the Manolos), and be that force of nature that I saw in my grandmother. Being responsible and autonomous helps me tap into that wellspring of strength within. Through the pages of this book, I hope that I can help you become a "doer." I invite you to throw yourself in and try your hand at everything. If you're already a master baker, yippee—pass that skill on to your girlfriends; same thing if you're a wiz with a needle and thread. If, however, you are like the rest of us mere mortals, sharpen your tools—it's going to be a fun ride!

It's also exciting to realize that many of the products that you purchase and love, everything from soaps and bath oils to scrumptious cookies and artisan cheeses, started out being made in someone's kitchen. A little someone like you or me woke up with an idea, gave it a go, couldn't believe how beautifully it turned out, and started a business. Many of the companies I recommended in my two previous books started out exactly this way. Some of the projects in this book could plant a seed of an idea or inspire you to want to take your backyard efforts to the next level. As so many of us are now looking to work from home, in a job we love, a good starting point might well be some of the Do It Gorgeously projects—just a thought!

Since this book is all about putting the green back into your life and your wallet, I'm all about reusing, recycling, and reducing whenever I can. I invite you to start trawling thrift stores, garage sales, and flea markets for bits of old fabric, cushions, pillowcases, tablecloths, moth-eaten cashmere sweaters, and anything else that catches your eye. Keep a lookout for pretty prints and fabrics with interesting textures. One visit to my local thrift store had my car trunk loaded with a bounty of wonderful base materials for me to transform into purses, aprons, dog beds, even lingerie, and the whole lot only cost me 15 bucks.

You don't need to be able to sew for most of the projects. However, a few rudimentary sewing skills will come in handy. If you're a complete novice and you know anyone who can show you a few basic stitches (perhaps a teacher at your child's school, a grandparent, aunt, or neighbor), tell them you'll trade a jar of homemade jelly for a quickie lesson. What few sewing skills I have, I learned from my mother, which was like the blind leading the blind. But sewing is actually much easier than you think. I've put together all the projects in this book in a matter of minutes, not hours. I'm impatient and impulsive. Once I have a vision of what I want to make—a sassy summer skirt, for example—I haven't got the patience or skill to mess around with patterns and specialized stitches. What I'm trying to say is that if I can do it, so can you.

If you are up for a little investment, I cannot recommend a sewing machine strongly enough. If you are new to sewing, make sure the machine is simple so you don't set yourself up to fail. Perhaps someone has one that they'll lend you for a while. If not, I highly recommend the Brother CS-6000i machine. It's simple enough for a regular girl like me, yet has enough fancy stitches and attachments to satisfy an accomplished seamstress. You can whip it out of the box and start making the projects in this book right away. It might even whet your appetite to move on to more elaborate designs. Project Runway, here I come! The good news is that a machine like this costs less than a couple of pairs of designer jeans. I'm short, so every pair of pants I buy has to be hemmed. Even if I only use it for hemming, the machine will have paid for itself in less than two years.

You will also need basic sewing supplies such as needles, thread, and scissors—things you probably have on hand anyway.

You will need supplies for making your beauty products, and I provide all the resources so that you can easily order them. Keep in mind that ordering online is actually more eco-friendly than running around to dozens of health and craft stores. Better still to share an order/shipment with a friend.

Most of the other projects in this book, food recipes aside, will require you to reuse or recycle things you already have. A huge part of living a gorgeously green life is to take the clutter and put it to good use, so start looking around to see what you should keep rather than throw away—you never know when it might come in handy

Wordtrade.com
Science

Review Essays of Academic, Professional & Technical Books in the Humanities & Sciences

Green Science

Page Highlights

Wordtrade.com Science

Review Essays of Academic, Professional & Technical Books in the Humanities & Sciences

Green Science

Page Highlights

Wordtrade.com
Science