Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Here's a weird thought experiment for anyone with 15 mins to spare.

This morning I read this article and thought that's bad news:-

Methane Emissions In US 60% Higher Than Previously Reported, Finds CIRES Study

But I've been pondering it, and may have found a way to polish a turd!

First off, the article tells us nothing new, we already knew that fugitive methane emissions from cheap fracking meant that the overall GHG (green house gas) emissions from burning frack gas are no better than burning coal.

But, coal was king in the US, renewables generation cost more, and saving the planet / morals were not considered of interest.

Then shale gas came along and the US happily threw a whole industry (coal) under the bus at the altar of economics. Plus, those sneaky frackers inserted the 'environment' argument into big business regarding lower CO2 emissions. Yep it was greenwash, but they played the card.

Now jump forward a decade and we now have RE generation starting to undercut new gas generation and possibly prevent gas gen running long enough to recoup the capital investment:-

Clean Energy & DER Portfolios More Cost-Effective Than Natural Gas Replacements Worth $500 Billion




So having removed a very old and strong lobby force in the coal industry, can the younger frack-gas lobby successfully take on RE generation if RE can play em at their own game and use the two trump cards, economics and environmental?

Well, I assume it comes down to how fast costs of RE generation fall, and how big the war chests of the frack gas industry is. And that's when things get even more interesting, as the war chest size will depend on retained profits, and retained profits will depend on actual profits, and there might not have been ANY profits so far:

The Great American Fracking Bubble




If they haven't made any profits yet, could face higher costs if they are made to clean up (reduce) their methane emissions, and cheaper RE is arriving, then will the actual legacy of US frack-gas be that it killed off coal, prior to its own demise?

I've made loads and loads of logic leaps here, so the argument may be strong, or extremely weak, but regardless, it was fun trying to find the silver lining hiding behind today's whopping great methane cloud news.

mostly nonsense thats been repeated for a decade +

Shale oil and gas is profitable you dont grow to near 20mbpdoe combined per day making overall losses.

And the world is hungry for nat gas the yanks will export a huge quantity of shale worldwide great news not to mention the Americans are gas usage hogs even if pv and wind took over eletricity most their gas usage is for non electricity usage

For all your show you know full well any transition is going to take decades.
The exponential deployment fanatics and cheerleaders we proven wrong

My best wishes to wind and PV they are great technologies but always no need to pull the wool over your own eyes

NigeWick

GreatApe wrote: »

Shale oil and gas is profitable

Would that include cleaning up the mess aftrwards? As with nuclear generation and North Sea oil & gas infrastructure. Oh wait! taxpayers can pay that can't they?

Martyn1981

This article talks about adding (retro-fitting) storage to existing PV farms. As and when the economics stack up, expect a flood of such installs at PV and wind farms.

Foresight Solar reviewing retrofit storage models in bid to maximise grid connection value

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

Would that include cleaning up the mess aftrwards? As with nuclear generation and North Sea oil & gas infrastructure. Oh wait! taxpayers can pay that can't they?

And then there's the pesky AGW costs.

We need to reduce FF use, not open up even more reserves.

Martyn1981

A bit more news on the UK failing to meet it's legal carbon targets:

Housing and car industries should be ‘ashamed’ of climate record

The CCC’s annual report, published on Thursday, found the UK is on track to miss its legally binding carbon budgets in 2025 and 2030, due to lack of progress in cutting emissions from buildings and transport. It also said ministers were spurning low-cost options, such as onshore windfarms, home insulation and tree-planting, meaning people would end up paying more than needed to fight climate change.

Home insulation installations are among the cheapest carbon cutting measures but the cancellation of government incentives has caused a 95% drop since 2012, the CCC said. “It is really shocking,” said Chris Stark, CCC chief executive, who noted that such measures cut energy bills by £100 a year on average.

The government, which also cancelled plans to make new homes zero-carbon, must produce new policies and stick to them, said Stark. The big emissions cuts seen in electricity production, as renewables replace coal, shows action can be taken, he said: “We have seen what happens when the government takes an enlightened view and steps in.”

Martyn1981

Long and comprehensive article on wave and tidal energy designs.

Does the moon hold the key to the earth’s energy needs?

A coalition of 25 ocean-faring nations, called Ocean Energy Systems, estimates a global potential for wave and tidal energy of 750GW by 2050, almost twice today’s global nuclear capacity. The EU projects 100GW in 2050, providing about 10% of the bloc’s electricity.

Martyn1981

Sweden to reach its 2030 renewable energy target this year

Stockholm — Swedish utilities and power generators have already installed so many wind turbines that the Nordic nation is on course to reach its 2030 renewable energy target late this year.

By December, Sweden will have 3,681 wind turbines installed, lobby group Swedish Wind Energy Association estimates. Together with second-half investment decisions, this will be more than enough capacity to meet a target to add 18 terawatt-hours of new, renewable energy output by the end of next decade. Some new plants will be built by Norway, with which Sweden shares a renewable certificates market.

Martyn1981

Power to the people as community groups buy up renewable portfolio's.

Cornish community group buys up developer and solar portfolio in first for the region

Half a megawatt of existing solar has been taken over by Community Power Cornwall (CPC) as the community energy sector continues to show signs of its buying power following the £1.34 million purchase of a developer.

CPC, Cornwall’s first community-owned energy co-operative, bought West Country Renewables Limited in the first deal to see a Cornish community energy society buy an existing company.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Power to the people as community groups buy up renewable portfolio's.

Cornish community group buys up developer and solar portfolio in first for the region

Are there tax advantages to the community model? Doe sit become a nice little pension/annuity type investment like roof panels used to be?

Martyn1981

Too many important paragraphs to select, so it really needs to be read in full. But simply put, the argument being made is that renewables look like they can do the job of new nuclear, and that the government shouldn't green light more than one nuclear powerstation (as well as HPC) until at least 2025 to allow time to see how renewables develop (in scale, cost and the grid's ability to cope).

So that would suggest a pause after approving 6GW of nuclear, rather than keeping on to 16-17GW of approvals.

My personal opinion - PV and on-shore wind are already half the cost of new nuclear today. Off-shore wind is now about 65% of the cost of new nuclear. Storage costs are tumbling, and EV's will provide a vast amount of storage (perhaps 3x what we need) simply as a side effect of electrifying transport. In 10yrs I'm 100% convinced that RE + storage will be cheaper than new nuclear - it already is in many countries with better PV generation than the UK, already.

Note - Please remember, tghis isn't about whether you love or hate nuclear, or if like me you see it as better than coal and AGW, but falling behind RE - this is simply about the economics which look like being in favour of RE now, which allows us to drop the nuclear 'dream' regardless of personal feelings about the risks.

Cool down nuclear plan because renewables are better bet, ministers told

Addendum - Just a thought, but re-directing the nuclear subsidies into RE, storage and EV support would probably achieve a greater volume of low carbon leccy generation as well as helping to reduce transport emissions, and get the demand side storage rollout going.