According to the UN projects our grandchildren will have 9.6 billion playmates to contend with in the year 2050 Quite a change when compared to the 2.5 billion our grandparents had to make do with in the 1950s. Humanity has grown in leaps and bounds over the last two centuries and nothing underlines it more clearly than looking at the population growth over the centuries. The great success of our species At the cusp of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, humanity's ability to multiply was at the end of its rope. After nearly six thousand years of written history, we had developed the skills, technology and social structure to sustain nearly 1 billion individuals! Most of the increase in population can be accredited to the slow accumulation of available workforce, better tools and more advanced farming methods. The more pronounced leaps, around 16th century for example, are thanks to the spread of new food sources to new areas, most notably the humble potato from South America to Europe and beyond. Bleak lives of the individual
The Reverend Thomas Malthus was one of the first to explain the fact that the farmers of the 18th century England and 400 BCE Athens had the same income; precisely because of humanity’s relentless drive to breed. Every productivity increasing invention, new arable locations or new food source was literally eaten away by the ever increasing population; the advances simply weren’t large enough to have time to translate into increased prosperity for the existing individuals. The great irony of Thomas Malthus’s life was to be that, while his theory explained the previous 58 centuries of human history, the following two seemed to prove him wrong. He didn’t see productivity outstripping population growth. The Great Escape As the last two hundred years have shown, the Malthusian Trap is avoidable. With the drastically increased production capacity brought on by the use of fossil fuels, we finally managed to escape the cycle. The Industrial Revolution generated a virtuous cycle in which investment in human capital, education and healthcare generated technological progress, which in turn increased the demand for human capital. In other words: the more people we have, the faster we come up with new technology, tap into new resources and improve our production efficiency. We seem to have managed to sneak around the Malthusian Trap and continue to distance ourselves from it; education, among other factors, has led to declining fertility rates and science seems impervious to the law of diminishing returns, unlike labor intensive farming for example. There’s always a ‘but’. For a while we seemed to forget one important fact: the resources of our planet are finite. The UN estimates that by the year 2025 there will be 1.8 billion people living in conditions of absolute water scarcity. That’s more than 2 out of every ten humans. Oil, natural gas, phosphorus, arable land and many rare earth minerals are at a premium already. While the last 100 years seem to prove that total resource exhaustion is unlikely, the undeniable fact remains that market prices of practically all natural resources are going up. Thankfully we still have options. First of all we can buy time by investing in resource efficiency and environmental technology; we can make what we have last longer and reduce the negative impacts of human activities on our environment. We can buy even more time by continuing and increasing our efforts to lower the fertility rates in the lesser developed parts of the world; Africa chief among them. All of the above would go a long way to postponing the disaster ahead but do nothing to solve it. We are already feeling the first teeth of the Malthusian Trap: the current economic hardships of the west are partly a result of world’s resources being spread more evenly around the globe. Already we have to fight harder for our market share, for our piece of the cake. The choice We have a choice to make: the choice between a slow slide back into the Malthusian Trap, or getting serious and starting to think of our future as a species and as individuals. If we content ourselves with attempting to perpetuate the status quo, we're unavoidably headed towards escalating conflicts over resources, war, famine and the welcoming arms of the Trap. On the other hand, if we face up to the fact that we're headed towards a disaster, we can do a lot of things to mitigate and delay that disaster. We can adopt green-tech solutions, many of which are presented in this very blog. We can ramp up our efforts to support education in Africa; if the current fertility rates persist there for the rest of the century, the UN estimates a population of 17 billion in Africa alone in 2100. These measures can unfortunately only delay the inevitable. The only choice which allows for continued growth and evasion of the Malthusian Trap is to look beyond Earth. The future of the human race is either to go into space or face a long and slow decline into a shadow of our former selves. Want to know more? Click YES, YES, YES and/or OH GOD(S) YES Mikko Hynninen A question of economic against environmental sustainability Here are the facts. Palm oil is widely regarded as the most versatile oil, with its applications ranging from cooking oil, margarine, cosmetics, detergents, industrial lubricants and even biofuels for cars and power plants. Compared to other oil, palm oil is the highest-yielding vegetable crop, needing less than half the land required by other crops to produce the same amount of oil. This makes palm oil relatively cheap compared to other vegetable oils such as rapeseed and sunflower oil. In addition, palm oil is superior health-wise as it contains more vitamin A and vitamin E compared to any other edible oils and helps reduce the risk of a variety of diseases such as Alzheimer’s or cancer. Bearing all these environmental and economic benefits in mind, no wonder the demand for palm oil, and its level of production have increased significantly in the last few years. Indonesia tops the list by providing more than half (85%) of the world’s supply of palm oil As an edible vegetable oil, palm oil represents the largest share of worldwide edible oil production, at more than 30%, followed by soybean and rapeseed oil at 28% and 15% respectively. And among all other palm oil producers, including Nigeria and Malaysia, Indonesia tops the list by providing more than half of the world’s supply of palm oil. In fact, palm oil is a very crucial part of this G20 member, accounting for 11% of its export earnings of 5.7 billion USD. The industry has also helped Indonesia to relieve its unemployment problem by giving jobs to about 3.2 million people. Not just that, but the worldwide demand for this so called “sacred food” has increased so much that the growth of palm oil production in Indonesia alone averaged up to 8.1% per year from 1987 to 2007. This in turn will bring even more revenue and job employment for Indonesia. So as you can see, it is obvious how important Indonesia’s palm oil production is to the world and to Indonesia’s own economy. The deforestation of Indonesia’s valuable rainforests accounts for the loss of 8 million hectares of forest land in Borneo and Sumatra However it’s not all good news in the palm oil business. There have been a lot of critics and protests on how this particular industry impacts the environment, animals and ultimately the people of Indonesia. The most common criticisms are directed at the weak law enforcement in forestry management, which is causing the deforestation of Indonesia’s valuable rainforests, accounting for the loss of 8 million hectares of forest land in Borneo and Sumatra. This loss of biodiversity and ecosystems is so bad that a third of all mammal species in Indonesia are considered to be “critically endangered”. One species in particular, the orangutan, had become an icon of deforestation in Borneo and Sumatra. Around 2500 orangutans are killed each year and 90% of orangutans’ habitat has been destroyed in the last 20 years due to the development of the palm oil industry. This has alarmed the UN so much that it has started an “emergency conservation” programme in Indonesia’s rainforests. It seems very heartbreaking that such an important part of Indonesia’s economy is stabbing itself in the back by destroying its own very valuable resource. Efforts have been raised to create a sustainable way of developing palm oil production. The “Roundtable on sustainable palm oil” for example has committed to preserving 50% of all the rainforest in Indonesia and utilize the palm oil plantations as a carbon sink. Several NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth continually protest and raise awareness of the destruction of Indonesia’s rainforests while promoting a sustainable way for palm oil production.
The numbers are there. Indonesia clearly needs all the economic drive the palm oil industry is providing for them. And the numbers are there again. Indonesia cannot afford not to act upon the rate at which their rainforests are being destroyed. And so the questions remain. For how long can Indonesia maintain their current practices? At what cost? Ultimately, to what extent can the importance of economic sustainability surpass the importance of environmental sustainability? Adhitya Prayoga Sources:
The dilemma
Hydropower is considered to be a green, environmentally friendly source of energy. After all, it is based on moving water, which earth has a vast supply of. Surely it is a better alternative to fossil fuels, which release major greenhouse gas emissions. Or is it? What is hydropower? The most common way of utilizing hydropower is through a power plant which is usually situated in a dam that has been built into a river. The plant normally has three parts: the plant where the electricity is generated, the dam which controls the flow of the water, and a reservoir where the water is stored. The water flows through turbines which spin a generator and transform the movement into electricity. Then it can be transported into homes and factories via electric lines. Hydropower can also be produced with the tidal movements of water, but tidal plants are still few and far between. This way of producing hydroelectricity is nonetheless being studied, and could possibly be a success in coastal areas. A cheap and clean choice Hydropower is a good source of electricity in the sense that once the plant has been built, there are very few costs. The river flow is basically free and infinite as long as rain falls and snow melts. Also, the reservoir enables the flow of water through the system to be controlled, so that the power plant can respond to demand more easily. From this point of view, it is better than other so called renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power. Hydropower is also clean in the sense that there are no such greenhouse emissions as when burning fossil fuels, nor radioactive waste like in nuclear plants. Destroying natural habitats Although hydropower may sound like a dream solution to the global warming problem, this is not quite true. It has been measured that large reservoirs in tropical areas cause greater carbon and methane emissions than burning coal or natural gas. This is due to the large amount of vegetation which decomposes in anaerobic conditions under the water. This may also happen in colder environments, where the excess nutrients in the water cause algal blooms. Another environmental detriment of reservoirs is that they harm wildlife by filling their habitat with water. Large reservoirs can even destroy forests and agricultural lands. In addition, dams prevent migrating fish like salmon from swimming upstream to spawn. So what to think? There are disadvantages in every form of energy production, so to avoid all the negative effects is nearly impossible. Still, the use of renewable energy sources has far fewer disadvantages than the use of non-renewable alternatives, such as fossil fuels. For example, hydro power doesn’t produce air pollutants, unlike coal and natural gas, which can cause health effects such as breathing problems, neurological damage and cancer. Coal burning emits also sulfur, which produces acid rain and leads to damages in the forests and aquatic ecosystems. Although, hydropower is already a better solution than non-renewable energy sources, there are still problems that need to be faced. To minimize the environmental effects of hydropower, the industry should favor narrow and deep riverbeds that can store more water with less damage to the surrounding environment. The reservoirs can also be used, for example, in agricultural irrigation, flood control and for recreational purposes in order to make the best out of the situation. In addition, to ensure that the nutrient levels stay optimal and that the anaerobic decomposition is avoided, the reservoir water needs to be aerated regularly. It is also important to assist the upstream migration of fish by providing fish ladders and cannons. To read more about this subject, check Rena’s upcoming blog post about fish cannons. The future of energy production lies in the development of the sustainable and renewable energy sources, so be conscious and keep on reading this blog to get more information about environmental issues! Ira Leiviskä LINKS http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/hydropower-profile/ http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html#.VDGTi_l_tqo Currently there is about 250.000 – 300.000 tons of high level nuclear waste on our planet and this amount is only going to increase. 300.000 tons of highly radioactive waste is an alarmingly high amount, and the only conclusion to draw from this figure, is that it is time to do something, as worldwide there is no final disposal facility yet. Because it is us who benefit from nuclear power, it should also be us, not later generations, who deal with the waste. It is up to our generation to find a stable environment for the nuclear waste to decay until it reaches safe levels. There is only one problem: high level nuclear waste may take up to 100.000 years to reach safe levels. The world’s first try at a permanent repository for high level nuclear waste is located in the Finnish municipality of Eurajoki. The construction and research is executed by Posiva Oy, which is jointly owned by the Finnish nuclear power plant operators. The repository is located 450m underneath the ground inside the bedrock, where disposal canisters made from cast iron and copper will hold spent nuclear fuel. The nuclear waste is kept safe from the outside by multiple barriers. First is the cast iron canister, which protects the fuel from stress inside the bedrock. This canister is then placed into a copper canister to protect it from corrosion. Surrounding the canisters is a layer of bentonite clay, which will protect the canisters from jolts and prevent groundwater flow, due to its ability to act like a sponge when it comes in contact with water. Once the canisters are all in place the tunnels will be backfilled, so that no one can enter. But there’s a long time to go until then. The repository will be filled step by step until the year 2100, when it will be sealed for eternity. If Onkalo turns out to be successful it will be the longest lasting, functioning facility of our society. It will be what our generations are remembered for. These are the canisters where used fuel rods are going to be stored for the next 100.000 years. “If you were a person evaluating this concept from the outside - what would you be afraid of? Nothing.” Question answered by Timo Äikäs, Executive Vice President Posiva Oy Unlike Timo Äikäs, I am in the lucky position of being able to evaluate Onkalo from the outside. And unlike Timo Äikäs, I am terrified. Building a facility like this is highly ambitious as it is impossible to predict 100.000 years into the future. Naturally I have a few concerns. I am concerned for example about the fact that the company in charge of Onkalo is owned by the nuclear power plant operators, which are unfortunately not only concerned about safety but also about money. Another problem is that Onkalo´s possible failure will not affect any human being currently alive. This could lead to sloppiness and carelessness in the engineering and construction phase. One example is the final disposal containers, which are praised by Posiva as being non-corrosive, even though corrosion will absolutely inevitably take place and a study by the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden predicts that the canisters will only hold for several thousand years. But even if my concerns are unfounded and Onkalo turns out to work just fine, Onkalo is only one amongst many depositories which will have to be built worldwide . Nationalization of a global problem is not the answer. Finland wants to take responsibility for its nuclear waste, which is a good thing, except this sense of responsibility doesn´t have a very wide radius, due to the fact that the Finnish Nuclear Energy Act prohibits the import of nuclear waste. On the other hand, Finland imports electricity from neighboring countries, some of which is generated by nuclear power and thus creates nuclear waste abroad. National borders should not stand in the way of solving a problem, because very much like CO2 emissions, radioactive radiation doesn´t respect borders. A great example of this is the infamous Chernobyl incident in 1986, that resulted in significantly elevated radiation levels all over the western Soviet Union (as was) and most of Europe. Furthermore, other nations might not be blessed with stable Finnish bedrock, sufficient financial funding for research and construction, or strict regulations and state supervision. Unless we want nations and corporations to take the easy way out and dump nuclear wastes into the ocean, a global strategy is needed. Daniel Bodenmiller Since the dawn of mankind, when our ancestors started walking on Earth, there was need for energy that would replace our own physical labour. As we managed to domesticate wild beasts like horses and wolves, learned to produce fire at will and designed our first stone tools, we replaced some of our own energy. The need for energy never ceases to exist. On the contrary, our voracious need for energy has kept on increasing. We learned how to control the power of streams by creating watermills; we invented sails and windmills and put the wind to work on our behalf. We did everything to make our lives easier and for a few hundreds of years things seemed to be going our way. Nature always had its way to make things right, to restore the damage that we did. But that was too good to last forever. Nowadays we are confronting a challenge that no other generation has ever had. We are marching towards the destruction of our natural habitat. We are depleting our resources; we are polluting our environment; we are putting a mortgage on the future of our children, our children’s children, of every generation that will follow and every living thing on the planet. Energy. Energy is needed in our everyday life. Even if we would stayed at home, just lying on the bed doing nothing, that would not stop us from using energy. The bed that we lie on needed a substantial amount of energy in order to be constructed, shipped and assembled. When we eat or drink something, even tap water, we consume energy. Everything we are is energy and we demand more day by day. Lately there has been a great debate about energy production. Seeing the results of our traditional “fossil fuel” energy production methods, more people are considering a world being run by greener energy sources. But the question is: “how green is green energy?” First we have to define what green energy is not. When we consume resources that cannot be replenished, like oil, gas, coal, peat or even nuclear fuel, we are consuming natural resources that are very difficult or impossible to replace. Also, when in the process you produce a great amount of material that eventually will end up in landfills. This doesn’t look to be very green either. So what is green energy? Are hydroelectric power, wind power, solar power, bio- fuel, geothermal energy green? The easiest answer would be yes. But is this the truth? How much none-renewable energy and resources do we have to use in order to construct a windmill? What kind of life cycle does this windmill have? How will this windmill affect the surrounding environment? What are the long term effects on that environment? Those are just some of the questions that need to be answered before you can definitely say if a kind of energy is green or not. I think the right way to express this question would be: “which kind of energy production is greener?” At the end of the day there is no way to create something out of nothing. We have to use resources; we have to use the energy that we already have available. We just have to find the most efficient and more sustainable way to produce the energy we need. Though it’s becoming a trend that more and more people care about where the energy that we use comes from, we are not sufficiently informed to have a well-founded opinion. People seem to be in favour of solar, wind and hydroelectric power, but it’s highly questionable how reliable our sources of information are. What I want is to find ways to be more efficient, and reduce our power consumption until we can find the best way to harvest the free power that nature provides. Sunlight is constant, winds are constant, waves and water movement is constant but how much does it really cost to harvest those energy forms? Even when we think about one of the “cleanest” forms of energy, geothermal, we face at least three different kinds of problems with its application. Firstly, geothermal energy is an extremely local phenomenon. It cannot be found everywhere and not everywhere is it accessible and usable. Secondly, even geothermal energy is not everlasting. We are not implying that earth’s nuclear fusion activity is coming to an end, but using hot water from a geothermal “hot pocket” will deplete it unless the water is systematically replenished. Thirdly, even for geothermal energy infrastructure must be constructed. This means both the power plant and the carrying and distribution system for the energy and hot water have to be constructed and maintained. This will also have a cost on resources. Sources www.ipsos.com www.cnbc.com www.dailychorde.blogspot.com www.energy4me.org www.fchea.org www.imperialoil.ca www.nap.edu www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/geothermal-energy Christos Parakevopoulus |
Want to be an author?Write for us and we will publish your writing right here on our blog! It can be about anything related to environmental engineering Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|