Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Are you confusing carbon capture with carbon capture and sequestration?

No ! the piece referenced clearly mentions manufacture of baking soda and claims that to be 'removing' CO2 ! It does mention the possibility of storing CO2 underground but concentrates on the 'useful products' route.

Piddles

Radio 4's Inside Science had an interesting program on global food security

There are now more obese people in the world than there are underweight. By 2025 the cost of diabetes and obesity related disease will hit 5% of GDP, whereas the actual food production sector is 3-4% of GDP

It takes 1,000 years to "grow" 2-3cm of top soil. We've already degraded 25% of the world's top soil

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

No ! the piece referenced clearly mentions manufacture of baking soda and claims that to be 'removing' CO2 ! It does mention the possibility of storing CO2 underground but concentrates on the 'useful products' route.

Hiya. You can capture waste CO2 and use it for products that need CO2, thus getting two bangs for your buck, and avoiding one release of CO2 (out of two). Or you can capture the CO2 and then sequest it. So 'removing' CO2 can have more than one meaning.

The two options are mentioned in the article:

The trapped carbon dioxide could be piped into permanent underground storage facilities, but it can also be purified to make products.

Martyn1981

Interesting, but also confusing piece I thought regarding CBI recommendations.

They seem to be supporting new nuclear to reduce carbon emissions, whilst (possibly inadvertently?) pointing out why not:

The UK should keep building large-scale nuclear plants and “mini-nuke” reactors to help reach a net zero carbon target by 2050, according to Britain’s biggest business group.

In a letter to the business secretary, Greg Clark, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said the UK’s struggling new nuclear programme has “an important role” in a low carbon economy “at the right price”.

For me, if the price is greater than that of RE, which is also far quicker to build and displace FF emissions, then the argument is a waste of time.

But they also support cheap RE and storage, support which I'd suggest kills off any chance of affordable nuclear going forward.

The CBI has also called on the government to “unblock” the pipeline of new onshore wind farms if it hopes to reduce the cost of moving to a zero carbon economy.

The business group warned that “hindering the continued deployment of the cheapest form of renewable electricity is hampering the goal of decarbonising at the lowest cost”.

“We must see action to unblock the substantial pipeline of onshore wind projects ready to be developed and built in parts of the country where they receive public support, such as Scotland,” the letter said.

It also called for government to help create a route to market for low-cost solar power, including projects that combine battery storage.

Build more nuclear reactors to reach net zero carbon target – CBI

Martyn1981

More good news about the electric plane that the FF burners will be living next door too.

Alice, 9-Seat Electric Airplane, Gets Its 1st Buyer — Cape Air

The Alice will carry up to 9 passengers at 240 knots (276 mph, 444 km/h) with a range of up to 650 miles (1,046 km, ~ 565 nm).

Omer feels the Alice is ready to begin its flight testing period this year, with an aim for certification by 2021. Eviation hopes to enter service by 2022.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya. You can capture waste CO2 and use it for products that need CO2, thus getting two bangs for your buck, and avoiding one release of CO2 (out of two). Or you can capture the CO2 and then sequest it. So 'removing' CO2 can have more than one meaning.

The two options are mentioned in the article:

They do indeed 'mention' the possibility of underground storage but the article was concentrating on using the CO2 for applications that I consider offer only temporary removal.

It really makes no difference if the CO2 is used once, twice or a hundred times before it is returned to the atmosphere ! The point is that it is returned hence there's no nett reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

More good news about the electric plane that the FF burners will be living next door too.

It hasn't flown yet, but it's such an exciting project. And it's so....sexy.

I particularly love their pitch that "We're not environmentalists, we're in the business of making a very desirable product that has substantially lower running costs". THAT is the way to solve climate change.

That lower cost has the potential revolutionise and grow regional and commuter flying by making it far more accessible.

However, the battery is 60% of the takeoff weight, so it plainly isn't going to scale into anything with the capacity and range to make any impression on aviation's growing 2% of global emissions. But it does have the capacity to show the possibilities and change mindsets.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

They do indeed 'mention' the possibility of underground storage but the article was concentrating on using the CO2 for applications that I consider offer only temporary removal.

It really makes no difference if the CO2 is used once, twice or a hundred times before it is returned to the atmosphere ! The point is that it is returned hence there's no nett reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.

1. Yes, that's why I explained you seem to be confusing carbon capture with CCS, they are not the same, and have different goals, though overall they both aim to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

2. No. There, is a nett reduction in CO2 if the captured carbon is used in a way to displace other sources of CO2. Let's say we capture CO2 and mix it with RE produced H2, to make hydrocarbon fuels - then that hydrocarbon displaces a FF, then you have a net reduction since you have one release, instead of two.

Edit - Thought of another example. Tate & Lyle (I think) pump waste CO2 (part of their production process) into some giant local greenhouses. So whilst the CO2 is released, when the product is eaten, it helps to improve the economics of food production in those facilities, maybe even displacing transport emissions from shipping food from abroad (an issue for another discussion).

3. Think of it a bit like recycling. If you recycle glass bottles, or steel, then you leave more 'sand' and iron ore unused, thus a nett reduction.

Martyn1981

Piddles wrote: »

However, the battery is 60% of the takeoff weight, so it plainly isn't going to scale into anything with the capacity and range to make any impression on aviation's growing 2% of global emissions. But it does have the capacity to show the possibilities and change mindsets.

I too think it's sexy.

But I don't understand why you think it can't make an impact, nor scale with suitable range.

The plane has a suggested range of 650 miles, which seems more than enough for regional flights, and internal flights in most countries.

So if it's possible (and it might not be) to carry 9 people 650 miles, then I'm assuming carrying more people the same distance, is simply an issue of scale, and like ships, you get an eightfold increase in size, for a fourfold increase in frontal area, so perhaps it gets easier as you go bigger?

Or you attach the mother of all extension leads!

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I too think it's sexy.

But I don't understand why you think it can't make an impact, nor scale with suitable range.

The plane has a suggested range of 650 miles, which seems more than enough for regional flights, and internal flights in most countries.

So if it's possible (and it might not be) to carry 9 people 650 miles, then I'm assuming carrying more people the same distance, is simply an issue of scale, and like ships, you get an eightfold increase in size, for a fourfold increase in frontal area, so perhaps it gets easier as you go bigger?

Or you attach the mother of all extension leads!

I posted this quote before, and no doubt there's a path dependency problem here and she's trying to protect Airbus' gargantuan investments in current technologies, but even so, the discrepancy is disturbing.

Even assuming huge advances in battery technology, with batteries that are 30 times more efficient and "energy-dense" than they are today, it would only be possible to fly an A320 airliner for a fifth of its range with just half of its payload, says Airbus's chief technology officer Grazia Vittadini.

You can image Airbus and Boeing failing to resist the temptation to crush Eviation, but I really hope they turn out to be a disruptor like Tesla has in the road vehicle world.

Note their punctuation: up to 9 people, up to 650 miles. I wonder if this is an equivalent of a Tesla: 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, range up to 350 miles.... you can have one or the other, but not both!

Oh, and it's a lot slower than a jet.

It all seems a bit good to be true.