THE ULTIMATE
ABB to supply its central inverter solutions for two solar plants Mafraq I and Mafraq II in Jordan, which will cumulatively produce 102MW of clean energy.
0 Comments
The Environmental Services Association (ESA), and the Environment Agency (EA) have agreed to a new public-private collaborative approach to target illegal waste sites and improve the technical competence of the waste sector. UK: Hugely important milestone opens the door to commercial operations
PepsiCo and The Recycling Partnership have agreed to work on a cross-sector approach to increasing recycling rates across America.
Alphabet Inc.'s secretive X skunk works has another idea that could save the world. This one, code named Malta, involves vats of saltand antifreeze. Boralex secures funds for 30-MW wind project in France
After fears the Loch Ness Monster had disappeared last winter, a new sighting in May 2017 was celebrated by its enthusiasts. The search for monsters and mythical creatures (or cryptids) such as Nessie, the Yeti or Bigfoot is known as cryptozoology. On the face of it, cryptozoology has little in common with mainstream conservation. First, it is widely held to be a pseudoscience, because it does not follow the scientific methods so central to conservation biology. Many conservation scientists would find the idea of being identified with monsters and monster-hunters embarrassing. Moreover, in the context of the global collapse in biodiversity, conservationists focus their attentions on protecting the countless endangered species that we know about. Why waste time thinking about unknown or hypothesised creatures? Most people are rightly sceptical of sightings of anomalous primates or plesiosaurs in densely populated regions that have been surveyed for hundreds of years. However, while there are strong ecological and evidence-based reasons to doubt the existence of charismatic cryptids such as Nessie and Bigfoot, conservationists should not automatically dismiss enthusiastic searches for hidden species. In fact, cryptozoology can contribute to conservation in several ways. Known unknownsFirstly, the process of mapping out the world's species is far from finished. Conservationists aim to protect and preserve known plants and animals but it is not always appreciated how many remain undescribed by scientists. Since 1993, more than 400 new mammals have been identified, many in areas undergoing rapid habitat destruction. The number of undescribed beetles, for example, or flies, let alone microscopic organisms, will be huge. We are entering a new age of discovery in biology with descriptions of new species reaching rates comparable to the golden era of global exploration and collection in the 18th and 19th centuries. The advent of methods such as DNA barcoding offer the possibility of automated species identification. A recent mathematical model predicted that at least 160 land mammal species and 3,050 amphibian species remain to be discovered and described. Other predictions suggest that a large proportion of undescribed species will go extinct without ever being recorded or conserved at all a phenomenon we might term crypto-extinction. The father of cryptozoology, Bernard Heuvelmans, argued that the great days of zoology are not done. In the sense that so many species remain undiscovered, he was correct. The main principle behind cryptozoology is soundly zoological: species exist that humans have not discovered or described. The quest to locate and protect the world's biodiversity is one that conservation and cryptozoology share, even if cryptozoologists tend to focus their attentions on the large, mythical and monstrous, over the small, plausible, and non-mammalian species in our midst. Cryptozoology involves rampant speculation and unconventional surveying methods. But controversial new findings can inspire a renewed quest to better map out the natural world. This was the case with the cryptid spiral-horned ox, never seen by a scientist in the flesh and known only from a few horns found in a market in Vietnam. The debate between rival camps of zoologists about whether the ox existed pulled together historic accounts, local folklore, and samples of museum specimens all classic cryptozoological methodologies. Shared historiesThe second reason why conservationists should not automatically discount cryptozoology is its shared history, co-evolving with conservation in the 20th century and interesting many conservationists along the way. One notable connecting thread comes through Peter Scott, the founder of the World Wildlife Fund and creator of the Red Data Book method of classifying endangered species. Scott first grew interested in Loch Ness Monster reports in 1960 and in the same year wrote to Queen Elizabeth offering to name the undiscovered cryptid Elizabethia nessiae in her honour. Although the Queen was said to be very interested, her advisers wrote back saying it would be inappropriate to attach her name to something viewed as a monster or likely to be a hoax. In an infamous article in Nature in 1975 Scott published underwater photographs appearing to show a creature with a diamond-shaped flipper. Scott and his co-author, the American Nessie enthusiast Robert Rines, named the creature Nessiteras rhombopteryx with the intention that it could then be preemptively protected under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act (1975). Although he knew that grainy photographs were insufficient taxonomic evidence in the long term, Scott argued the procedure seems justified by the urgency of comprehensive conservation. For Scott, conservation was at the heart of the hunt for Nessie. Scott was not the only curious conservationist. In his book Searching for Sasquatch, Brian Segal examines several other mainstream conservationists who grew interested in cryptozoological ideas and endeavours. More recently, when specimens of a species named Homo floresiensis were found on the island of Flores in Indonesia in 2003, Henry Gee, an editor at Nature, wrote:
Cryptozoology - in from the cold?Given conservation's haunting relationship with the problem of absence, is it time to bring cryptozoology, in some form at least, in from the cold? A rapprochement would demand changes on both sides. Cryptozoology's appeal currently comes from its celebration of the anomalous and monstrous. A post-monstrous outlook might aid in forging new coalitions, and a stronger focus on plausible undiscovered species (such as the thousands of smaller amphibians and mammals predicted to exist) than on charismatic, but highly unlikely, cryptids. The third way that cryptozoology can contribute to conservation is through the sense of wonder. From the conservation perspective, something might be learned from the Nessie and Bigfoot hunters about telling new stories of weird and wonderful discoveries alongside the more familiar tales of flagship species decline. Instead of rebuffing them, conservationists might consider enlisting cryptozoologists as part of a wonder zoology that accelerates conventional taxonomic efforts. Indeed, the EDGE of Existence conservation initiative is doing exactly this by focusing its attention on weird endangered species. Other examples of wonder zoology include the descriptions of new (although known to local people) primates by Marc van Roosmalen in the Amazon, and the lost world of new species found in or near Vietnam's Vu Quang Nature Reserve in the 1990s. One promising model of how conservationists and cryptozoologists might engage is sketched out by the paleozoologist Darren Naish. Naish's sceptical cryptozoology does not dwell on the question of whether cryptozoology is pseudoscientific or not but focuses instead on the ground it shares with conventional zoology. Stories of the discovery and rediscovery of species routinely punctuate the depressing catalogue of extinction after extinction. Wonder and speculation however untethered must play a role in energising conservation actions. Although no one expects conservation NGOs to start searching for Bigfoot, it would be remiss of them to ignore the powerful ecological imagination that can be inspired by cryptozoology. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above. The UK government is proposing a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, in a move that echoes a recent announcement in France. Setting this sort of media-friendly target is a positive and welcome response to the challenge of air pollution across UK cities. But delivering the infrastructure, research and development support and incentives to switch to greener cars will be the hard part. If conventional vehicle manufactures start getting nervous, then environment secretary Michael Gove may find the road to an electric future needs to be paved with more than good intentions. Planned well, a ban on sales of conventionally fuelled vehicles could deliver long-term benefits for both air quality and economic investment in post-Brexit UK. There is no question that a switch to alternative-fuelled vehicles would significantly improve air quality in towns and cities. The actual benefit will not be felt for many years, however, given the slow replacement rate for vehicles. Still, it does establish a clear direction of travel for public investment and as battery prices are set to tumble over the next decade, it will be one more reason for businesses to switch to greener vehicles. The 2040 target should encourage big electric vehicle manufacturers to invest in the UK. The country is a significant consumer market and has strong production capabilities in green technologies, especially the use of lightweight materials. BMW, for instance, has just announced it will build the fully electric Mini at its plant in Oxford. An even clearer example of policy driving private investment is Chinese carmaker Geely's investment in a new hybrid model of the London taxi to take advantage of the capital's new ultra low emission zone. Then there is the question of infrastructure. The UK has 6,535 charging stations, which sounds like a lot. But compare that to Norway, which has slightly more stations for a population less than a tenth the size. The number of charging points will have to rise to the hundreds of thousands. A big askNew homes are required to have charging points by 2019, but installation costs 1,000 in existing houses. Subsidies can reduce the cost, but will need to be taken up on a vastly greater scale. And even this won't help those dependent on on-street parking or multi-story living. A comprehensive infrastructure would certainly cost hundreds of millions. And even if successful, the government faces another headache lost fuel duty could leave a hole in the budget of between 9 billion and 23 billion by 2030. Equally important is the need to think about energy supply. The widespread adoption of electric vehicles could put a strain on the grid at a time when fossil fuels are being phased out and a higher share of more volatile renewables is taking over. This means the government will need to think seriously about how excess power is stored during the hot, blustery days that favour solar or wind farms, and how to manage demand from electric vehicles when there is not enough sun or wind. For car manufacturers, 2040 is several production cycles away. This gives them and the government time to think creatively about mass electrification. Roads that charge your car as you drive would need a big initial investment but would make electric cars significantly cheaper and better. Self-driving cars and the trend towards mobility being a service you buy on demand through firms such as Uber might mean some people eventually don't need to purchase vehicles at all. But these technologies are still many years away from the mainstream. This highlights a key point: that a shift to sales of alternative fuelled vehicles will not immediately reduce air pollution and will do nothing to impact on congestion. Only a more comprehensive policy of shifting people to different modes of transport will achieve this, and here the government's commitment shouldn't be relied upon. On an optimistic note, there are good reasons to imagine that a shift to greener vehicles may occur anyway. Pete Harrop, chairman of industry analysts IdTechEx, is bullish, predicting driving ranges of up to 1,000 miles and electric vehicles that can harvest solar electricity and act as batteries to store renewable power. Electric vehicles are not simply catching up with conventional vehicles, he told us. They are overtaking. It's clear which way the wind is blowing. Norway, as market leader, wants to ban sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2025, and the German upper house has debated a 2030 target. By 2040, internal combustion engines may no longer be able to compete in the market. But whether the UK's infrastructure is ready for millions more electric vehicles remains to be seen. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above. One question that arises from the announcement by the UK government that new diesel and petrol cars will be banned by 2040 is what it means for biofuels. If cars running on fossil fuels will be substituted by electric cars, it could imply that all liquid transport fuels will be eliminated. Around 5% of the volume of the average British tank of petrol or diesel comes from biofuels at present. It is produced from various sources, including corn, wheat, sugar beet and waste ranging from rotten vegetables to used cooking oil. Biofuels in the UK by feedstock type The large-scale use of biofuels dates back to the 1970s, when they were first introduced in Brazil through government incentives to build vehicles that could run on 100% ethanol produced mainly from sugar cane. Brazil remains a leader in biofuels, despite ups and downs over the years. More than a quarter of petrol content must comprise ethanol and most vehicles can run 100% ethanol if they choose to. Elsewhere biofuels have enjoyed varying fortunes. They became a popular possible alternative in the 1990s as a consequence of the rise in the oil price. More recently, more than 60 countries across the world require some blend of biofuels at the fuel pumps as part of their commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and have also launched biofuel production programmes. Yet progress has become very slow in many countries. Among the reasons are the period of low oil prices and the fact that it uses much more farmland to increase biofuel proportions in fuel tanks. Biofuels RIP?So will anyone bother to keep striving towards sustainable liquid fuels now that the end of petrol/diesel vehicles appears in sight? The answer has to be yes, for a couple of important reasons. The first is hybrid vehicles, which have been far more successful than purely electric ones to date. These engines that run on a combination of liquid fuels and recharged batteries will play a major part in the transition towards complete electrification. If the UK is to move towards a complete ban on fossil fuels in transport, new hybrids are likely to increasingly depend on biofuels. The second point is that the transport system is about far more than roads. Aviation, shipping and haulage are all significant and they have a much more limited scope for electrification. They will continue to rely heavily on liquid fuels to which end the US navy recently launched its first biofuel-powered aircraft carrier, for example. So if we're still going to need biofuels, how do we make the most of them? I was a member of a working group of the Royal Academy of Engineering that recently produced a report about the sector commissioned by the UK's departments for transport and energy. The report, which involved a meta-study of a number of research papers about the sector, said biofuels would undoubtedly play an important role in meeting the UK`s commitments towards climate change. It called for a combination of incentives and careful regulation to avoid risks and unintended consequences, such as crops being diverted from food production. It proposed incentives to encourage so-called second-generation biofuels those which predominantly come from waste and have a far better emissions profile than biofuels from dedicated crops such as soya or corn. It proposed to incentivise growing biofuel crops on land that was unsuitable for food production, while generally capping crop-based biofuels to help prevent them from taking up space that could be for food crops. It also proposed that the minimum blend level in the UK be increased from its current 4.75% (more work is required to determine what might be realistic). If the government approached biofuels in this way, there could be indirect benefits giving farmers an extra incentive to plant more crops, for example, as well as improving crop yields and making farming processes more efficient. The amount of land dedicated to farming could also rise as a result. My message is therefore that we will need biofuels for the foreseeable future despite the UK government's 2040 ban. By prioritising the right kinds of biofuels through subsidies and caps, we can minimise their drawbacks and maximise their advantages over petroleum fuels. The 2040 ban, far from meaning the end of liquid biofuels, should be seen as an important opportunity for the sector. Raffaella Ocone was the co-author of a recent UK-government-funded report into the biofuels industry by the Royal Academy of Engineering. |