Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) 9 June 2015 at 6:25AM edited 9 October 2018 at 9:41AM in Green & Ethical MoneySaving 5.3K replies 416.6K views

Martyn1981

Article summarising government environmental position. Nice to see what's happening, but remember this is from a left leaning newspaper. And as I've mentioned before, regardless of political views, it's nice to see that the environment/climate crisis issue has become a battleground:

Scientists and climate advisers condemn Tory environmental record

The Conservative party’s record on tackling the climate crisis has been condemned by leading scientists and former government advisers, as the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, warned that the forthcoming election was the last chance to halt the escalating emergency.

Experts accused the Conservatives of copying rightwing politicians in the US by deliberately weakening environmental protections. Meanwhile, analysis by Labour reveals that environmental policies put forward since 2017 and opposed by the Tories would have led to emissions reductions of over 70m tonnes a year by 2030 – more than the annual emissions of Portugal.

The climate emergency has become a key battleground in the election, with Labour promising a transformative green industrial revolution, the Liberal Democrats pledging to spend billions on the crisis, and the Conservatives announcing a pre-election moratorium on fracking and pledging to plant 30m trees a year by 2025.

Martyn1981

When life gives you lemons ..... build RE!

Metamorphosis In Fukushima — Installing 11 Solar Power Plants & 10 Wind Power Plants

In land that is too altered, destroyed, and toxic after the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Nuclear Dai-ichi Power Station in Japan, not much can be done. The installation of windmills and solar panels is a possibility in some places, though.

It seems a short time has passed since the earthquake and tsunami that broke open what should not be vulnerable, leading to horrific consequences. Eight years after Japan survived one of our world’s worst disasters, the area is still struggling to recover.

One are of Japan is morphing again out of death to life via clean, renewable energy. The Nikkei Asian Review reports planning for 11 solar power plants and 10 wind power plants in a prefecture once considered lost. The combined renewable energy investments will provide ~600 megawatts of power generation capacity, equivalent to two-thirds of a nuclear power plant in the area.

[Note that's 2/3rds of the capacity, not generation. M.]

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Thanks Eric, and I do actually agree with you, however, given the name of the board and thread, and the staggering importance of AGW and the climate crisis, not challenging the dis-information could appear as acceptance/condonation of the claims made, by general readers who will not be aware of all the discussions that have taken place in the background.

I can't win either way, whether I ignore or challenge the claims made, but at least I can hold my head up by not choosing the appeasement route.

Why do you want to "win" ? This is a discussion board- NOT a competition.

Putting your 'enemies' on ignore and maintaining a dignified silence wold look adult. Continual sniping looks anything but.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Why do you want to "win" ? This is a discussion board- NOT a competition.

Putting your 'enemies' on ignore and maintaining a dignified silence wold look adult. Continual sniping looks anything but.

Sorry Eric, you've misunderstood want I said. I meant the thread will be full of unchallenged mis-information, or I'll get told off by yourself.

So if I'm to get it 'in the neck' regardless, I might as well get it for defending what I believe in, rather than appeasement.

I appreciate we disagree on the issue of arguing back (or not) but I think it's worthwhile on this issue as it's so important, and (and I apologise if you think I'm being rude, I'm not) but your suggestion does apply to you too, rather than complaining about me standing my ground (as I see it), you could place me on ignore and avoid the silliness. Also, have you noticed how you keep suggesting I place 'them' on ignore, not the other way around?

All the best.

Martyn1981

Some extracts from this weeks Carbon Commentary:

2, Fixing CO2 in basalt. A large geothermal power station in Iceland is the site of one of the world’s largest carbon storage projects, adding CO2 dissolved in water into a basalt rock formation beneath the site. The site now captures one third of all the limited emissions from the site, or about 12,000 tonnes a year. This power station is also the location of the Climeworks plant for the direct air capture of CO2, which also injects the gas into the basalt.

3, Near real-time electricity balancing. Cornwall, a poorly connected peninsula in the west of England, is the site of experiments trying to build better resilience into the electricity network. Blessed by reasonable sun and good winds, Cornwall needs far greater flexibility in supply and demand in order to accommodate more renewable sources on its crowded grid. Energy company Centrica announced a world first, saying that its network of domestic and small business batteries and renewable generators had carried out the first ever automated trades with both the local distribution operator and the UK’s network manager (National Grid) simultaneously. Bringing the often conflicting requirements of both the transmission and local distribution networks into a single auction, while also rewarding local generators and storage owners for flexibility, is an important moment for electricity operators across the world.

6, Carbon utilisation. A complex paper in Nature looked in detail at the costs and benefits of using captured carbon in a wide variety of different ways, including products as diverse as dimethyl ether and biochar. The conclusions are very tentative but suggest that a carbon tax of less than $100 a tonne would incentivise more than a gigatonne (3% of world emissions) of carbon capture.

7, Solar for making hydrogen. Even just a year ago, the news would have attracted significant attention but coverage of this story was largely restricted to specialist press. Engie and Air Liquide signed a partnership with an authority in southern France to develop a 900 megawatt solar project over the next eight years. Eventually 50% of the power produced will be converted to hydrogen, which will be stored in salt caverns and used to power a new fleet of buses and provide local heat and cooling. By 2027, the plan is to produce hydrogen with an energy value of around half a terawatt hour, about 0.1% of French electricity use. French gas operators also proposed this week to allow up to 20% hydrogen in the natural gas network, a move that would be similar to developments in other countries.

8, Why are fossil fuel companies reacting so slowly? Harvard professor Rebecca Henderson wrote a short preview of her forthcoming book on reinventing capitalism. In the article she puts forward three reasons why incumbents find change so difficult: denial, greed and overload. Denial comes from companies desperately hoping that the future will look like the past, even as the evidence mounts that rapid change is inevitable. Greed is the reaction to the perceived low profitability of developing markets compared to the rich returns available in today’s mature sectors. Overload (combined with incompetence, according to Henderson) caused by the difficulties of running existing activities stops established businesses taking significant steps to develop new low carbon technologies. But, as she says, ‘the challenge of climate change requires us to reinvent almost everything’.

9, Peak demand for oil. Saudi Aramco’s attempts to sell shares in its business has prompted analysis of when oil demand is likely to peak, and at what level. The company forecasts a near-plateau by 2035, although its prospectus seems to suggest that demand is still growing slowly in 2040. Others are not so sure. Norway’s Equinor sees demand peaking in the last years of the next decade while the International Energy Agency sees the plateau around 2030. The IEA forecast is for a maximum of around 105 million barrels a day, while Saudi Aramco puts the number at around 110 million, an increase of 10-15 million barrels on today’s levels. The important point is that the increase from today’s levels in all the forecasts comes predominantly from petrochemicals, not land transport. Saudi Aramco points to its projection of 3.3% yearly demand growth for ethylene, a key raw material for plastics, compared to its overall oil demand figure of 0.8% per year between 2018 and 2030. The optimism about the future of plastics seems misplaced in light of the rising global concerns about oceanic pollution. By contrast, BP doesn’t believe in all this stuff about peak demand, saying that it all depends on the price at which oil trades. And, in any event, the eventual fall in oil demand is likely to be very slow, it contends.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, once again, can I suggest that those that wish to post pro FF arguments, or post information from climate denial sites/articles, or deny science, or spread disinformation, please do so on their own thread.

I don't believe that this is any great hardship.

If I start a new thread can we agree that if I stay off your thread you will stay off mine?

If we see something we don’t like on the other’s thread we will copy the post to our own threads and argue with ourselves on there.

I don’t believe that is any great hardship

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nick, what is the point of your constant baiting, is science denial really a 'hill worth dying on'? I believe countering denial, disinformation, spin and lies is, but that is really for a separate thread. If you want to argue all of your old denials, or new ones, then let's do so on a new and more appropriate thread, perhaps a more appropriate board, but you will achieve nothing here other than continuing to spoil it for all.

All this nonsense about what I believe in exists entirely inside your head. You need to re-examine that ... or get someone else to do it for you.;)

In this post alone you've accused me of;

Baiting
Science denial
Disinformation
Spin
Lying
Denial

That's just in one short post ... and you wonder why the thread is deteriorating.

JKenH

1961Nick wrote: »

All this nonsense about what I believe in exists entirely inside your head. You need to re-examine that ... or get someone else to do it for you.;)

In this post alone you've accused me of;

Baiting
Science denial
Disinformation
Spin
Lying
Denial

That's just in one short post ... and you wonder why the thread is deteriorating.

You must have submitted an alternative fact/opinion to upset him that much.:)

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Also, have you noticed how you keep suggesting I place 'them' on ignore, not the other way around?

If you're going to criticise posts, at least have the courtesy to read them first ! Do you not recall me saying this :-

Why can't those warmongers just put each other on ignore

Also, sometimes you post items of green or ethical news here that I do find interesting - putting you on ignore would mean I'd miss them !

JKenH

EricMears wrote: »

Also, sometimes you post items of green or ethical news here that I do find interesting - putting you on ignore would me I'd miss them !

Same with me. It would be strange after choosing to be members of this forum if there weren’t contributions we could appreciate from time to time even from those who generally we find annoying. Mart used to be a mine of technical information.

I would also add that I am always amused by those who take the time and trouble to tell a contributor they have placed them on ignore.