by George Monbiot: journalist, author, academic and environmental and political activist, United Kingdom

This is my third and final salvo in the heated debate over feed-in tariffs. You can follow the arguments for and against through the following links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/03/solar-panel-workable-future

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/05/solar-feed-in-tariff

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/09/george-monbiot-bet-solar-pv

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/05/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff-benefits

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/10/feed-in-tariffs-solarpower

Let me begin with a plea to tone down this debate. Jeremy Leggett and I have addressed each other politely and stuck to the facts. I have no ill-feelings towards him: I simply believe that he is wrong about solar power. But the level of viciousness displayed on the comment threads, by email and on other sites has to be seen to be believed.

Where does fury of this kind come from? In my experience it’s often associated with denial. People who don’t like the outcomes dismiss the facts and lash out at the bearers of bad news. Could we, just for once, please try to get past this reaction, and judge the case on its merits?

My own instincts press me to support solar power. Like most environmentalists I believe that small is beautiful. I hate pylon lines and I don’t care for the sight of big power plants of any description, wind farms included. I detest the big energy firms which provide our electricity. I am deeply attracted to the idea of being able to produce my own power, just as I love producing my own fruit and vegetables. But my attempts to find the best means of tackling climate change, which I explain at greater length in my book Heat, have forced me to put my gut feelings to one side. Our choices must be based on the best possible information. Otherwise we waste our lives chasing chimaeras.

Against my instincts I’ve come to oppose solar photovoltaic power (PV) in the UK, and the feed-in tariffs designed to encourage it, because the facts show unequivocally that this is a terrible investment. There are much better ways of spending the rare and precious revenue that the tariffs will extract from our pockets. If we are to prevent runaway climate change, we have to ensure that we get the biggest available bang for our buck: in other words the greatest cut in greenhouse gas production from the money we spend. Money spent on ineffective solutions is not just a waste: it’s also a lost opportunity.

Environmentalists have no trouble understanding this argument when lobbying against nuclear power. Those who maintain that it’s more expensive than renewable electricity argue that we shouldn’t waste our money investing in it. But now I hear the same people telling us that we should support every form of renewable generation, regardless of the cost.

I’m delighted that Jeremy has accepted my bet that solar PV won’t reach grid parity in 2013. I am also happy for the winnings to go to SolarAid. I agree with Jeremy that solar PV is an appropriate technology in Africa, where most people are off-grid and there’s much more sunlight. It’s in this country that it makes no sense. I suggest we each appoint two fair-minded, independent seconds, who will confer with the other side to agree the terms of the bet: the exact date on which it falls due, and how and by whom electricity prices will be measured. They will also be responsible for deciding who has won.

And I accept Jeremy’s challenge to write a column admitting I’m wrong if he wins the bet (but I won’t accept his subtle slippage, substituting “near” for “at”). If I am wrong, it won’t be the first time. In 2005, before I had crunched the numbers, I called on green NGOs to switch from supporting windfarms to promoting “decentralised micro-generation projects”, which I considered a more attractive option. After I discovered just how badly this would set back efforts to decarbonise our power supplies, I changed my views. What would it take to change his?

Jeremy and I can speculate about how useful solar electricity will be in the UK until we’ve worn our keyboards out. Until our bet closes in 2013, by which time billions of pounds will have been committed, no one will know which of us is right. But you don’t have to rely on speculation to see how this is likely to pan out. As the old cookery programes used to say, “here’s one we prepared earlier.” The German experiment, almost identical to the UK’s, has now been running for ten years. An analysis published in November by the Ruhr University shows just what it has achieved.

When the German programme began, in 2000, it offered index-linked payments of 51 euro cents for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced by solar PV. These were guaranteed for 20 years. This is similar to the UK’s initial subsidy, of 41 pence. As in the UK, the solar subsidy was and remains massively greater than the payments for other forms of renewable technology.

The real net cost of the solar PV installed in Germany between 2000 and 2008 was E35bn. The paper estimates a further real cost of E18bn in 2009 and 2010: a total of E53bn in ten years. These investments make wonderful sense for the lucky householders who could afford to install the panels, as lucrative returns are guaranteed by taxing the rest of Germany’s electricity users. But what has this astonishing spending achieved? By 2008 solar PV was producing a grand total of 0.6% of Germany’s electricity. 0.6% for E35bn. Hands up all those who think this is a good investment.

After years of these incredible payments, and the innovation and cost reductions they were supposed to stimulate, the paper estimates that saving one tonne of carbon dioxide through solar PV in Germany still costs E716. The International Energy Agency has produced an even higher estimate: E1000 per tonne. There are dozens of ways in which you can save carbon for 100th of the cost of solar PV at high latitudes.

The paper comes out against using feed-in tariffs to stimulate wind power as well, but in this case it shows that largescale wind in Germany is likely to become cheaper than conventional power by 2022, at which point subsidies will become redundant. It makes no such prediction for solar PV. It reinforces the point I made in my first sally: that while Germany, like the UK, belongs to the European emissions trading scheme, any carbon savings made by feed-in tariffs merely allow polluting industries to raise their emissions. The net saving is zero. The paper suggests that a far more cost-effective mechanism would be to crank down the emissions cap under the trading scheme, then let renewable technologies fight it out to offer the biggest carbon savings per euro.

As for stimulating innovation, which is the main argument Jeremy makes in their favour, the report shows that Germany’s feed-in tariffs have done just the opposite. Like the UK’s scheme, Germany’s is degressive. What this means is that the earlier you adopt the technology, the higher the tariff you receive: if you waited until 2009 to install your solar panel, you’ll be paid 43c/kWh (or its inflation-proofed equivalent) for 20 years, rather than the 51c you get if you installed in 2000. This encourages people to buy existing technology and deploy it right away, rather than to hold out for something better. In fact, the paper shows, the scheme has stimulated massive demand for old, clunky solar cells, at the expense of better models beginning to come onto the market. It argues that a far swifter means of stimulating innovation is for governments to invest in research and development. But the money has gone in the wrong direction: while Germany has spent some E53bn on deploying old technologies, in 2007 the government spent only E211m on renewables R&D.

In principle, tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the German PV industry, but this is gross jobs, not net jobs: had the money been used for other purposes, it could have employed far more people. The paper estimates that the subsidy for every solar PV job in Germany is E175,000: in other words the subsidy is far higher than the money the workers are likely to earn. This is a wildly perverse outcome. Moreover, most of these people are medium or highly skilled workers, who are in short supply there: they have simply been drawn out of other industries. The researchers say that

“any result other than a negative net employment balance of the German PV promotion would be surprising. In contrast, we would expect massive employment effects in export countries such as China”

Germany’s solar exports (E0.2bn in 2006) have been greatly outweighed by its imports (E1.44bn in the same year). And it’s not getting any better:

“Recent newspaper articles report that the situation remains dire, with the German solar industry facing unprecedented competition from cheaper Asian imports.”

The UK’s prospects of building the major export industry Jeremy dreams of are even slighter, as it will now have to take on Germany as well as China and Japan. We’ve missed the boat by years.

While I’ve been taking plenty of flak for arguing this case, I’ve also received a lot of support from green energy experts. Chris Goodall and David Thorpe, for example, have both come to similar conclusions, by working the case out from first principles. If you doubt what I say, I urge you to read their analyses, and the astonishing figures they have produced.

I have no horses in this race: no products to sell, no shares in any company, no favours to discharge or lobbyists to please. I am simply trying to work out what’s best. I realise that there is no persuading some people: that they will believe what they want to believe. But I hope that some of you might be able to see that this is an honest attempt to get to the truth of the matter, and to find the most effective means of preventing runaway climate change.

The harnessing of solar energy is expanding on every front as concerns about climate change and energy security escalate, as government incentives for harnessing solar energy expand, and as these costs decline while those of fossil fuels rise. One solar technology that is really beginning to take off is the use of solar thermal collectors to convert sunlight into heat that can be used to warm both water and space.

China, for example, is now home to 27 million rooftop solar water heaters. With nearly 4,000 Chinese companies manufacturing these devices, this relatively simple low-cost technology has leapfrogged into villages that do not yet have electricity. For as little as $200, villagers can have a rooftop solar collector installed and take their first hot shower. This technology is sweeping China like wildfire, already approaching market saturation in some communities. Beijing plans to boost the current 114 million square meters of rooftop solar collectors for heating water to 300 million by 2020.

The energy harnessed by these installations in China is equal to the electricity generated by 49 coal-fired power plants. Other developing countries such as India and Brazil may also soon see millions of households turning to this inexpensive water heating technology. This leapfrogging into rural areas without an electricity grid is similar to the way cell phones bypassed the traditional fixed-line grid, providing services to millions of people who would still be on waiting lists if they had relied on traditional phone lines. Once the initial installment cost of rooftop solar water heaters is paid, the hot water is essentially free.

In Europe, where energy costs are relatively high, rooftop solar water heaters are also spreading fast. In Austria, 15 percent of all households now rely on them for hot water. And, as in China, in some Austrian villages nearly all homes have rooftop collectors. Germany is also forging ahead. Janet Sawin of the Worldwatch Institute notes that some 2 million Germans are now living in homes where water and space are both heated by rooftop solar systems.

Inspired by the rapid adoption of rooftop water and space heaters in Europe in recent years, the European Solar Thermal Industry Federation (ESTIF) has established an ambitious goal of 500 million square meters, or 1 square meter of rooftop collector for every European by 2020—a goal slightly greater than the 0.93 square meters per person found today in Cyprus, the world leader. Most installations are projected to be Solar-Combi systems that are engineered to heat both water and space.

Europe’s solar collectors are concentrated in Germany, Austria, and Greece, with France and Spain also beginning to mobilize. Spain’s initiative was boosted by a March 2006 mandate requiring installation of collectors on all new or renovated buildings. Portugal followed quickly with its own mandate. ESTIF estimates that the European Union has a long-term potential of developing 1,200 thermal gigawatts of solar water and space heating, which means that the sun could meet most of Europe’s low-temperature heating needs.

The U.S. rooftop solar water heating industry has historically concentrated on a niche market—selling and marketing 10 million square meters of solar water heaters for swimming pools between 1995 and 2005. Given this base, however, the industry was poised to mass-market residential solar water and space heating systems when federal tax credits were introduced in 2006. Led by Hawaii, California, and Florida, U.S. installation of these systems tripled in 2006 and has continued at a rapid pace since then.

We now have the data to make some global projections. With China setting a goal of 300 million square meters of solar water heating capacity by 2020, and ESTIF’s goal of 500 million square meters for Europe by 2020, a U.S. installation of 300 million square meters by 2020 is certainly within reach given the recently adopted tax incentives. Japan, which now has 7 million square meters of rooftop solar collectors heating water but which imports virtually all its fossil fuels, could easily reach 80 million square meters by 2020.

If China and the European Union achieve their goals and Japan and the United States reach the projected adoptions, they will have a combined total of 1,180 million square meters of water and space heating capacity by 2020. With appropriate assumptions for developing countries other than China, the global total in 2020 could exceed 1.5 billion square meters. This would give the world a solar thermal capacity by 2020 of 1,100 thermal gigawatts, the equivalent of 690 coal-fired power plants. This would account for more than half of the Earth Policy Institute’s renewable energy heating goal for 2020, part of a massive effort to stabilize our rapidly changing climate by slashing global net carbon emissions 80 percent within the next decade. (For more information, see Chapters 4 and 5 of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, on-line for free downloading at www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/books/pb4.)

The huge projected expansion in solar water and space heating in industrial countries could close some existing coal-fired power plants and reduce natural gas use, as solar water heaters replace electric and gas water heaters. In countries such as China and India, however, solar water heaters will simply reduce the need for new coal-fired power plants.

Solar water and space heaters in Europe and China have a strong economic appeal. On average, in industrial countries these systems pay for themselves from electricity savings in fewer than 10 years. They are also responsive to energy security and climate change concerns.

With the cost of rooftop heating systems declining, particularly in China, many other countries will likely join Israel, Spain, and Portugal in mandating that all new buildings incorporate rooftop solar water heaters. No longer a passing fad, these rooftop appliances are fast entering the mainstream.

~~~~~~~

Adapted from Chapter 5, “Stabilizing Climate: Shifting to Renewable Energy,” in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), available on-line at www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/books/pb4

by George Monbiot: journalist, author, academic and environmental and political activist, United Kingdom

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives and no one notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95% (1). Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.

On April 1st the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers, in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn’t know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.

The people who sell solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and micro wind turbines in the UK insist that they represent a good investment. The arguments I have had with them have been long and bitter (2,3). But the debate has now been brought to an end with the publication of the government’s table of tariffs: the rewards people will receive for installing different kinds of generators (4). The government wants everyone to get the same rate of return. So while the electricity you might generate from large wind turbines and hydro plants will earn you 4.5p per kilowatt hour, mini wind turbines get 34p, and solar panels get 41p. In other words, the government acknowledges that micro-wind and solar PV in the UK are between seven and nine times less cost-effective than the alternatives.

It expects this scheme to save 7m tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020 (5). Assuming, generously, that the rate of installation keeps accelerating, this suggests a saving of around 20m tonnes of CO2 by 2030. The estimated price by then is £8.6bn (6). This means it’ll cost around £430 to save one tonne of carbon dioxide.

Last year the consultancy company McKinsey published a table of cost comparisons (7). It found that you could save a tonne of CO2 for £3 by investing in geothermal energy, or for £8 by building a nuclear power plant. Insulating commercial buildings costs nothing; in fact it saves £60 for every tonne of CO2 you reduce; replacing incandescent lightbulbs with LEDs saves £80 per tonne. The government predicts that the tradeable value of the carbon saved by its £8.6bn scheme will be £420m (8). That’s some return on investment.

The reason for these astonishing costs is that the government expects most people who use this scheme to install solar panels. Solar PV is a great technology – if you live in southern California. But the further from the equator you travel, the less sense it makes (9). It’s not just that the amount of power PV panels produce at this latitude is risible, they also produce it at the wrong time. In hot countries, where air conditioning guzzles electricity, peak demand coincides with peak solar radiation. In the UK peak demand takes place between 5 and 7 on winter evenings. Do I need to spell out the implications?

We have plenty of ambient energy, but it’s not to be found on people’s roofs. The only renewables policy that makes sense is to build big installations where the energy is – which means high ground, estuaries or the open sea – and deliver it by wire to where people live. But the government’s scheme sloshes money into places where resources are poor and economies of scale impossible.

We don’t need to guess the results: the German government made the same mistake ten years ago. By 2006 its generous feed-in tariffs had stimulated 230,000 solar roofs, at a cost of E1.2bn. Their total contribution to the country’s electricity supply was 0.4% (10). Their total contribution to carbon savings, as a paper in the journal Energy Policy points out, is zero (11). This is because Germany, like the UK, belongs to the European Emissions Trading Scheme. Any savings made by feed-in tariffs permit other industries to raise their emissions. Either the trading scheme works, in which case the tariffs are pointless, or it doesn’t, in which case it needs to be overhauled. The government can’t have it both ways.

A week ago the German government decided sharply to reduce the tariff it pays for solar PV, on the grounds that it’s a waste of money (12). Just as the Germans have begun to abandon their monumental mistake, we are about to repeat it.

Buying a solar panel is now the best investment a householder can make. The tariffs will deliver a return of between 5-8% a year, which is both index-linked (making a nominal return of 7-10% (13)) and tax free (14). The payback is guaranteed for 25 years (15). If you own a house and can afford the investment, you’d be crazy not to cash in. If you don’t and can’t you must sit and watch your money being used to pay for someone else’s fashion accessory.

Had this money been spent instead on insulation or double glazing, it could have helped relieve fuel poverty at the same time as cutting emissions. But the feed-in tax is both wasteful and regressive. The government has now decided not to oblige people to improve the efficiency of their homes before they can claim a tariff: you’ll be paid to put a solar panel on your roof even if the roof contains no insulation (16).

Though there’s a system to ensure that functioning devices are installed, it can’t be long before thousands of petty criminals discover the perfect carousel fraud, bypassing their solar panels by connecting the incoming wire to the outgoing wire. By buying electricity for 7p and selling it for 44p (if you sell power to the grid rather than using it yourself, you get an extra 3p(17)), they’ll make a 600% profit. Amazingly the government has decided not to measure how much electricity people are selling, but “to pay export tariffs on the basis of estimated (deemed) exports.”(18) Elsewhere in its report it boasts of “encouraging a risk-based approach to audit and assurance” (19). Come on in you crims, the door is wide open.

So who is opposing this lunacy? Good question. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have lined up to denounce the government for not being generous enough (20,21,22,23). The only body to have called this right is the loathsome TaxPayers’ Alliance, but no one listened because it has cried wolf too often(24).

There appears to be a cross-party agreement to squander the public’s money. Why? It’s partly because many Tory and LibDem voters hate big, efficient windfarms, and this scheme appears to offer an alternative. But it’s mostly because solar panels accord with the aspirations of the middle classes. The solar panel is the ideal modern status symbol, which signifies both wealth and moral superiority, even if it’s perfectly useless.

If people want to waste their money, let them. But you and I shouldn’t be paying for it. Seldom has there been a bigger public rip-off; seldom has less fuss been made about it. Will we try to stop this scheme, or are we a nation of dupes?

References:

1. DECC, 1st February 2010a. Impact Assessment of Feed-in Tariffs for Small-Scale, Low Carbon, Electricity Generation (URN10D/536). http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/elec_financial/elec_financial.aspx
2. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125715.200-smallscale-renewable-power–lowwattage-thinking.html
3. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225740.100-think-small.html
4. DECC, 1st February 2010b. Table of tariffs up to 2013. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/policy/feedin_tarriff/feedin_tarriff.aspx
5. DECC, 1st February 2010c. Feed-in Tariffs: Government’s Response to the
   Summer 2009 Consultation, page 5. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/elec_financial/elec_financial.aspx
6. DECC, 1st February 2010a, ibid.
7. McKinsey & Company, 2009. Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pathways_low_carbon_economy.asp
8. DECC, 1st February 2010a, ibid.
9. Suleiman Abu-Sharkh et al, March 2005. Microgrids: distributed on-site generation Technical Report 22, page 33. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
10. Manuel Frondel, Nolan Ritter, Christoph M. Schmidt, 2008. Germany’s solar cell promotion: Dark clouds on the horizon. Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4198–4204.
11. ibid.
12. http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/paginas/Contenidosecciones.asp?ID=15&Cod=4965&Tipo=&Nombre=PV%20Solar%20News
13. DECC, 1st February 2010c, p21.
14. DECC, 1st February 2010c, p22.
15. DECC, 1st February 2010c, p22.
16. DECC, 1st February 2010c, p20.
17. DECC, 1st February 2010c, p5.
18. DECC, 1st February 2010c, p28.
19. DECC, 1st February 2010c, p40.
20. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/government-renewables-feed-in-tariff
21. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/02/feed-in-tariff-renewable-energy
22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8491767.stm
23. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7129685/Solar-panels-and-other-renewables-will-be-installed-on-one-in-ten-homes.html
24. ibid.

The past two years have witnessed the emergence of a powerful movement opposing the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States. Initially led by environmental groups, both national and local, it has since been joined by prominent national political leaders and many state governors. The principal reason for opposing coal plants is that they are changing the earth’s climate. There is also the effect of mercury emissions on health and the 23,600 U.S. deaths each year from power plant air pollution.

Over the last few years the coal industry has suffered one setback after another. The Sierra Club, which has kept a tally of proposed coal-fired power plants and their fates since 2000, reports that 123 plants have been defeated, with another 51 facing opposition in the courts. Of the 231 plants being tracked, only 25 currently have a chance at gaining the permits necessary to begin construction and eventually come online. Building a coal plant may soon be impossible.

What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power quickly evolved into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations. Despite a heavily funded ad campaign to promote so-called clean coal (one reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s earlier efforts to convince people that cigarettes were not unhealthy), the American public is turning against coal.

One of the first major industry setbacks came in early 2007 when a coalition headed by the Environmental Defense Fund took on Texas-based utility TXU’s plans for 11 new coal-fired power plants. A quick drop in the utility’s stock price caused by the media storm prompted a $45-billion buyout offer from two private equity firms. However, only after negotiating a ceasefire with EDF and the Natural Resources Defense Council and reducing the number of proposed plants from 11 to 3, thus preserving the value of the company, did the firms proceed with the purchase. It was a major win for the environmental community, which mustered the public support necessary to stop 8 plants outright and impose stricter regulations on the remaining 3. Meanwhile, the energy focus in Texas has shifted to its vast wind resources, pushing it ahead of California in wind-generated electricity.

In May 2007, Florida’s Public Service Commission refused to license a huge $5.7 billion, 1,960-megawatt coal plant because the utility could not prove that building the plant would be cheaper than investing in conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. This point, made by Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental legal group, combined with strong public opposition to any more coal-fired power plants in Florida, led to the quiet withdrawal of four other coal plant proposals in the state.

Coal’s future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the industry. In July 2007, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks. In January 2008, Merrill Lynch also downgraded coal stocks. In early February 2008, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announced that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the utilities demonstrating that the plants would be economically viable with the higher costs associated with future federal restrictions on carbon emissions. Later that month, Bank of America announced it would follow suit.

In August 2007, coal took a heavy political hit when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had been opposing three coal-fired power plants in his own state, announced that he was now against building coal-fired power plants anywhere in the world. Former Vice President Al Gore has also voiced strong opposition to building any coal-fired power plants. So too have many state governors, including those in California, Florida, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin.

In her 2009 State of the State address, Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan argued that the state should not be importing coal from Montana and Wyoming but instead should be investing in technologies to improve energy efficiency and to tap the renewable resources within Michigan, including wind and solar. This, she said, would create thousands of jobs in the state, helping offset those lost in the automobile industry.

One of the unresolved burdens haunting the coal sector, in addition to the emissions of CO2, is what to do with the coal ash—the remnant of burning coal—that is accumulating in 194 landfills and 161 holding ponds in 47 states. This ash is not an easy material to dispose of since it is laced with arsenic, lead, mercury, and many other toxic materials. The industry’s dirty secret came into full public view just before Christmas 2008 when the containment wall of a coal ash pond in eastern Tennessee collapsed, releasing a billion gallons of toxic brew. Unfortunately, the industry does not have a plan for safely disposing of the 130 million tons of ash produced each year, enough to fill 1 million railroad cars. The dangers are such that the Department of Homeland Security tried to put 44 of the most vulnerable storage facilities on a classified list lest they fall into the hands of terrorists. The spill of toxic coal ash in Tennessee drove another nail into the lid of the coal industry coffin.

In April 2009, the chairman of the powerful U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, observed that the United States may no longer need any additional coal or nuclear power plants. Regulators, investment banks, and political leaders are now beginning to see what has been obvious for some time to climate scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, who says that it makes no sense to build coal-fired power plants when we will have to bulldoze them in a few years.

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is both authorized and obligated to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. This watershed decision prompted the Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA in November 2008 to conclude that a regional EPA office must address CO2 emissions before issuing air pollution permits for a new coal-fired power plant. This not only put the brakes on the plant in question but also set a precedent, stalling permits for all other proposed U.S. coal plants. Acting on the same Supreme Court decision, in December 2009 the EPA issued a final endangerment finding confirming that CO2 emissions threaten human health and welfare and must be regulated, jeopardizing new coal plants everywhere.

The bottom line is that the United States now has, in effect, a de facto moratorium on the building of new coal-fired power plants. This has led the Sierra Club, the national leader on this issue, to expand its campaign to reduce carbon emissions to include the closing of existing plants.

Given the huge potential for reducing electricity use in the United States by switching to more efficient lighting and appliances, for example, this may be much easier than it appears. If the efficiency level of the other 49 states were raised to that of New York, the most energy-efficient state, the energy saved would be sufficient to close 80 percent of the country’s coal-fired power plants. The few remaining plants could be shut down by turning to renewable energy—wind farms, solar thermal power plants, solar cell rooftop arrays, and geothermal power and heat.

The handwriting is on the wall. With the likelihood that few, if any, new coal-fired power plants will be approved in the United States, this de facto moratorium will send a message to the world. Denmark and New Zealand have already banned new coal-fired power plants. Other countries are likely to join this effort to cut carbon emissions. Even China, which was building one new coal plant a week, is surging ahead with harnessing renewable energy development and will soon overtake the United States in wind electric generation. These and other developments suggest that the Plan B goal of cutting net carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020 may be much more attainable than many would have thought.

# # #

Adapted from Chapter 10, “Can We Mobilize Fast Enough?” in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), available on-line at www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/books/pb4

In September 1973 I caught ‘flu. My wife said to me, with callous indifference to my misery, “Stop lying there looking sorry for yourself. Why don’t you solve the energy crisis?” – Professor Salter, in the University of Edinburgh Bulletin, Volume 11, Number 2, 1974

Some, including Professor Salter, believe he just may have – although, the eventual outcome of his research and experimentation was somewhat shrouded in mystery….

Miniature Salter’s Duck in test tank

His invention, Salter’s Edinburgh Duck, continues to be the machine against which all others are measured. In small scale controlled tests, the Duck’s curved cam-like body can stop 90% of wave motion and can convert 90% of that to electricity. While it continues to represent the most efficient use of available material and wave resources, the machine has never gone to sea, primarily because its complex hydraulic system is not well suited to incremental implementation, and the costs and risks of a full-scale test would be high….

According to sworn testimony before the House of Parliament, The UK Wave Energy program was shut down on March 19, 1982, in a closed meeting, the details of which remain secret. The members of the meeting were recruited largely from the nuclear and fossil fuels industries, and the wave programme manager, Clive Grove-Palmer, was excluded.

An analysis of Salter’s Duck resulted in a miscalculation of the estimated cost of energy production by a factor of 10, an error which was only recently identified. Some wave power advocates believe that this error, combined with a general lack of enthusiasm for renewable energy in the 1980s (after oil prices fell), hindered the advancement of wave power technology. – Wikipedia

Some even go as far to say that Salter’s Duck was a very inconvenient solution that was intentionally killed by nuclear lobbyists.

Harnessing the combined forces of wind, the earth’s spin, and the
moon’s gravitational pull

Waves are not short on power. In fact, the sheer potency of the ocean is a serious issue for engineers. How do you build something that can withstand the constant wear and tear of the enormous weight of ocean surges? And, once you have that figured, add in extra fortification for stormy conditions, and top it off with protection against the incredibly corrosive effects of salt.

The outcome was that many regarded such technology as prohibitively expensive. Even prototypes, if they were to offer a half-decent impression of what the real thing could do, were pricey enough to discourage a rush in investment.

But, as we all know, oil prices only fell so far – and have since turned around to rush right back at us again. Renewable energy options are back on the table, and some believe wave power is one of the soundest environmental options – at least for those nations with an accommodating coastline (most of the best sites are on the western coastlines of continents and islands between the 40′ and 60′ latitudes, above and below the equator).

Some perceived pros and cons:

Pros:

• If properly located, more consistent power source than wind or solar
• Cheap to maintain
• A potentially highly efficient wave-to-electricity conversion ratio
• The sheer force/density of water compared to wind equates to far fewer generators being required compared with wind turbines
• Low negative impact on ecosystems
• Visually inconspicuous

Cons:

• High initial startup costs
• Must be able to withstand very rough weather
• Needs a suitable site, where waves are consistently strong
• Difficulty to transfer energy back to land

Today there are several kinds of Ocean Power devices either in use, in construction, or being experimented with. Although the Salter’s Duck design is regarded as having the highest power conversion ratio, other designs have their own benefits. Where local geographic features allow, some designs have been successfully integrated into cliffs and shorelines, removing the problem of electricity transfer back to land – and providing better maintenance access.

Here are a few examples of different kinds of Ocean Power designs:

Limpet (Land Installed Marine Powered Energy Transformer): A third of the energy requirements of the Isle of Islay, off the western coast of Scotland, are powered from one of these guys. Power is generated as waves enter the open cavity, concentrating and forcing air through a chamber on the top (or rear depending on the design) of the installation. The forced air turns a turbine, which turns a generator.

You can see how it works here:

Pelamis: This long, hinged tube (about 160 metres long) is appropriately named after the Pelamis sea-snake. As it bobs up and down in the waves, the hinges bend and pump hydraulic fluid which drives generators.

Scottish engineers built the Pelamis wave farm in Portugal, and it was announced last year that a much bigger farm will be built in Scottish waters. The completion date should be 2011. Learn more about the Pelamis here.

A report on the Pelamis off the coast of Oporto, Portugal – the world’s first wave farm implementation:

And here’s another variation for good measure:

Mighty Whale: This monster device is the latest incarnation of a long line of experimentation in ocean power technologies in Japan. A Mighty Whale prototype, complete with painted mouth and eyes, was launched in Japan in 1998, and has been the subject of open sea tests since. More info here and here.

As in every area of power generation, whether coal-fired, nuclear, wind or solar – energy storage issues are still a thorn in the energy industry’s side. Being able to feed Ocean Power into established power grids, with its generally more consistent generation, has the potential to supply a significant percentage of energy needs – for those countries with appropriate westerly facing shorelines (e.g. west coasts of Scotland, northern Canada, the U.S. northwest and northeast seaboards, southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand in particular).

There are also other potential applications for Ocean Power installations, in addition to generating electricity, like the generation of hydrogen for vehicles, or water desalination.

Back in the ’80s government and industry in the UK, apparently, stalled progress in ocean power development. Today, competitive industry influences with their long established relationships, including Solar and Wind industries, will still seek to gain contracts in the place of the lesser known ocean power technologies – but, it’s also certain that the tide is turning. Professor Salter may not have fulfilled his wife’s request to solve the world’s energy crisis, but his work was certainly more than just a drop in the ocean.

In combination with a much needed reduction in consumption levels, such technologies could help some countries mitigate energy shocks as we head into an era of energy descent.

A few of several different Ocean Power designs

There are new designs for wave power systems coming out all the time. The clip below is an example of such:

It’s clear that the world is heading into an extremely interesting new decade. While the world’s insatiable demand for energy shows no sign of slowing in its exponential curve upwards, it’s clear that in the not-too-distant future supply issues are going to become acute. These two clashing parameters promise to take us into an economic ride of almost biblical proportions. If we think the energy price spikes of 2008 and the subsequent recession of 2009 have been a tough time, brace yourselves – there’s much more to come yet….

Whilst wholly late in arriving, at least now we’re seeing these serious issues being increasingly focused on in the mainstream media. Governments, however, are still exceedingly slow to apply the precautionary principle – largely choosing to cherry pick the most optimistic forecasts so they can leave the hard decisions to whoever lands the miserable task of taking on the next term in office. The irony is that even their most optimistic forecasts provide a time frame for transition that still leaves us needing to make serious haste if we’re to avoid major social upheaval, and yet we’re still doing little to nothing. And, when we examine the more conservative and realistic estimates out there, we see we’re now put in the unenviable position of trying to minimise the worst aspects of that upheaval, as it will be impossible to avoid major difficulties entirely.

One thing that is often overlooked when we think of the necessary transition is the energy it takes to make that transition. Building new infrastructure to accommodate renewable technologies like wind, wave and solar power takes copious amounts of fossil fuels – from production of components through to transport, installation and maintenance. When fuel prices skyrocket once more, and skyrocket they will, the rollout of ‘green’ technologies will thus also become more difficult and price-prohibitive. We can really get caught between a rock and a hard place, and this is exactly why getting proactive about transition right now is imperative. The old saying, ‘a stitch in time, saves nine’, has never had such urgency of meaning.

The people at BeyondZeroEmissions.org are giving some thought to a rapid energy descent, specifically in regards to Australia’s electricity production. As a result they’ve just released their Zero Carbon Australia report – an attempt to produce a blueprint for making a ten year transition to 100% renewable electricity. The full report isn’t out yet, but the six page executive summary is worth a peek:

Yes We Can! – Zero Emissions Electricity by 2020

For immediate release, 17 February 2010

Zero emissions electricity by 2020 – affordable, sensible, do-able

• See how – 6 page preview executive summary is available now for download:

  http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/preview-exec-sum14.pdf

• The full report will be available for distribution and download by mid year.

Beyond Zero Emissions’ cutting-edge Zero Carbon Australia 2020 (ZCA2020) Stationary Energy Plan is a detailed, costed blueprint demonstrating how Australia can reach zero emissions electricity by 2020 using proven, existing, commercialised technology.

Whilst not all the solutions proposed may be perfect (the only truly clean energy I know of is the result of photosynthesis), they’re a whole lot more appealing and practical than any government policy directions I’ve seen to date. Material like this needs to be examined, discussed and improved on in the halls of power today – unless they have something more pressing to do that is….

A gentle slice of moon on the star crowded sky of southwestern Madagascar just set gracefully and yet another day is over; we are now in the second half of January 2010.

And what day is today: Monday, Wednesday or perhaps Sunday? We easily lose track when in the field, especially during our prolonged stays – keeping busy in the nursery, forest and the village of Ranobe with several community participatory projects – keeping the momentum of excitement and action. The dynamics are encouraging and there is wonderful energy flowing. Every day is somewhat special; ups and downs along the journey to the ultimate balance. Capacity building is about trust building and about generosity, patience, humbleness as well as discipline. It’s a wonderful lesson for all of us, for ho avy team and for FIMPAHARA.

And what is the fresh news? Ino vao vao? As expressed in Malagasy. Aha… tsisy vao vao, is the universal answer – there is no news (even though there actually are news). In fact, misy maro vao vao – there are many good news in the process of ‘growing for the future’. And so let us fill you on those:

Work in our three native tree nurseries has been truly a rewarding time; reconnecting with nature and sharing the cheerful time with FIMPAHARA members actively involved. It’s been a pleasureable time of nature observations, provided that we are situated between a nice patch of mostly continuous forest in southwestern Madagascar and diverse agricultural land. Our nurseries attract a lot of incredibly interesting wildlife. Spectacular wildlife moments are abundant: we have been observing several local endemic species of frogs, a slim worm-sized transparent skink Voeltzkowia sp. ‘pallida’, about which not much is known, ancient looking dragonflies, beautiful butterflies and their colorful caterpillars, bizarre insects, flies, beetles and even a ‘may fly’ specimen looking quite prehistoric.

The forest is culminating in its green coat refreshed by spectacular flowers of the most bizarre shapes and structures, opening after a couple rain storms, the first just before Christmas and in the first week of January, each yielding about 20 mm. Days have been pretty hot here with maximum of 39°C and up to 70% humidity, so we like to spend our lunch breaks at what we call ‘a la plague’ (on the ‘beach’ of the lake Ranobe) in a shadow of graceful bananas. Since the beginning of January we have a very good track of weather measurements logged by our meteorological station; great tool for long term monitoring of climatic changes.

Trees in our two full-to-capacity nurseries are doing well. New species are germinating continuously and we have been monitoring their growth each month. Replanted trees have each gotten their unique tags for long-term monitoring. FIMPAHARA receives introductions to plant growth monitoring. Ho avy together with FIMPAHARA is finding local solutions to upcoming issues such as nutrient balance and plant survival. We have been supplying the saplings with compost tea, with a solution of local natural insecticides: the soaked bark of katrafay (Cedrelopsis grevei and soaked crushed leaves of neem, Azedirachta indica), keeping the insect herbivores off and strengthening the health of the seedlings; this is part of our nursery maintenance lessons we have engaged FIMPAHARA into.

Creating sunken vegetable beds

Our third nursery’s construction has just been completed we have been filling it up with pots rapidly. It is an extensive nursery, 4m wide and 16m long, with a capacity of more than 6000 pots. At the moment we have 4000 pots waiting for planting in just a few days and we are continuously filling new pots. We anticipate the seed planting will be finished by the end of January – when we will be up to 10,000 pots with growing native plants. This is certainly exciting progress. The children are a dynamic component in that progress; they have been engaged in pot filling and cheerfully carrying bags on their heads. One boy has carried a pot filled with soil on his nose; laughing when we called him ‘mifioky’ (which is the vernacular name for the endemic ephemeral chameleon Furcifer labordi – meaning the one with long nose who can whistle). We have been designing the third nursery to combine natives, food and medicinal plants, using the full potential of the nursery and proximity to the agricultural field for future tree transplanting to agroforestry schemes.

Last Sunday we had an important meeting in the village, during which FIMAPAHRA and ho avy organized a guided tour through the three nurseries, potato cropped land, our two new completed biogas installments, of which the first one has started to produce biogas already, just after two weeks. This is certainly one exciting alternative to the local cooking options – that being open fire and charcoal from the endemic forest wood. One night, returning from the nursery after the sunset, Ondra, our biogas technician grabbed our attention and whispers "come over… I’ll show you something." Taking us to the biogas storage tank, he lit the burner and … a powerful blue flame lightened up the scene. We have natural gas! It’s methane produced by anaerobic fermentation from zebo dung and water.

The villagers were impressed by the flame, and with the fact this may reduce the amount of wood they burn to cook their daily rice. More than 75 members of the community, the local land and land management association (GELOSE), local forest service (SAGE), WWF, the inter-communal association MITOIMAFI, ho avy and FIMPAHARA have gathered to carry discussion on forest protection and sustainable use within the new protected area being finally zoned. All the involved parties have officially approved patrolling against further wood cutting and charcoal making and assist ecological restoration within an area of up to one thousand hectares behind the nursery. This is certainly an incredible step forward with the prospect of sustainable conservation of the unique spiny forest in Southwest Madagascar. We are currently drafting and discussing further agreements between individual parties and discussing the local land policy (dina) for protection and enforcement. The next couple months will be an exciting time to get these documents finalized and implemented.

Along with the nursery works many activities have been carried on in the village through the interactions of ho avy and FIMPAHARA: an effective wood burning mud stove built by ho avy as demonstration has been already replicated in the seasonal home at rice fields, a new well with natural and effective filtering system put in place, language exchange has become popular and we have finally started and are highly energized for building our reforestation center which will be developed over the next month.

Well building

For more information about our progress look at issue three of the newsletter (PDF) of the program ho avy.

Recent photo galleries can be viewed at:

• http://picasaweb.google.com/martina.petru/FinalPicasaNewYear#
• http://picasaweb.google.com/martina.petru/ForNFWebblogging#

The village of Necpaly sits at 510 metres above sea level, on the eastern edge of the Necpalská Valley, in the Turiec region in the mountainous north of landlocked Slovakia. The area is filled with rolling hills and cascading valleys framed by mountain ranges peppered with deer, wild pig and bear. And, noteworthy for this particular article, the area boasts abundant flows of crystal clear water.

The village itself is ancient. Earliest written records/documents from Necpaly date back to the year 1266, but archeological evidence of habitation go back as far as the bronze age. I would describe the climate as cold temperate. The average annual temperature is 7.5°C and rainfall is around 830mm per year. Temperatures can reach as high as 42°C (108°F) in summer and as low as -25°C (-13°F) in winter. (As the climate warms the former, high temperatures are becoming increasingly common, and the latter lows almost not known any more.)

Entering the village of Necpaly

The other side of the turbine

I recently had opportunity to visit Necpaly to check out a micro hydro system that has been running there for three years now. The village has a population of around 850 people, with, I would guess, a little less than 200 houses. The turbine pictured at top has minimum/maximum generating capacities of 16 to 21 kWh, depending on seasonal water flow changes. This is enough power for more than twenty five houses, although its actual usage is a little more complicated, since instead of just feeding private residences the electricity powers street lights as well as the main community infrastructure buildings like the village hall, school, etc.

The micro hydro installation consists of a three hundred metre long diversion from the village stream, with the turbine situated part way along this man made channel. The diversion enables an artificially generated height advantage for increased head pressure, and runs for two hundred metres to create a four metre drop where the turbine sits, and then runs for another one hundred metres before it meets back up with the originating stream.

The intake for the diversion also has a few overflow spillway points to ensure the turbine doesn’t attract more water than it can handle. Excess water simply drops back down to the originating stream.

Part of the three hundred metre stream diversion

Where the diversion returns to its source there is an additional three metre drop where another, smaller, turbine could be installed. There is, in fact, a plan for two more smaller turbines to add to the success of the original.

The whole system is quite aesthetically laid out – with parts of it forming attractive water features for the village.

Most people looking at the turbine would intuitively assume the water powers the turbine from above. Instead, the turbine spins in an anticlockwise direction (if you’re facing it as per picture below).

The water drops four metres and is focussed through a smallish opening at
bottom of the boxed construction, forcing the water to rush upwards and fuel
the turbine from below

The installation cost €100,000 (US$140,000). Given its generating capacity alone, the system should pay for itself within ten years at the outside. But, it gets a little more attractive again in this instance, as excess generating capacity is sold back to electricity companies, in accordance with EU laws that require these companies to purchase excess renewable power. This is called a Feed-In Tariff, a mechanism that has had a lot of success in ramping up the uptake in renewables in Europe – Germany in particular, being the first European country to begin serious implementation of the system. This factor should decrease total payback time quite significantly.

The installation was financed by an EU subsidy as well as local shareholder investment in the project. Investors get a return by way of the above-mentioned sell-back of excess power as well as sale of base power to the villagers themselves.

Once established, maintenance for the system is low. Beyond the hardware connected to the turbine itself, winter and spring months bring leaves that need to be filtered out of the system, and the diversion itself can require a little patching to reduce leakage.

Some maintenance in spring is essential – clearing autumn leaves and branches
that wash down the valley into the system. This metal grid filters the leaves
and creates a collection point for them

Water can leak through the diversion channel

Mankind has harnessed water energy to power village life and labours for thousands of years, and there is no reason why this cannot still be the case for a great many places worldwide. A little further intelligent design of such systems could see other synergies incorporated. At the moment, for example, Necpaly villagers are toying with the idea of farming fish in the diversion channel, and another potential improvement could be to see overflows running into swales to subsequently and passively irrigate gardens, etc.

Tell us your micro-hydro tales!: I’d love to hear your micro-hydro stories. Not only for largish-turbine systems such as this, but also smaller power generating systems that might supply small house clusters, single houses, or even just aspects of a single house. Reading about these systems on the net is one thing, but getting practical insights and endorsement from people who’ve installed and/or tinkered with and tailored such systems speaks volumes more. Let us know either by comments below, or send a few pics and a short article to me on editor (at) permaculture.org.au for posting on this blog.

A Honey Buzzard patrols Necpaly – keeping the mouse population in check

A coconut shell is an excellent, biodegradable planter.
The coir (husk fibre) is extracted and mixed with soil to become a potting mix
with particularly good water retention capacity (the fibre reduces evaporation).

All photographs © Craig Mackintosh

The world’s largest water harvesting earthworks has transformed Sri Lanka, or at least large parts of it, from aridity to lushness. This mainframe design provides biological resources that villagers can use to maximise biodiversity for personal and environmental health. In similar fashion the ‘mainframe design’ of the ‘invisible structures’ of Sarvodaya’s community network provide avenues for the free flow of permaculture information to help achieve this goal. The good news is that many villagers are making use of these resources and this potential, despite constant attempts by Big Agri to lure them, through offers of free product samples and demonstrations, into chemical dependency.

Nandana Jayasinghe (inset), Director of Sarvodaya’s Agriculture Cluster and Development Education Institute in Thanamalwila, southern Sri Lanka, took me to see several sample home and market gardens. Nandana’s work is to help build on village level independence by supplementing, but not supplanting, local knowledge with permaculture techniques suitable for their climate and culture. Over recent years Nandana has been organising annual Permaculture Design Certificate (PDC) courses with visiting international trainers, as well as many other workshops.

Nandana tells me that about 80 villages within their network are specifically practicing permaculture, and counting, whilst remaining villages almost universally reject chemical based systems due to their disharmony with Sarvodaya’s agreed principles of prioritising the health of their environment.

After months without rain, mulch dries up and is easily blown away by regular
strong hot winds. Practitioners try to plant wind breaks to help here.

A buried clay pot, once filled and covered with a rag, slowly percolates water to plant roots whilst eliminating loss through evaporation

Gardening brings its own unique challenges for every locale in the world. While many of us are looking for biological solutions to creatures like slugs, aphids and caterpillars, your average permaculturist in Sri Lanka deals with ‘pests‘ of a whole other breed. Imagine walking outside to find dozens of peacocks feasting on your crops, for example. Keeping a determined monkey out of your yard is virtually impossible, and elephants…?

The ethical basis of permaculture intersects very well with the Buddhist majority of Sri Lanka, who have a deep respect for the right to life of all creatures within the biosphere. Where a rifle would quickly become the ’solution’ in other parts of the world – where the goalposts keep getting moved on what are regarded as ‘acceptable remaining population levels’ for various species, as we grow our economies – it is not even considered in most of this country, and would be greeted with scorn from neighbours. Instead, people here experiment with other imaginative alternatives. In regards to elephants, specifically, I had several villagers tell me the only people they’d heard of being killed by elephants were those who had previously resorted to violence against them – the family of a murdered or injured elephant would return to take revenge.

Sarvodaya villagers try to learn how to get along instead.

The Sri Lankan elephant, largest of the Asian elephant species (weighing up to
5400 kg), can wreak havoc in a home garden. Numerous methods are used to
discourage their presence, from hanging glass bottles together in trees
(which spook elephants by their sight and also sound as the wind disturbs
them), along with other reflective items.

A tree house serves as residence for a guard who is tasked with frightening
hungry elephants away at night by means of flashing lights and noise.
I saw trees larger than this that had been pushed over by elephants….

Monkeys are amongst the biggest challenges home gardeners face.
Despite appearances, this monkey is not being aggressive. It is simply yawning.

Much of Sri Lanka tends to be naturally arid. Where gardens are not in close proximity to a reservoir (called ‘tanks‘ in Sri Lanka) or their canals, or even where they are, water harvesting systems become an essential improvement. Many households featured rainwater harvesting tanks, provided by Sarvodaya. On my visit not a few were disconnected, however, simply because there had been no rain for months and unflushed empty pipes attracted lizards, snakes and other critters. When the rains come again, these are reconnected to supply drinking water and irrigation from rooftop rainfall.

A temporarily disconnected rainwater harvesting tank

Everywhere I went I asked the same question – particularly of older people: "Over the course of your life, have you noticed a change in weather patterns? And if so, what exactly?" Without exception, they all respond with "We get less rain." Nandana thus encourages and educates in the use of swales, composting, mulching and other water conservation practices. Permaculture can go a long way towards adapting to the impacts of climate change.

Unfortunately composting toilets are not considered here. The concept is culturally abhorrent to Sri Lankans in general and are thus disregarded outright. I suspect this may change over time as water shortages become more acute….

A palm frond covered trellis over vegetables protects from harsh
mid-summer sunlight and reduces evaporation.

One thing you find if you travel in 2/3rd world countries is that the people there usually look at you as if you’re somehow better off than they. It surprises them to realise you’re actually there to learn – that you’re there because they have something you don’t. In this case it’s a localised interdependence that secures them against the economic and social vulnerabilities we face in a globalised, peak oil world. I have immense respect, even envy, for communities that are able to provide for all or most of their own needs. An on-the-ground realisation of this appreciation often seemed to fill the people with a renewed sense of pride in what they’re able to achieve through their own labours and ingenuity. And so it should.

A biodiverse garden in the higher altitude district of south central Sri Lanka
provides more than 95% of this family’s food needs.

Because of the hoops you have to jump through to get organic certification,
Sarvodaya encourages home and market gardeners to develop Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA) schemes instead.

Biogas

Biodigesters are a permaculture design technique that are especially appreciated – with some home gardeners managing to make a closed loop for their energy requirements in this way. Families that have enough land to keep a few cows, and about US$100 or so for initial installation, can easily supply enough methane gas from a biogas system to fuel all their cooking requirements.

This biogas installation consists of three concrete lined chambers (see pic above). The one on the right is about two feet deep. Cow manure is shoveled into water here. The slurry flows through an underground pipe into the centre chamber, which is about 12 feet deep and three feet wide. Methane gas builds up in this chamber and flows through the small hose you can see running towards the house and into the kitchen (below). Overflow from this central chamber goes into the chamber at left, where it can be shoveled out and mixed into composts.

The nice blue flame indicates the clean burn you get from methane. The waste from three cows is more than sufficient to keep this fire burning for this family of eight, all day, every day – cooking grains and other food and boiling drinking water for improved health.

A few metres away, across the kitchen, is what they had to use before the biogas installation. As you can see, the gas cooker saves a lot of work in collecting oft-scarce firewood just to see it choke their lungs and the atmosphere. Dead wood can now be composted or used in construction instead and carbon emissions are reduced. Nandana estimates there are about 60 – 70 such biogas installations working efficiently within the Sarvodaya network to date.

Continue on to read Part VII….

Here’s a great tip given by a member of the Aquaponics Made Easy Forum on a cheap easy-to-build hot water system using compost.

The original question posted to the forum was "how to heat a fish tank over winter without any extra energy costs?" A hard thing to do. Thermal Mass heating was one answer but a crafty member posted a very interesting solution and swears that it works a treat. We’ve illustrated his simple design. It’s so simple you will think “Ah-ha! Why didn’t I think of that?”

Daryl from Windsor in NSW came up with an innovative solution using two ordinary wheelie bins that are filled with compost and a wound central pipe arrangement to turn cold water hot very quickly. How does it work?

“What I have made is a compost heater, inside a wheelie bin with 20 mm poly pipe coiled around the outside wall of a pipe – about 8 metres in each bin.” he says.

Compost can reach a core temperature of 70 degrees Centigrade. Conventional Hot Water systems are thermostatically set to heat the water to around 65 – 70 degrees centigrade. So at its peak this system will create very hot water for free.

“Then I load the first wheelie bin with grass clippings and horse manure and after two weeks load the second wheelie bin with the same stuff. After four weeks I empty and reload the first bin. You can leave the system running longer but the main heat production is in the first four weeks.” says Daryl.

Sourcing a wheelie bin in the city is quite easy. The main ingredients are Nitrogen and Carbon. Any green leafy material like fresh grass clippings is suitable as a nitrogen source. When mixed with an alternating layer of carbon such as dry leaves, shredded newspapers or cardboard the end result is ignited by micro organisms to create compost.

Make sure the mixture is well watered as a dry mix will not work so well. But harnessing the heat given off in the core of the wheelie bin is where this idea really shines.

The central vertical pipe could also benefit with a number of large size holes drilled into it to assist oxygenation of the compost heap core without turning the heap over as is the case with most conventional compost systems.

Daryl says you can enjoy quite a number of free hot showers before the system will eventually cool down and he advocates a rich grass mixture.

"If the grass is packed in tight it should hit peak temp in about a week and hold for about 3 weeks then start tapering off.

“It’s best if you can have a second bin started and just swap from one to the other. You can use other stuff in the bin like a normal compost heap but because the grass has so much nitrogen in it its start up time is much faster.

“A few years ago I helped build a large compost heap that had about 300 meters of 25mm rural pipe going through it. After 4 weeks this system was providing enough hot water for 35 people to wash up and shower with. I was there for 3 months and we kept adding compost onto the heap and it worked the whole time I was there, eventually you would have to dig out the pipe, use the compost, and start all over again. That’s why I used the wheelie bins”, said Daryl.

The end result is an endless supply of rich garden compost and lots of free hot water!