15 February 2016, Science Daily, Four billion people affected by severe water scarcity. There are four billion people worldwide who are affected by severe water scarcity for at least one month a year. That is the conclusion of University of Twente Professor of Water Management, Arjen Hoekstra, after many years’ extensive research. This alarming figure is much higher than was previously thought. His ground-breaking research was published in Science Advances. Professor Hoekstra’s team is the first research group in the world to identify people’s water footprint from month to month and to compare it to the monthly availability of water. “Up to now, this type of research concentrated solely on the scarcity of water on an annual basis, and had only been carried out in the largest river basins,” says Hoekstra. He defines severe water scarcity as the depletion of water in a certain area. “Groundwater levels are falling, lakes are drying up, less water is flowing in rivers, and water supplies for industry and farmers are threatened. In this research, we established the maximum sustainable ‘water footprint’ for every location on earth, and then looked at actual water consumption. If the latter is much greater than what is sustainable, then there can be said to be severe water scarcity.” More than previously thought Until now, it had always been assumed in the scientific community that 2 to 3 billion people were affected by severe water scarcity. “Previous research looked at the availability of water on an annual basis, but that paints a more rosy and misleading picture, because water scarcity occurs during the dry period of the year,” explains Hoekstra. In his research, he describes for each place the number of months in a year that people are affected by severe water scarcity. That varies from zero to twelve months per year. Problem areas Of the four billion people referred to, a large proportion feel the effects of water scarcity directly. Particularly in Mexico, the western US, northern and southern Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East, India, China, and Australia, households, industries and farmers regularly experience water shortages. In other areas, water supplies are still fine but at risk in the long-term. Read More here
Yearly Archives: 2016
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia. The South Australian Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has conceded that nuclear power is not a viable alternative for Australia, but has urged authorities to consider it anyway – in what could have serious implications for the roll out of renewable energy across the country. The commission delivered the results of its “tentative” findings on Monday, indicating that it supports the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the state, the storing of spent nuclear fuel and the expansion of uranium mining. On the subject of nuclear generation, the commission admitted that it wasn’t viable in South Australia in the foreseeable future (2030) – even with a significant carbon price and a sharp reduction in the cost of capital. It conceded that Australia should only adopt “proven” new nuclear technologies such as “small modular reactors” and next generation “fast reactors” , but that these were some way off, and likely to be very costly. But commission chairman Kevin Scarce wants the nuclear generation dream to continue. He admitted that while there were real risks in nuclear generation – and there are “no guarantees on its safety” – he doesn’t “think the positive side of nuclear power is being presented.” Despite the findings of the commission on the high costs of nuclear, and its unsuitability to the South Australian market in particular, he wants nuclear energy to be part of the national consideration because of the challenges Australia faces in meeting its emissions abatement task. In effect, he and the nuclear proponents are betting that Australia will fall short in its climate targets; and given the record of the Coalition government on climate policy – including the repeal of the carbon price, the slashing of the renewable energy target, the attack on key institutions and slow progress on energy efficiency – that is a fair bet. Read more here
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, Tasmania energy prices to soar as supply crisis forces switch to diesel gen-sets. Energy consumers in Tasmania – already facing a trebling in wholesale electricity prices since the state lost its grid connection to the mainland, now face yet another trebling in prices as the government turns to highly expensive diesel gen-sets to protect its rapidly depleting hydro resources. The Tasmania government late Friday announced it would turn to diesel gen-sets to ensure the lights would not go out and was ordering at least 200MW of containerised diesel generators to be installed as hydro levels continue to fall and the repair to the Basslink cable to the mainland is further delayed. Tasmania enjoys among the cheapest costs of wholesale energy in the country when it relies only on hydro and wind energy. But prices doubled to around $90/MWh when it decided to import 40 per cent of its needs from Victoria in the face of the driest spring on record which forced hydro levels to fall to near record levels. That cost rose further to more than $110/MWh when the Basslink cable failed in December, and the government had to accelerate its plan to bring back its Tamar Gas power station into production. That has brought back 280MW of gas capacity into production, and Hydro Tasmania is now planning to add another 75MW of gas and up to 200MW of diesel power in “containerised diesel generation.” The cost of diesel generation is expected to be at least $300/MWh and may be more. As some diesel was switched on at the weekend, the average price of electricity jumped to more than $160/MWh on Friday and Saturday. This compares to prices of around $40/MWh last summer. The situation is highlighting the fact that wind energy and solar energy would have provided much cheaper power, and obviously much cleaner power, except the state authorities have passed up opportunities to accelerate the deployment of those technologies, despite having a large hydro resource to act as a battery. Read more here
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, BP’s energy outlook barely changed after Paris climate agreement to achieve net zero emissions this century. Yet the 2016 BP energy outlook, published this week, shows the oil company’s views on the shape and direction of energy demand over the next 20 years have barely shifted. Carbon Brief explores why BP’s outlook appears impervious to the world’s first universal, global commitment to cut emissions. Models are wrong Before looking at the findings of BP’s outlook, it’s worth remembering that it is a modelling exercise. While models can be useful, they’re always wrong, particularly when it comes to energy. Forecasts often say more about the assumptions of the modellers than anything else. The most rigorous projections explore a range of plausible assumptions. Aware of these limitations, BP’s outlook starts with a hefty disclaimer that’s worth quoting from: “Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events, and depend on circumstances, that will or may occur in the future. Actual outcomes may differ depending on a variety of factors.” Likely outlook Now that we’ve got the small print out of the way, let’s turn to the main findings of the outlook. The report’s focus is a “base case”. This is the “most likely” future scenario, according to BP. Has that future shifted as a result of the Paris climate agreement? Has its expectations shifted after 189 countries pledged to tackle their emissions? The charts below compare the path of energy and CO2 emissions growth between 2015 and 2035, according to BP’s energy outlooks from 2014, 2015 and 2016. The most striking feature is how little has changed. It is almost as if Paris never happened. Where there are differences, economic factors seem to be at work rather than the climate treaty. Read More here