Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Is it that time again already? Extracts from this week's Carbon Commentary newsletter:

1, Loan terms linked to environmental performance. A small number of companies have borrowed on terms that vary depending on climate change targets. Tesco, the largest British grocery retailer, joined the list with a £2.5/$3.2 bn loan for which the interest rate falls if the company meets emissions, renewable energy and food waste objectives. The actual amount of the reduction was not specified - and I assume it is a small fraction of 1% per year -  but Tesco chose to emphasise the environmental aspect of the deal when publicising the new loan. Also notable was the increasingly common statement from large business that it has responsibility to shift its entire supply chains towards low carbon alternatives, not just its own operations. As a large retailer, we can play a key role in decarbonising the wider economy through engaging our suppliers and customers in the transition’ said the CFO.
 
2, Ohio power plant hydrogen. A gas power station under construction in Ohio will be able to burn up to 20% hydrogen when it opens next year. GE promises that the turbines will be able to run on 100% H2 within a decade. Initially, the hydrogen will be sourced from local industrial producers but the site sits over salt formations that can be used for storage and I suppose that the plan is eventually to use renewables to make hydrogen that can later be burnt in periods of low supply. GE says that this will be the first purpose built hydrogen-burning plant in the US.
  
4, In-store clothes recycling. Aware that fashion is possibly the most unsustainable industry on the planet, with just 1% of clothing recycled after use, the large retailers have begun the long move towards circularity. H&M, the Swedish ‘fast fashion’ chain introduced an extraordinary machine into one of its Stockholm stores this month. Old clothes are fed into it, shredded into very tiny pieces and then made into new items of clothing after the addition of a small amount of virgin fabric. H&M made no promises to roll out the machine to other stores but this is potentially a real contribution to the drive towards circularity. There’s very useful material on Twitter on how the process works. H&M promises to licence the technology to other retailers.
  
7, Hydrogen at a nuclear plant. Nuclear power stations are poor companions for variable renewables. Ramping electricity output up and down is costly. Several nuclear generators in the US are examining how to keep plants running at 100% output and using surplus electricity to make hydrogen at times of high renewables output. One operator won a US grant to start a pilot project that will use high temperature steam to improve the efficiency of electrolysis. The company aims to use the hydrogen to serve local industrial needs in Minnesota.
 
8, Alternative fuels for shipping. The intensity of the debate within the shipping industry on the routes to decarbonisation has sharply increased in recent weeks. The alternatives include natural gas or pure methane from biological sources, synthetic methanol, ammonia and hydrogen. Each has very different consequences for ship design, port infrastructure and global supply chains. Shipowners can be forgiven for waiting to make expensive investment decisions until a clear winner can be identified. A recent survey provided a helpful summary of opinion within the industry. Natural gas was the preferred route with hydrogen a close second. Methanol and ammonia were very much less favoured. I don’t whether the respondents were fully representative of the industry but this result provides indication of how opinion is evolving.
 
9, IEA hydrogen volumes. The International Energy Agency attracted attention this week for finally saying that renewables are clearly the lowest cost source of electricity. About three years too late, I would comment. The IEA also provided some estimates on the amount of hydrogen it expects will be produced in future decades. In its ‘Stated Policies’ scenario for 2040, which projects existing government measures into the future, green hydrogen production is only about 3 million tonnes in 2040. But the EU hydrogen strategy alone looks for 10 million tonnes ten years earlier, all produced inside the EU area. As with its slow recognition of the underlying economics of solar power, I suspect the IEA is simply not keeping track of the speed of change around the world in the hydrogen economy. Even is 'Sustainable Development' scenario projected only as much green hydrogen in 2040 as is already produced using natural gas today.

  

Coastalwatch

Could have posted this on the investment page but thought it it significant enough to post here as surely all new housing developments should now be accommodating all, if not most, of what Bristol Energy are doing here. Hats off to them for taking the lead.

Just why are British housebuilders(businessman) lagging so far behind when their entrepreneurial senses should be screaming at them to embrace it!

Unless of course they're hoping for government incentives to be offered before doing so!

Bristol Energy Cooperative launches community share offer to fund solar powered microgrid

Bristol Energy Cooperative (BEC) has launched a £2 million community share offer to part-fund the UK’s first community-owned net zero housing microgrid.

Residents of the Water Lilies housing development are to get most of their energy from shared onsite solar, although their electricity supply will be topped up from the grid when needed. The microgrid will combine renewables, heat pumps, battery storage and energy efficiency measures, all linked with what the not-for-profit dubbed “smart technology”.

It also lauded how due to the inclusion of heat pumps, there will be no requirement for gas boilers.

Andy O'Brien, BEC co-founder and director said that whilst the technology for net zero housing schemes "is available now", the big housebuilders seem "reluctant to adopt it".

"This simply isn’t good enough in a climate emergency, so we decided to take the lead. In our opinion aiming for net zero should be the norm for all new housing developments.”

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/bristol_energy_cooperative_launches_community_share_offer_to_fund_solar_pow

Martyn1981

Tricky one this. Don't want to belittle or trivialize bird deaths from wind turbines, but it's good news to know that their impact (no pun intended) is hopefully even less than expected.

Birds 'better' at avoiding turbines that thought

Birds are better at avoiding wind turbine blades than previously thought, according to a study for Vattenfall at the Klim onshore wind farm in Northern Jutland in Denmark.

Vattenfall said the positive results confirm bigger potential for co-existence between nature and wind farms.

EVandPV

Martyn1981 said:

Tricky one this. Don't want to belittle or trivialize bird deaths from wind turbines, but it's good news to know that their impact (no pun intended) is hopefully even less than expected.

Birds 'better' at avoiding turbines that thought

Birds are better at avoiding wind turbine blades than previously thought, according to a study for Vattenfall at the Klim onshore wind farm in Northern Jutland in Denmark.

Vattenfall said the positive results confirm bigger potential for co-existence between nature and wind farms.

I saw this hi-tech solution to bird strikes on tv recently ...... https://www.identiflight.com/

NigeWick

Martyn1981 said:

Tricky one this. Don't want to belittle or trivialize bird deaths from wind turbines,

How many are killed by wind turbines compared to the number killed by domestic cats? And, wind turbines don't !!!!!! in my garden but cats do.

ASavvyBuyer

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

Tricky one this. Don't want to belittle or trivialize bird deaths from wind turbines,

How many are killed by wind turbines compared to the number killed by domestic cats? And, wind turbines don't !!!!!! in my garden but cats do.

Yes, I think I have read somewhere that they estimate over a million birds a year in the UK are killed by domestic cats. Unfortunately, most owners don't fit bells to their cats collars, which at least gives the birds a chance.

Coastalwatch

The statement below caught my attention so read the entire article. While there maybe the odd exception, it did provide clear and historical evidence in support. In any case I found it difficult to fault. Others of course may be more perceptive!

We can’t have billionaires and stop climate change

Over the past few years, the world’s leading Earth system scientists and climatologists have published a series of groundbreaking papers on the concept of “planetary boundaries”. They argue that life on Earth depends on a delicate balance of interlocking geological processes, including climate, forests, ocean chemistry and biodiversity. 

While this system can withstand significant pressure, things begin to break down past a certain boundary – and that’s what’s happening right now. These scientists are warning that human economic activity has overshot most of the planetary boundaries

and is now destabilising the Earth system. We’ve entered a zone of dangerous uncertainty and are at risk of triggering potentially irreversible tipping points. 

When it comes to ecological impact, we know that the richer you are, the more damage you do. This pattern is evident across a wide range of indicators.

Take carbon dioxide emissions, for example – the main gas that causes global warming. The richest 10% of the world’s population is responsible for more than half the world’s total carbon emissions since 1990. That’s a staggering figure. A small portion of humanity is consuming the atmosphere that we all rely on. And things become even more lopsided as we climb the income ladder. An individual in the richest 1% emits 100 times more than an individual in

poorest half of the human population.  

In an era of ecological breakdown, excess is literally deadly  

Why is this? According to recent research published by scientists at the University of Leeds,

it’s not only that rich people consume more stuff than everybody else, but also because the stuff they consume is more energy-intensive: huge houses, big cars, private jets, business-class flights, long-distance holidays, luxury imports and so on. And it’s not only their consumption that matters – it’s also their investments. When the rich have more money than they can possibly spend, which is virtually always the case, they tend to invest the excess in expansionary industries that are quite often ecologically destructive, like fossil fuels and mining.

https://thecorrespondent.com/728/we-cant-have-billionaires-and-stop-climate-change/842640975176-f7bab0dc?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Martyn1981

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

Tricky one this. Don't want to belittle or trivialize bird deaths from wind turbines,

How many are killed by wind turbines compared to the number killed by domestic cats? And, wind turbines don't !!!!!! in my garden but cats do.

I recall from when Trump was making a big thing about WT bird deaths, that the losses are tiny compared to those from tall glass building impacts (now that is ironic!), but I also recall that even that higher number is close to negligible compared to cat kills.
Perhaps though worth noting that cats don't tend to kill the large birds that WT's are criticised for, and last time I heard, the RSPB isn't too worried about cat kills putting it down to evolution in action ....... not that that makes it any easier when one of our clowder runs in with a chick, or our now deceased Mo would bring in live Magpies through a catflap!

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

 last time I heard, the RSPB isn't too worried about cat kills putting it down to evolution in action 

Wouldn't it be just as valid to claim that learning not to fly through giant propellers or avoiding tall buildings will result in 'improved' birds thanks to  evolution   

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

 last time I heard, the RSPB isn't too worried about cat kills putting it down to evolution in action 

Wouldn't it be just as valid to claim that learning not to fly through giant propellers or avoiding tall buildings will result in 'improved' birds thanks to  evolution   

Probably Eric, but sadly those that are against WT's are often science deniers too, so raising evolution might be a step too far for them. 

[Ohh. Quick edit - it's not about the buildings being tall, it's about the glass, especially at certain times of day and the light reflecting on them. So it's a visual trick, and I've no idea whether evolution can solve this or not ....... after all there are many, many videos of humans walking/running into large closed glass doors ...... though I'm not sure what this does, or doesn't prove intellectually!]