Sunday 30 December 2012

Carbon Negative Fuel

You've heard of carbon neutral processes and power plants but here is something even better for you: carbon negative biofuel.

The concept is relatively simple; grow cyanobacteria (which take in CO2 via photosynthesis), the algae sludge is then skimmed and a useful oil is taken away which can be used for energy, and then with the sludgy residue which has locked in carbon; bury it. By this process carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere and hidden away, hence the carbon negative status.



It really is a marvellous biofuel and could potentially be a short term curb on some of the carbon emissions which are powering climate change and already has financial backing from big players such as google and BP. However it is a very costly and land intensive process; so far the only company utilising this technology is BFS in Spain.

It looks like geo-engineering is not out of the window yet and so will be the next topic discussed here; check back in the next couple of days!

Friday 28 December 2012

BGS Risk List (2)


I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas! The penultimate week of the countdown is here! Last time we had a look at the not-overly-thrilling antimony, but this week we’re onto the more exciting tungsten.


RANKING:
2

ELEMENT NAME AND SYMBOL:
Tungsten (W)

RELATIVE SUPPLY RISK INDEX:
9.5

WHY?:
It occurs only in chemical compounds and so has to be isolated from these during the production process

LEADING PRODUCER:
China

TOP RESERVE HOLDER:
China

WHY THE DEMAND?:
Tungsten may ring a bell to many of you, probably due to it’s use in light bulb filaments and x-ray machines. As it is an extremely hard and heavy element it is often used in heavy-duty drills and saws such as used in the oil and construction industries.




Sunday 23 December 2012

Himalayan Biodiversity in Danger?

A fact unknown to me until today is that the Himalayas hold not just the record for the tallest terrestrial mountain in the world, but also the highest density of dams.



Whilst dams obviously have many beneficial attributes to us humans (namely hydroelectricity (a renewable energy source), water supply and relative safety from floods), they can have a detrimental affect on ecosystems and the wildlife that live within them.

Vast areas have to be flooded with often no regard for the creatures who will be losing a habit.

NewScientist article from a couple of days ago highlights these issues. India receives one fifth of their energy from hydroelectricity yet they are in need of much more; que more dams, many of which have already been planned.



Pandit and Grumbine have assessed the extent to which 292 of the planned dams will affect the local biodiversity. By 2025 22 flowering plants and 7 vertebrate species are likely to have gone extinct, and many other species' biodiversity diminished. If construction continues these numbers could jump staggeringly by 2100: to 1505 and 274 species respectively!

As our global population continues to grow our need for energy is increasing too, even with 'green' energy in the form of renewables it is clear our planet will still pay the price.


Friday 21 December 2012

Fracking: The Big Debate


Fracking, the process of injecting water and chemicals at high pressures underground with the aim to fracture shale rocks, is a matter of intense debate. On the one hand our easy-access oil supplies are running low, and this fracturing allows previously inaccessible shale oil and natural gas to be exploited. On the other many people are fighting against the procedure due to its environmental impacts. These famously include the probability that   two earthquakes near Blackpool in 2011 were due to ground instability through fracking, leading to a temporary halt of UK fracking. 

The ban is now lifted (as of a week ago) and no doubt the fierce debate surrounding fracking will start up once again. To help you decide which side you support I will below  outline some the reasons for the opposing views, as described by Howarth and Engelder last year.


ANTI FRACKING

Howarth and Engelder, 2011. A summary diagram of the environmental impacts of fracking.
  • ·      New large scale fracking machines are far riskier than those used in the past.
  • ·      20 million litres of water is on average used for each well; 50-100x more than needed for conventional oil extraction. As water is becoming a scarcer resource this use for it may not be seen as justified.
  • ·      Sand or grit is added to the injected water as well as chemicals, including carcinogens and toxic substances. If these leak from the shale formation and enter groundwater used for drinking water then humans and wildlife may be at risk.
  • ·      Via a loophole in US legislation fracking has been exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, prompting cause to believe it is not an environmentally safe practise.
  • ·      The environmental risks of shale oil and gas extraction have only in the past two years made it into peer reviewed journals: there is much left to know.
  • ·      Methane is an extremely strong greenhouse gas and it is estimated that 3.6-7.9% of methane in a wells lifetime is leaked.
  • ·      One shale formation in Pennsylvania for example had methane pollution in 75% of lakes in the surrounding kilometre of land.
  • ·      Until more rigorous ways of handling the waste materials of fracking are developed it may be best left well alone.


PRO FRACKING

Howarth and Engelder, 2011. A world map highlighting countries with potentially vast shale oil and gas reserves. USA and China contain the most, but relative to it's size the UK could profit well from extraction of it's measures.
  • ·      By 2020 3 million barrels of shale oil could be recovered every day in the US alone.
  • ·      This could bridge the gap between conventional oil and nuclear power, which along with renewable energy will undoubtedly have to supply us in the future.
  • ·      Except for global warming risks associated with leakage of the natural gas (generally in the form of methane), all other environmental impacts can reportably be managed with care.
  • ·      In the event of methane leaking it thankfully has a short half life and so will not remain in the atmosphere for nearly as long as carbon dioxide.
  • ·      The fracking industry will provide employment and give a boost to the economy of the country holding it.
  • ·      The chemicals added to water to enhance oil recovery are often not harmful; one such chemical is similar to simethicone, an ingredient in antacids and many more are found regularly in household products.
  • ·      As technologies improve leaking of fluids underground should become minimal and hopefully cease.


And which side do I sit on? Honestly I find it hard to decide. We are soon to be in dire need of vast amounts of fuel when conventional oil and gas supplies run low. I do not believe we are ready to switch to renewables and nuclear power just yet, so fracking previously unreached oil and gas supplies is a logical step. However, from analysing the environmental impacts it seems we are neither ready to be fracking on a large scale. One thing is for sure though, we are running out of time and a conclusion must soon be reached.

NB: Some papers and site links may need an institutional log in

Wednesday 19 December 2012

BGS Risk List (3)


If our countdown were in the leagues of the Olympics we would now be onto our bronze position element. Narrowly missing out on a podium spot last week was bismuth, but coming in 3rd place is antimony!


RANKING:
3

ELEMENT NAME AND SYMBOL:
Antimony (Sb)

RELATIVE SUPPLY RISK INDEX:
9.0

WHY?:
As will be seen below antimony is emerging as a much needed element due to its application in microelectronics. China holds 85% of the world’s deposits and accounts for 90% of the production, which is a huge proportion! Coming in at second place South Africa accounts for just 2.2%.

LEADING PRODUCER:
China

TOP RESERVE HOLDER:

China

WHY THE DEMAND?:
Antimony has few uses but is very much in demand for them. 60% of resources go into the production of flame-retardants, which are commonly integrated into children’s clothes and toys as well as aircraft and car seat covers. The remaining 40% is taken up by lead alloys, which are used in lead-acid batteries; as a fining agent to take bubbles out of glass; and as a pigment. Recently its use is growing in semiconductors and microelectronics, an application likely to grow.

Sunday 16 December 2012

The Bushmeat Trade


Bushmeat hunting is the most widespread resource extraction in tropical rainforests, above  even deforestation. The definition of bushmeat is simply meat that is caught in the forest, and used to be reserved for local families and tribes. The prevalence of hunting and eating of bushmeat has risen greatly in the past decades though, due to a number of factors:

  • ·      Risen human populations result in scarcity of other protein sources
  • ·      Bushmeat is a status food and is often chosen over other meats
  • ·      Growing urban populations in previous largely rural countries want for a large supply of bushmeat
  • ·      Deforestation brings in roads and therefore easier and quicker access to the animals and greater transport potential.
  • ·      Advances in hunting technology, such as traps, night vision technology and guns.


In a report by John et al, from the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust in Jersey, biodiversity of bushmeat species were analysed in the Congo and Amazon basins. They found that bushmeat is eaten by 0.15 million people in South America, compared to a staggering 4.9 million people in tropical Africa. This is, not surprisingly, reflected in the species exploitation rates with the extraction to production ratio being 30x greater in the Congo than in the Amazon. This equates to 60% of the mammal taxa that are hunted for bushmeat in the Congo being unsustainable, whereas in South America all taxa were at sustainable levels in 2000 when the paper was written.

Primate bushmeat

It is hard to accurately estimate such things, and John et al highlight this, stating that their estimates are higher than previous papers written by their peers. However, it is clear that in Africa, the bushmeat trade is a huge problem for biodiversity.

One such animal family that is highly affected by the trade is primates. Jane Goodall rates it as the greatest threat to primates, and has worked extensively in Africa, particularly with chimpanzees and bonobos. She, rather shockingly, says that within the next 50 years all African apes (chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas) could be extinct purely from the bushmeat trade alone.

Chimpanzee and bonobo populations. As you can see their distribution has already been depleted into a number of fairly small pockets. This puts the populations at greater risk of dying out from hunting, disease or habitat loss.

This "delicacy" is not just served in Africa and South America, it can be found in parts of Europe and Canada but I implore you to please never try it and encourage the bushmeat trade. I have no problem with local, rural families sustainably eating bushmeat, but a worldwide market it for it will be appalling for the fauna of our tropical forests.

NB: John et al may need a institutional log-in for access