Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Plans for additional 2GW link to France if approved expected to be operational 2023

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-50345575

One new link to France is due in a few weeks time, another in the second half of 2020 and if this one gets built in 2023 it will be +4GW to France. That might just about cover the UK reactors closing 2023/24

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

OK, no idea how this article will be received. It's Drax (Boo), but it's RE (cheer), but it's bio-mass burning (Boo), but it's renewable bio-mass (cheer), but it's shipping fuel around the World, like what we was doing with coal (Boo), but it's reliable and has some demand following capability (cheer), but it's CCS (Boo), but it's BECCS (cheer). :think:

Have fun:

Drax owner plans to be world's first carbon-negative business

Here is the counter argument against bio-mass, especially tree based. In partial defence of US/Canadian pellet production, I would point out that the 'volume' of forestry in those countries appears to be increasing, so the industry can be sustainable, but if there are alternatives to releasing CO2 (even if it is net zero over time) and shipping products around the World, then that makes sense.

I like the idea of bio-energy as it has the potential for carbon negativity through BECCS, and offers generation predictability and some demand following capabilities which helps to reinforce the RE package overall, but it's far from perfect.

Converting coal plants to biomass could fuel climate crisis, scientists warn

Martyn1981

Some excerpts from this week's Carbon Commentary newsletter:

Timely given some recent articles:

3, BECCS. Generating energy from burning biomass and then capturing and storing the resulting CO2 is a potentially important means of creating negative net emissions(‘BECCS’). Stockholm Exergi opened a pilot BECCS plant on its main combined heat and power plant in the Swedish capital. The plant uses low grade woodchip. The CO2 will be compressed and injected into a test site off the Norwegian coast. The utility estimates the full cost of carbon capture and storage at between €55 and €93 a tonne of CO2, which raises the cost of power from woodchip by around €20-30 per megawatt hour, or very approximately 50%. Drax, the largest UK plant which burns more wood pellets than any other power station, also signalled a wish to invest heavily in BECCS but said that it would need subsidies.

and a host of hydrogen storage/use items:

7, Power station using hydrogen. The Los Angeles utility said it that it will convert an existing coal power plant to natural gas and hydrogen. Over 250 MW of electricity capacity there will be fuelled by green hydrogen by 2025. I believe this will be second switch of an existing power station to hydrogen, following the proposed conversion of an Eemshaven generator in the Netherlands by 2023. Forces driving the switch to hydrogen at the plant supplying Los Angeles include rising volumes of wind power that will find it difficult to get onto the local grid and the presence of a large salt cavern directly underneath the power station. The cavern can be used for storage of hydrogen before it is used in gas turbines. (I saw this story on UtilityDive).

9, Manufacture of synthetic hydrocarbons. A good few weeks for the publication of academic research results on using hydrogen and CO2 to make fossil fuel replacements. One US/China study showed the potential of a new way of making ethanol from waste CO2. Australian work demonstrated a new catalyst for electrolysis equipment to make hydrogen. A Cambridge study showed how an ‘artificial leaf’ could be used to make syngas composed of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Syngas is a precursor to many chemicals made through the Fischer Tropsch process. The productivity of research into synthetic fuels, particular using catalysts made from nano-particles, suggests an eventual likelihood of cheap replacements for oil and gas. (Thanks to Mike Ellims and Brian Tyler).

10, Shipping of liquid hydrogen. If hydrogen is to become a central part of the energy economy, it will almost certainly be made in huge quantities in areas of reliable supply of wind and/or wind. Countries such as Australia and Chile will be in a good position to export it to countries with less abundant supplies. This week saw the launch of the first ship designed to carry liquefied hydrogen. (The gas will either be transported as a liquid or possibly in the form of ammonia). The new ship will be used to carry hydrogen between Australia and Japan, an economy with limited capacity to generate renewable energy.

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Here is the counter argument against bio-mass, especially tree based.

I have to admit to using biomass, but with the proviso that it is zero mile sourced and used on my wood burner. Basically if I can hear a chain saw from my house I'm there! Plus other stuff I notice if I happen to be passing. It's all scrounged with permission from local tree surgeons working in the area, and mostly if I didn't grab it would be chipped and rot away. The end result is very low consumption of fossil fuels (assisted also by PV I might add).


Not a scaleable alternative, I'm afraid!

ABrass

This month, IVL updated its findings from 2017 in light of current experience and found carbon emissions from making lithium-ion batteries are much lower today than they were two years ago. The biggest factor in the decline in emissions is the source of electricity used in the manufacturing process. Today, carbon emissions from battery manufacture range from a low of 61 kilograms per kilowatt-hour to a high of 106 kilograms per kilowatt-hour.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/16/latest-report-claims-emissions-from-lithium-ion-battery-production-much-lower-than-two-years-ago/

Martyn1981

It took a while and lots of court cases to 'get*' the tobacco industry, and it looks like the FF industry has escaped this time, but it's far from over:

ExxonMobil Won A Case Brought By The State Of New York. Does That Mean It Is Off The Hook?

A judge in New York recently ruled that the state failed to prove its case in a legal action brought in 2018 against ExxonMobil. In 2015, Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that ExxonMobil knew about the harm carbon dioxide emissions caused as far back as 1977 but had made a corporate decision to keep that knowledge from becoming public. The news created a stir, but what to do about it? That was the question.

Schneiderman’s theory was that instead of trying to prove that ExxonMobil was responsible for climate change, it would be easier to win a case that was narrowly focused on the alleged fraudulent conduct. It’s the same sort of thinking that put Al Capone in prison for tax evasion instead of proving all the murder and mayhem committed at his behest.

A Narrow Ruling

The judge seemed almost apologetic about his ruling. “Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve ExxonMobil from responsibility for contributing to climate change in the production of its fossil fuel products. But ExxonMobil is in the business of producing energy and this is a securities fraud case, not a climate change case.”

Michael Burger, the executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, described the ruling as “a narrow decision on a specific claim about a particular set of non-required statements Exxon made a few years ago.”

Other Suits Are Pending

While the company is trumpeting its victory in court, it is far from off the hook. Attorneys general in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have sued the company for directly causing climate change and the the city of Baltimore is seeking compensation to help it build defenses against powerful storms and rising sea levels. Many of those suits claim that Exxon and its oil industry pals have created what amounts to a public nuisance.

The US Supreme Court has yet to weigh in directly on whether or not ExxonMobil and other major oil companies should be financially liable for the harm they have caused, but it has permitted the Baltimore suit and the landmark federal suit brought on behalf of young people by Our Children’s Trust to go forward.

*If the FF industry become responsible for the externality costs, then their prices will have to reflect this, and that will instantly make RE, BEV's, storage etc. economically viable.

Martyn1981

Similar to a recent article I posted, but it's short and I think quite interesting:

World demand for coal falls despite growth in Asia

Global demand for coal has fallen this year for the first time in two years as Europe and the US turn their backs on coal-fired power plants in favour of cheap gas and renewable energy.

Keisuke Sadamori, a director at the IEA, said “this is not the end of coal” because Asia’s demand for electricity is continuing its steep ascent fuelled by strong economic growth and a growing number of homes with access to electricity.

“The region’s share of global coal power generation has climbed from just over 20% in 1990 to almost 80% in 2019, meaning coal’s fate is increasingly tied to decisions made in Asian capitals,” he said.

The IEA expects coal-fired electricity to rise only marginally between 2020 and 2024, at less than 1% a year, which should see its share of the global electricity mix fall to 35% in 2024 from 38% last year.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It took a while and lots of court cases to 'get*' the tobacco industry, and it looks like the FF industry has escaped this time, but it's far from over:

ExxonMobil Won A Case Brought By The State Of New York. Does That Mean It Is Off The Hook?







*If the FF industry become responsible for the externality costs, then their prices will have to reflect this, and that will instantly make RE, BEV's, storage etc. economically viable.

I wonder if it would be hard to prove that the oil industry were responsible for the climate change caused by their product - after all they just produced the oil, it was other companies that chose to burn it. In reality it is the embedded energy in everything that we buy that has driven climate change so we are all responsible.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

I wonder if it would be hard to prove that the oil industry were responsible for the climate change caused by their product - after all they just produced the oil, it was other companies that chose to burn it. In reality it is the embedded energy in everything that we buy that has driven climate change so we are all responsible.

The oil industry has saved lives and heath and wellbeing

What would excess winter deaths & excess winter sickness be without affordable central heating provided by NG?

Overall the fossil fuel industry was is and will continue.to be a very big positive net good for decades to come

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

*If the FF industry become responsible for the externality costs, then their prices will have to reflect this, and that will instantly make RE, BEV's, storage etc. economically viable.

Most the pro global warming propaganda is fake nonsense
Where is all the health savings you promised me if we stopped using coal?

While the actual heath savings in having affordable fossil fuels is very real
Turn off natural gas and see what happens to winter deaths winter sickness

If you want to account for the externalities of fossil fuels you have to account for both the positive and the native and it would probably be one unit negative ten units positive