Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Not good news:

Global Energy Demand Increased 2.3% In 2018, Pushing Energy-Related Emissions Up By 1.7%

but, almost out of desperation, I can attempt some positives:
- emission growth is less than energy growth
- steady shift to leccy power
- emission growth half of GDP growth

so, we seem to be turning a corner in what we pump out proportional to what we need and use.

If we can keep rolling out renewables, and they keep getting cheaper, and storage starts to play a part in expanding the role/potential of RE further, and again with ever falling costs, then a positive route forward can be seen. And that route is the only route now, as RE and storage have pretty much won the battle.

Well, that's the best I can do, but I do think the potential of a worldwide shift is there, and getting closer and closer.

Martyn1981

And now to cheer us up and have a laugh.

In the US there have been debates this week on 'the New Green Deal', a non-binding proposal to shift the US fully away from FF's. It's been massively attacked as 'commie' like, and right wing think tanks have 'costed' it - despite it having only broad proposals, at $93tn.

That $93tn is the vastly upper end of all estimations, but is being used widely by the Republican Party to 'show' how expensive RE is. But that $93tn figure includes associated policies of universal healthcare, and guaranteed employment, costs that the think tank estimate at over $80tn, yep over 85% of the cost they are attributing to RE.

They are also omitting any mention of the cost savings, cheaper energy bills, reduced health impacts ........ AGW!!!!!!

But, and here's the fun bit, and you won't believe me, so I suggest using your Google machines to check, but one Republican Senator stood up, and whilst criticising the NGD, used giant cards/images behind him to illustrate the negatives. These included, and I kid you not:

Aquaman riding a giant pink seahorse

Luke Skywalker riding a Tauntaun

Ronald Reagan riding a Velociraptor, whilst holding and firing a machine gun (Ronald Reagan not the Velociraptor), and holding an American flag (the Velociraptor not Ronald Reagan).

Even Mark Hamill tweeted that this must be photoshop, and described it as #CongressionalTauntaunPawn.

Yes the world's gone mad, but let's at least have a laugh as it all goes to hell.

ASavvyBuyer

https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/unprecedented-events-send-uk-power-market-to-negative-pricing-for-six-hours-straight

Martyn1981

Short article so worth a read, as it shows that we are balancing on a knife edge now regarding coal generation, it could go either way, but potentially good news.

Global 'collapse' in number of new coal-fired power plants

China and India have accounted for 85% of new coal power capacity since 2005, according to the Global Energy Monitor report. China permitted construction for the generation of less than 5GW of coal power in 2018, compared with 184GW in 2015. India permitted less than 3GW in 2018, compared with 39GW in 2010. India has added more solar and wind power capacity than coal over the last two years.

However, a report by the China Electricity Council, which represents the power utilities, proposes allowing 290GW of new capacity, more than the entire US coal fleet.

Lauri Myllyvirta, of Greenpeace, said: “Another coal power construction spree [in China] would be near impossible to reconcile with the emission reductions needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.”

GreatApe

ASavvyBuyer wrote: »

https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/unprecedented-events-send-uk-power-market-to-negative-pricing-for-six-hours-straight

This is mostly a misunderstanding by people who do not know what they are talking about.

A lot of power is not traded on the spot markets, for instance when the price was negative there were still 6GW of CCGTs firing. They were not selling into negative markets (why would they pay for gas and sell for a negative ££??) they are just vertically integrated utilities or have forward sales.

That is to say this is not really about solar and pv but how power is traded bought and sold.

The interesting question is, why did one of the CCGTs not ramp down and just buy off the spot market at negative prices and make a load of money? (If a 1GW CCGT fired down it could have earnt £50,000 per hour and saved £20,000 per hour in gas). The reason is probably that price is set very much on the margin and a CCGT ramping down like that would probably mean the -£50/Mwh is lost. There can also be grid limitations and really the market should be regional

But given enough time, power could end up being traded on the spot markets for longer periods of time at negative prices but this is not good news for wind and esp PV because any additional PV will see most its generation at the times that are the lowest prices or negative prices.

Overall..... this is pretty much a non story and tells us not much at all

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Short article so worth a read, as it shows that we are balancing on a knife edge now regarding coal generation, it could go either way, but potentially good news.

Global 'collapse' in number of new coal-fired power plants

If only china had the same amount of shale gas as the USA :rotfl: not only would they not need more coal, they could cut into the existing coal usage you know just like happened in the USA 2008-2018 or in the UK 1990-2000 when offshore NG came online

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Can't see this mentioned before, Martyn usual gets there first!:-)


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/25/coal-more-expensive-wind-solar-us-energy-study

Same story, just a new article:

US Wind & Solar Cost Less Than 74% Of Existing Coal Fleet

America has officially entered the “coal cost crossover,” according to a new report by environmental firm Energy Innovation, which finds that local wind and solar could replace approximately 74% of the United States’ current fleet of coal-fired power plants at an immediate cost savings to consumers — a figure which is expected to grow to 86% by 2025.

It’s worth noting, too, that the report’s definition of ‘replacing with local wind or solar’ is not an abstract notion, but specifically refers to the ability to replace coal with wind or solar “within 35 miles of the existing coal plant” at a saving to customers.

Martyn1981

Battery & Offshore Wind Costs Plummet, Threaten Oil & Gas

The Levelized Cost of Electricity of lithium-ion batteries and offshore wind have plummeted in the last year, according to new figures from research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

“Solar PV and onshore wind have won the race to be the cheapest sources of new ‘bulk generation’ in most countries, but the encroachment of clean technologies is now going well beyond that, threatening the balancing role that gas-fired plant operators, in particular, have been hoping to play,” explained Tifenn Brandily, energy economics analyst at BNEF.

It’s also heartening to see the continual decline in offshore wind costs, and what was once seen as an expensive generation technology is benefiting from the same economies of scale which have supported the solar and onshore wind industries, with benchmark LCoE falling to below $100/MWh as compared to $220/MWh just five years ago.

“The low prices promised by offshore wind tenders throughout Europe are now materializing, with several high-profile projects reaching financial close in recent months,” said Giannakopoulou. “Its cost decline in the last six months is the sharpest we have seen for any technology.”

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

If only china had the same amount of shale gas as the USA :rotfl: not only would they not need more coal, they could cut into the existing coal usage you know just like happened in the USA 2008-2018 or in the UK 1990-2000 when offshore NG came online

I think it is a a nuanced argument: cheap gas (from any source including fraking) will displace coal = good for CO2 but will also slow down renewable rollout = bad.

The US experience possibly suggests the good outweighs the bad but we don't have any counterfactual on what would have happened without fraking.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I think it is a a nuanced argument: cheap gas (from any source including fraking) will displace coal = good for CO2 but will also slow down renewable rollout = bad.

The US experience possibly suggests the good outweighs the bad but we don't have any counterfactual on what would have happened without fraking.

I'm going to go with fracking was good for the US.

Not sure if I've posted this argument on here before, so apologies if I have, but here goes.

We are now seeing a lot of Republican support for FF's and coal, mainly because they get an enormous amount of funding from the FF industries and lobbyists.

At the same time we see loads of criticism of RE still. Just this week Trump has been explaining how Americans will lose power when the wind stops blowing if they shift to RE.

So it would have been very, very difficult to fight against coal, its Congressional supporters and the media machine it has if RE had gone up against it directly.

But instead, another FF came along and was cheaper. And the loyalists said 'hell with coal, I want $$$$'s' and promptly threw coal under the bus.

Coal is now beaten, it can never recover, and RE got a foot in the door, and is now on the cusp of beating FF gas too. Plus it already employs 3x as many people as the FF industry.

The shale industry also has powerful people and money behind it, but nothing like the support for coal, and the mining communities had, so there's no worriers/concerns about RE going head to head with shale, since 'the mighty dollar' has won the argument against old (and possibly milked) loyalties.

So in short (too late I know), fracking broke coals back, and nobody's gonna give a damn about it as RE economics load more and more straws onto the fracking industry's back.

Plus of course, we can look to the US fracking industry, its dodgy methods, localised pollution, horrific fugitive methane emissions, and vast financial losses, in order to better draw up our regulations or refusals in Europe.


If we do want to play a game of time machines, or alternative realities, then I would say the whole world is suffering over the unfortunate Electoral College system used in the US to chose a President. It's managed on 3 occasions to elect a President with less votes than their opponent, and all of the 700 attempts to change the system have failed.

Many will be aware of the most recent occasion when Donald Trump won despite getting 3m less votes than Hilary Clinton, but environmentally, we need to go back to 2000 when George W Bush 'won' against Al Gore despite Al Gore getting half a million more votes.

Let's try to imagine how much further ahead the US would be today if they'd had a pro environment President in 2000, instead of an oil industry millionaire? And what influence that could have had supporting efforts around the world, rather than trying to undermine them?