City-based Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) has come together with the European Union (EU) for a project to understand the variability of monsoon in India over the last three years.
"The tie-up began in 2008 and is part of the Indo-EU collaboration on fighting climate change in India that took shape in 2004. Scientists from both parties are trying to find out the reason behind the huge variation in the monsoon season as witnessed in the country between 2008 and 2010," said officials of the British High Commission here on Wednesday.
The Reading University in the United Kingdom (UK), the European Centre for medium-range forecasting, the Hadley Centre of UK Meteorological Office are part of the project which is being co-ordinated by the IITM.
IITM scientist K Krishna Kumar, who is coordinating the project in India, said, "We are trying to explore various matters related to monsoon. In the last few years, the country has been seeing drastic variations during this season. For example, we will try to understand why there was drought in India in 2009 and a fairly good monsoon this year."
Kumar also said, "The fluctuating monsoon season in India will be studied along with the global phenomenon and its impact on the Indian monsoon. We are trying to find out this link and EU experts will be helpful on this front. Weather is fluid and nothing happens in isolation. For instance, some weather phenomenon in one part of the world will invariably have a cascading effect on other parts. Though, the monsoon variations in our country are undoubtedly a local occurrence, but they do have a global connection."
The project is in its second phase, and two research students have been sent to UK to attain their doctorate in one of the climate change topics, the officials said, adding "Broadly, we are also undertaking various monsoon predictions projects, such as vegetation of India during the monsoon, predicting the monsoon about 15 to 20 days in advance, among other things."
Meanwhile, Kumar said UK has earlier also been involved in research pertaining to monsoon in India. "It is out of mutual interest that we strive to understand increase in the green-house effects on global warming and what will be its impact on monsoon."
courtsey...Times of India
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Green Supply Chain Management Requires Less Procrastination & More Innovation, Leading by Example
Admit it- we’ve all done it. Procrastinated. Waited until the brink of a bad outcome. Not taken the time to thoughtfully, proactively, pragmatically complete an assignment, implement a new ‘leading edge’ technology or launch a disruptively innovative initiative. Instead we react, overlook great ideas for something less, produce a less articulate response to an inquiry, or implement a semi thought out idea.
Even in the business world, whether in supply chain management or in adoption of the ‘triple bottom line’ in business strategy, there are leaders and there are laggards. Innovators and adopters. I was reminded of this when I ran across a research paper that was published in “Sustainability” Journal this past spring. The article, “Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: Procrastinating Integration in Mainstream Research” presents the results of a study conducted by several university researchers in The Netherlands. The researchers noted that “procrastination can be viewed as the result of several processes, determined not only by individual personality, but also by the following factors:
availability of information;
availability of opportunities and resources;
skills and abilities; and
dependence on cooperation with others.”
In addition, in a review of more than 100 additional studies on procrastination, the following additional items were found to likely to influence procrastination:
the nature of the task, and
the context of the issue.
It is these last two issues that the authors raised as primary reasons for procrastination, especially regarding embedding sustainability research and practices in supply chain operations and management. The authors found that “the nature of the task”, because it’s often complex and requires many internal and external stakeholders, and therefore tends to “generate conflicts”. Also, the roots of supply chain management and related research are generally grounded in operations management and operations/logistics. Therefore, the researchers noted that environmental and social aspects of supply chain management are foreign, “out of context” and not wholly integrated into supply chain management and research. I would also argue that dependence on others is a key issue as well given the widespread, outward facing challenges associated with supply chain coordination.
So what this means is that if a concept is foreign or unfamiliar or “out of context” it’s either set aside as being non-value added. Also because of some of the complexities often inherent in grasping and applying sustainability concepts, some just throw up their hands and say “I’ve no time for this”. This in turn can lead to procrastination in the real-world application of sustainability in supply chain management.
In a study conducted during the height of the recession (late 2009), GTM Research found that despite its growing prominence, “sustainability is not a core part of most companies’ strategies today or …a prime driver of their supply chain agendas.” The study found that sustainability lies in the middle of the pack of supply chain priorities today, behind cost cutting. The graphic presents a “leaders vs. laggards” scenario. The 23% difference between leaders and laggards related to sustainability initiative implementation is large and underscores the work that remains to advance the “value proposition” for sustainability in supply chain management.
Prior posts have described positive aspects of adopting whole systems-based, collaborative and transparent approaches to sustainable sourcing and manufacturing, and green logistics. Sustainable thinking in supply chain management also value chain practices supports environmental and social responsibility – so why aren’t more companies adopting these methods?
I know who many of the leaders are in implementing greener and more sustainable supply chain practices in their respective markets and I’ve written about them here – Walmart, HP, Dell, Patagonia, Nike, Intel, Cisco Systems, IBM, Herman Miller, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Campbell Soup, Timberland, Danisco, UPS, FedEx, Staples immediately come to mind. Laggards? Well you know who you are, but I am not pointing fingers.
While the future looks bright for a “greener” perspective in supply chain management, there still remains a stigma that a sustainable value chain is a costly one. In reality, there may be some up-front costs associated with some initiatives- very true. But companies must take a longer view and pencil out the ROI of supply chain sustainability best practices. And its possible by taking a leap and reaping the benefits. I’m confident that those organizations who wish to lead (and stop procrastinating!) will find a great many benefits including:
less resource intensive product designs,
better supply chain planning and network optimization,
better coordinated warehousing and distribution and
more advanced and innovative reverse logistics options.
Those who choose to lead will realize significant cost savings, improved efficiencies and a more secure and profitable future.
courtsey nytimes
Even in the business world, whether in supply chain management or in adoption of the ‘triple bottom line’ in business strategy, there are leaders and there are laggards. Innovators and adopters. I was reminded of this when I ran across a research paper that was published in “Sustainability” Journal this past spring. The article, “Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: Procrastinating Integration in Mainstream Research” presents the results of a study conducted by several university researchers in The Netherlands. The researchers noted that “procrastination can be viewed as the result of several processes, determined not only by individual personality, but also by the following factors:
availability of information;
availability of opportunities and resources;
skills and abilities; and
dependence on cooperation with others.”
In addition, in a review of more than 100 additional studies on procrastination, the following additional items were found to likely to influence procrastination:
the nature of the task, and
the context of the issue.
It is these last two issues that the authors raised as primary reasons for procrastination, especially regarding embedding sustainability research and practices in supply chain operations and management. The authors found that “the nature of the task”, because it’s often complex and requires many internal and external stakeholders, and therefore tends to “generate conflicts”. Also, the roots of supply chain management and related research are generally grounded in operations management and operations/logistics. Therefore, the researchers noted that environmental and social aspects of supply chain management are foreign, “out of context” and not wholly integrated into supply chain management and research. I would also argue that dependence on others is a key issue as well given the widespread, outward facing challenges associated with supply chain coordination.
So what this means is that if a concept is foreign or unfamiliar or “out of context” it’s either set aside as being non-value added. Also because of some of the complexities often inherent in grasping and applying sustainability concepts, some just throw up their hands and say “I’ve no time for this”. This in turn can lead to procrastination in the real-world application of sustainability in supply chain management.
In a study conducted during the height of the recession (late 2009), GTM Research found that despite its growing prominence, “sustainability is not a core part of most companies’ strategies today or …a prime driver of their supply chain agendas.” The study found that sustainability lies in the middle of the pack of supply chain priorities today, behind cost cutting. The graphic presents a “leaders vs. laggards” scenario. The 23% difference between leaders and laggards related to sustainability initiative implementation is large and underscores the work that remains to advance the “value proposition” for sustainability in supply chain management.
Prior posts have described positive aspects of adopting whole systems-based, collaborative and transparent approaches to sustainable sourcing and manufacturing, and green logistics. Sustainable thinking in supply chain management also value chain practices supports environmental and social responsibility – so why aren’t more companies adopting these methods?
I know who many of the leaders are in implementing greener and more sustainable supply chain practices in their respective markets and I’ve written about them here – Walmart, HP, Dell, Patagonia, Nike, Intel, Cisco Systems, IBM, Herman Miller, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Campbell Soup, Timberland, Danisco, UPS, FedEx, Staples immediately come to mind. Laggards? Well you know who you are, but I am not pointing fingers.
While the future looks bright for a “greener” perspective in supply chain management, there still remains a stigma that a sustainable value chain is a costly one. In reality, there may be some up-front costs associated with some initiatives- very true. But companies must take a longer view and pencil out the ROI of supply chain sustainability best practices. And its possible by taking a leap and reaping the benefits. I’m confident that those organizations who wish to lead (and stop procrastinating!) will find a great many benefits including:
less resource intensive product designs,
better supply chain planning and network optimization,
better coordinated warehousing and distribution and
more advanced and innovative reverse logistics options.
Those who choose to lead will realize significant cost savings, improved efficiencies and a more secure and profitable future.
courtsey nytimes
Solar Power Today - and Tomorrow
The 19th Century American industrialist Andrew Carnegie probably didn’t have solar power in mind when he advised aspiring tycoons to “concentrate your energies.” If he were alive today, however, he might have seen how apt the principle is to turning sunlight into electricity.
Fans of solar power sometimes boast that energy from the sun is “unlimited” when what they really mean is “vast.” Scientists have quantified the average amount of solar radiation (insolation) striking most inhabited land on Earth as ranging from approximately 150 to 300 watts per square meter.
For decades, most photovoltaic (PV) research has been directed at increasing the efficiency of the conversion process – to wring more electricity from that finite amount of light energy. Those efforts have had great success. From an efficiency of just 4 percent for the first cells made from crystalline silicone in the early 1950s, efficiency has increased to around 20 percent today – a five-fold jump.
Scientists Jerry Olson and Sarah Kurtz have taken a radically different approach. They began working in the 1980s on increasing not just efficiency but also on maximizing the total amount of light striking the cell. In other words: concentrating and maximizing the amount of energy that strikes the cells. Their pioneering work was recognized in 2006 when Olson and Kurtz were named Dan David Prize laureates (an international prize that carries a million dollar award). After making giant strides in research at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), concentrating photovoltaic power (CPV) has begun to move out of the lab and into production.
Rick Russell, head of engineering for the young CPV manufacturing firm Soliant, showed me how their SE-1000X unit works. The apparatus stood in a giant exhibition hall during the just-ended Solar Power Industry trade show in Los Angeles. Eight gleaming white rectangles (each measuring 14” x 28” and 16” deep) stood out in a room dominated by panels of dark silicon.
“These,” said Russell pointing to the Fresnel lenses that topped each box, “concentrate the sunlight like a magnifying glass does, onto the solar cell below.” The lenses can increase the amount of light focused on the cell by one thousand times. The solar cells themselves aren’t visible, but sit in box so small you could hold it in one hand.
“They may be small,” Russell explained, “but they’re extremely efficient.”
Known in the industry as “triple junction” cells, they’re made from extremely thin layers of Gallium Indium Phosphide and Gallium Indium Arsenide put onto a substrate of Germanium.
Each layer is sensitive to a different part of the spectrum, allowing the triple junction cells to produce even more electricity. These high-efficiency cells were developed for space applications, where small size and peak efficiency are more important than just the price. (Soliant was founded by a group of former NASA and JPL scientists.)
Combining high-efficiency cells with concentrating lenses began bringing the price down to earth (pardon the pun). But Russell pointed to a third engineering feature that is critically important to helping CPV approach grid parity – and achieve it in some locations. Solar tracking, NASA style.
Attaching solar panels to mechanized tracking devices that follow the sun throughout the day isn’t exactly new – although the practice has grown more popular in recent years. What is new, is the precision method adopted from the space agency.
Most tracking devices follow a “virtual sun,” using an algorithm based on known factors like latitude and longitude and time of year.
But that process doesn’t incorporate real world factors.
“Predicting the position of the sun is easy,” Russell explained. “What’s harder to predict -- in fact, what’s impossible to predict with a high degree of accuracy -- is the position of the sun relative to the position of the solar cell at a given moment.”
That’s because the panels are mounted on a roof that can sag and in locations where high winds can shift the panels themselves enough to affect electrical output. Soliant’s solution was to incorporate sensors that allow the array to tilt and turn in three dimensions so that any tracking errors are self-corrected – with a phenomenal accuracy of .1 of a degree.
The result is a commercial CPV rooftop system that can generate double the electrical output of a traditional solar array of the same cost.
There is one caveat, however. Brian Robinson alluded to it earlier in the week, in a panel discussion at SPI.
“CPV is perfectly positioned to grow,” he said, adding, “where the market will be.”
As the CEO of the California-based CPV company, Amonix, Robinson believes in his product 100 percent, but only in the right location.
“CPV is not the best choice for everywhere,” Robinson cautioned.
It only becomes competitive with other energy sources in areas with sufficiently high amounts of solar insolation, places like the Southwest and west Texas. “I wanted a technology strategy that could address the energy markets, not the subsidized solar markets,” Robinson emphasized.
CPV may be the first form of solar power to reach full grid parity on a large scale – without subsidies or incentives, or even a truly level playing field, i.e., one that includes environmental and health costs in its price. It won’t happen everywhere, but, then, why does solar have to be the best energy choice for the entire planet, right now?
As the technologies develop, and as our political will matures to the point that we’re able to deal rationally with climate change, solar power will likely spread.
CPV can flourish now in locations where it’s cost effective – a hint, perhaps, of things to come
Fans of solar power sometimes boast that energy from the sun is “unlimited” when what they really mean is “vast.” Scientists have quantified the average amount of solar radiation (insolation) striking most inhabited land on Earth as ranging from approximately 150 to 300 watts per square meter.
For decades, most photovoltaic (PV) research has been directed at increasing the efficiency of the conversion process – to wring more electricity from that finite amount of light energy. Those efforts have had great success. From an efficiency of just 4 percent for the first cells made from crystalline silicone in the early 1950s, efficiency has increased to around 20 percent today – a five-fold jump.
Scientists Jerry Olson and Sarah Kurtz have taken a radically different approach. They began working in the 1980s on increasing not just efficiency but also on maximizing the total amount of light striking the cell. In other words: concentrating and maximizing the amount of energy that strikes the cells. Their pioneering work was recognized in 2006 when Olson and Kurtz were named Dan David Prize laureates (an international prize that carries a million dollar award). After making giant strides in research at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), concentrating photovoltaic power (CPV) has begun to move out of the lab and into production.
Rick Russell, head of engineering for the young CPV manufacturing firm Soliant, showed me how their SE-1000X unit works. The apparatus stood in a giant exhibition hall during the just-ended Solar Power Industry trade show in Los Angeles. Eight gleaming white rectangles (each measuring 14” x 28” and 16” deep) stood out in a room dominated by panels of dark silicon.
“These,” said Russell pointing to the Fresnel lenses that topped each box, “concentrate the sunlight like a magnifying glass does, onto the solar cell below.” The lenses can increase the amount of light focused on the cell by one thousand times. The solar cells themselves aren’t visible, but sit in box so small you could hold it in one hand.
“They may be small,” Russell explained, “but they’re extremely efficient.”
Known in the industry as “triple junction” cells, they’re made from extremely thin layers of Gallium Indium Phosphide and Gallium Indium Arsenide put onto a substrate of Germanium.
Each layer is sensitive to a different part of the spectrum, allowing the triple junction cells to produce even more electricity. These high-efficiency cells were developed for space applications, where small size and peak efficiency are more important than just the price. (Soliant was founded by a group of former NASA and JPL scientists.)
Combining high-efficiency cells with concentrating lenses began bringing the price down to earth (pardon the pun). But Russell pointed to a third engineering feature that is critically important to helping CPV approach grid parity – and achieve it in some locations. Solar tracking, NASA style.
Attaching solar panels to mechanized tracking devices that follow the sun throughout the day isn’t exactly new – although the practice has grown more popular in recent years. What is new, is the precision method adopted from the space agency.
Most tracking devices follow a “virtual sun,” using an algorithm based on known factors like latitude and longitude and time of year.
But that process doesn’t incorporate real world factors.
“Predicting the position of the sun is easy,” Russell explained. “What’s harder to predict -- in fact, what’s impossible to predict with a high degree of accuracy -- is the position of the sun relative to the position of the solar cell at a given moment.”
That’s because the panels are mounted on a roof that can sag and in locations where high winds can shift the panels themselves enough to affect electrical output. Soliant’s solution was to incorporate sensors that allow the array to tilt and turn in three dimensions so that any tracking errors are self-corrected – with a phenomenal accuracy of .1 of a degree.
The result is a commercial CPV rooftop system that can generate double the electrical output of a traditional solar array of the same cost.
There is one caveat, however. Brian Robinson alluded to it earlier in the week, in a panel discussion at SPI.
“CPV is perfectly positioned to grow,” he said, adding, “where the market will be.”
As the CEO of the California-based CPV company, Amonix, Robinson believes in his product 100 percent, but only in the right location.
“CPV is not the best choice for everywhere,” Robinson cautioned.
It only becomes competitive with other energy sources in areas with sufficiently high amounts of solar insolation, places like the Southwest and west Texas. “I wanted a technology strategy that could address the energy markets, not the subsidized solar markets,” Robinson emphasized.
CPV may be the first form of solar power to reach full grid parity on a large scale – without subsidies or incentives, or even a truly level playing field, i.e., one that includes environmental and health costs in its price. It won’t happen everywhere, but, then, why does solar have to be the best energy choice for the entire planet, right now?
As the technologies develop, and as our political will matures to the point that we’re able to deal rationally with climate change, solar power will likely spread.
CPV can flourish now in locations where it’s cost effective – a hint, perhaps, of things to come
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Climate change affects India flower exports
Unseasonal weather is negatively impacting southern India's flower export industry.
Heavy snowfall in Tamil Nadu has caused many blooms to perish, according to indiatoday.com having a knock-on effect on its flower industry.
Being one of the top providers of jasmine, roses and other blooms, the area is now struggling to meet demand.
One grower noted that, of the flowers they do have, they are more likely to go to overseas buyers.
"Whatever be the price, foreign countries especially the Gulf nations are ready to pay the price we demand," commented a local flower seller in Madurai.
Recently, an Indian university revealed its intention to reduce floral waste in the country by turning discarded blooms into organic paints.
Jadhavpur University is currently testing the durability of its paints and hopes that the scheme will be able to reduce waste.
excerpts from iflorist
Heavy snowfall in Tamil Nadu has caused many blooms to perish, according to indiatoday.com having a knock-on effect on its flower industry.
Being one of the top providers of jasmine, roses and other blooms, the area is now struggling to meet demand.
One grower noted that, of the flowers they do have, they are more likely to go to overseas buyers.
"Whatever be the price, foreign countries especially the Gulf nations are ready to pay the price we demand," commented a local flower seller in Madurai.
Recently, an Indian university revealed its intention to reduce floral waste in the country by turning discarded blooms into organic paints.
Jadhavpur University is currently testing the durability of its paints and hopes that the scheme will be able to reduce waste.
excerpts from iflorist
Friday, October 15, 2010
Automakers, Retailers, Gas Stations Roll Plans for EV Charging Stations
As more electric vehicles are set to launch over the next several months, automakers, retailers and gas stations are putting plans in place to install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in strategic locations to help build out the fueling infrastructure.
For example, General Motors plans to install Envision Solar’s CleanCharge solar-powered EV charging stations integrated into EnvisionTrak tracking Solar Trees at a number of locations.
The Chevy Volt extended-range electric car is expected to be showrooms in November 2010 and will be rolled out initially in California, Michigan, Washington, D.C., Texas and New York, followed by New Jersey and Connecticut in mid-2011.
Gas stations also are gearing up for the EV roll-out. BP, a partner in the EV Project, for example, announced it will install ECOtality’s Blink EV DC Fast Chargers at 45 BP and ARCO locations. They will be available to the public as early as March 2011.
Locations will be selected based on population density and transportation corridors in each project region. BP is expected to install the DC Fast Chargers near major EV Project pilot markets, which include Phoenix (AZ), Tucson (AZ), San Diego (CA), Los Angeles (CA), Portland (OR), Eugene (OR), Salem (OR), Corvallis (OR), Seattle (WA), Nashville (TN), Knoxville (TN) and Chattanooga (TN).
ECOtality is the project manager for the EV Project, an initiative that plans to install approximately 15,000 charging stations in 16 cities and major metropolitan areas in six states, and will place 8,300 EVs on the road. The project is funded with a $114.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with matching funds from the private sector.
Retailers are also installing EV charging station as pilot programs to see how useful they are and if they can make any money by investing in the stations, reports CNET. As an example, twelve Best Buy stores plan to install Ecotality Blink EV charging stations by March at stores in Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle.
Public charging stations is an important consideration for making EVs more viable and to ease concerns over driving range, although it’s expect that more drivers will charge their vehicles at home, reports CNET.
Ninety five percent of consumers surveyed in Southern California say they would prefer to charge their EVs at home, according to a report from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
Best Buy also plans to sell electric transportation products at its stores, including bicycles, scooters, and a motorcycle, reports CNET.
Because Enterprise Rent-A-Car will offer electric vehicles to customers across eight different markets, starting in November 2010, charging stations will be installed at select locations, including several of the Enterprise “hybrid branches.”
For example, General Motors plans to install Envision Solar’s CleanCharge solar-powered EV charging stations integrated into EnvisionTrak tracking Solar Trees at a number of locations.
The Chevy Volt extended-range electric car is expected to be showrooms in November 2010 and will be rolled out initially in California, Michigan, Washington, D.C., Texas and New York, followed by New Jersey and Connecticut in mid-2011.
Gas stations also are gearing up for the EV roll-out. BP, a partner in the EV Project, for example, announced it will install ECOtality’s Blink EV DC Fast Chargers at 45 BP and ARCO locations. They will be available to the public as early as March 2011.
Locations will be selected based on population density and transportation corridors in each project region. BP is expected to install the DC Fast Chargers near major EV Project pilot markets, which include Phoenix (AZ), Tucson (AZ), San Diego (CA), Los Angeles (CA), Portland (OR), Eugene (OR), Salem (OR), Corvallis (OR), Seattle (WA), Nashville (TN), Knoxville (TN) and Chattanooga (TN).
ECOtality is the project manager for the EV Project, an initiative that plans to install approximately 15,000 charging stations in 16 cities and major metropolitan areas in six states, and will place 8,300 EVs on the road. The project is funded with a $114.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with matching funds from the private sector.
Retailers are also installing EV charging station as pilot programs to see how useful they are and if they can make any money by investing in the stations, reports CNET. As an example, twelve Best Buy stores plan to install Ecotality Blink EV charging stations by March at stores in Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle.
Public charging stations is an important consideration for making EVs more viable and to ease concerns over driving range, although it’s expect that more drivers will charge their vehicles at home, reports CNET.
Ninety five percent of consumers surveyed in Southern California say they would prefer to charge their EVs at home, according to a report from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
Best Buy also plans to sell electric transportation products at its stores, including bicycles, scooters, and a motorcycle, reports CNET.
Because Enterprise Rent-A-Car will offer electric vehicles to customers across eight different markets, starting in November 2010, charging stations will be installed at select locations, including several of the Enterprise “hybrid branches.”
Most Americans Get a Failing Grade in Climate Change Facts
While 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, many do not understand why, according to a Yale project study on climate change communication. The study finds that eight percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B grade, while 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F.
The study, “Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change” (PDF), also finds gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system, which has led some people to doubt global warming or that human activities are a major contributor, say researchers.
Researchers say this lack of knowledge can lead to uninformed decision making.
Here are some of the key findings:
–57 percent know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat
–50 percent of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities
–45 percent understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface
–25 percent have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification
The study also finds that most Americans understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.
Researchers also say despite the recent controversies over “climategate” and the 2007 IPCC report, Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.
They also recognize their own limited understanding of the issue. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more.
The study, “Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change” (PDF), also finds gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system, which has led some people to doubt global warming or that human activities are a major contributor, say researchers.
Researchers say this lack of knowledge can lead to uninformed decision making.
Here are some of the key findings:
–57 percent know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat
–50 percent of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities
–45 percent understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface
–25 percent have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification
The study also finds that most Americans understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.
Researchers also say despite the recent controversies over “climategate” and the 2007 IPCC report, Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.
They also recognize their own limited understanding of the issue. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more.
New MHI Ship Design Cuts Emissions 35%
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has designed a new large-sized, fuel-efficient container vessel that reduces carbon-dioxide emissions by 35 percent compared with conventional container carriers, reports IBN.
MHI attributes the reduction to the Mitsubishi Air Lubrication System (MALS), which reduces frictional resistance between the vessel hull and seawater using air bubbles at the vessel bottom, and an advanced ship hull design and propulsion system, including an electronically controlled diesel engine and waste heat recovery system.
The MALS-14000CS also is designed with a SOx scrubber to remove sulfur oxide (SOx) from flue gas and a ballast water treatment system.
The vessel, dubbed MALS-14000CS, will be able to carry 14,000 6-meter equivalent unit containers and travel through the Panama Canal after the waterway’s expansion is completed in 2014, reports Japan Times.
Takashi Unseki, acting general manager of the company’s ship and ocean engineering department, told IBN that with a 1 percent CO2 emission cut, the vessel will be capable of cutting fuel costs by up to $368,250 (30 million yen) annually.
MHI says it has installed the MALS on the “YAMATAI,” a module carrier operated by the NYK-Hinode Line, and is verifying its CO2 reduction efficiency, expecting about a 10 percent cut.
Other shipping companies like Maersk are moving ahead with plans to reduce their shipping speed as a way to reduce emissions.
These moves come at a time when the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is working to develop a plan to cut CO2 emissions. At the environment protection committee meeting in October, the IMO failed to agree on proposals to cut carbon emissions.
IMO plans to hold further talks in March 2011 to discuss a market-based mechanism for lowering emissions.
MHI attributes the reduction to the Mitsubishi Air Lubrication System (MALS), which reduces frictional resistance between the vessel hull and seawater using air bubbles at the vessel bottom, and an advanced ship hull design and propulsion system, including an electronically controlled diesel engine and waste heat recovery system.
The MALS-14000CS also is designed with a SOx scrubber to remove sulfur oxide (SOx) from flue gas and a ballast water treatment system.
The vessel, dubbed MALS-14000CS, will be able to carry 14,000 6-meter equivalent unit containers and travel through the Panama Canal after the waterway’s expansion is completed in 2014, reports Japan Times.
Takashi Unseki, acting general manager of the company’s ship and ocean engineering department, told IBN that with a 1 percent CO2 emission cut, the vessel will be capable of cutting fuel costs by up to $368,250 (30 million yen) annually.
MHI says it has installed the MALS on the “YAMATAI,” a module carrier operated by the NYK-Hinode Line, and is verifying its CO2 reduction efficiency, expecting about a 10 percent cut.
Other shipping companies like Maersk are moving ahead with plans to reduce their shipping speed as a way to reduce emissions.
These moves come at a time when the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is working to develop a plan to cut CO2 emissions. At the environment protection committee meeting in October, the IMO failed to agree on proposals to cut carbon emissions.
IMO plans to hold further talks in March 2011 to discuss a market-based mechanism for lowering emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)