Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

Basically I think he's suffering from "elderly right wing white man rails against a world gone mad, thinking he is sane" syndrome.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I like to use his example for estimates of the 'vast' intraday storage needs, since he is so negative of RE, and his piece (designed to scare/intimidate) actually goes to show what is possible.

I'd go even further, after showing that the 500GWh could simply be provided as a side effect / dual use of transportation batteries, and point to the sum of multiple grid scale batts deployed by the National Grid, DNO's, wind and PV farms, simply for their own economic benefits. It might sound like a lot, but 1,000 batts of 500MWh capacity might well be deployed to improve the profits of wind and solar farms, or 10,000 50MWh batts by the DNO's etc etc..

Of course, in reality, we'll see V2G plus demand side batts, plus the DNO's, NG and RE generation sites, and then that 'scary' 500GWh figure becomes far less intimidating.

But, as always, until the storage is delivered, right up to the day before when there is say 499.9GWh, we'll be told it's not possible, just like PV in the UK, or off-shore wind at wholesale prices, or more than [STRIKE]20%[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]30%[/STRIKE] 40% generation from RE.

Funny ole world.

Martyn1981

And under the heading of 'you couldn't make this carp up':

FERC Sides With Fossil Fuels In Forcing Renewables To Match Prices

“FERC is affirming our obligation to safeguard the competitiveness of the PJM capacity market,” said FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee. “I recognize, and wholeheartedly respect and support, states’ exclusive authority to make choices about the types of generation they support and that get built to serve their communities. They still can do so under this order.

“But the Commission has a statutory obligation, and exclusive jurisdiction, to ensure the competitiveness of the markets we oversee,” Chatterjee added. “An important aspect of competitive markets is that they provide a level playing field for all resources, and this order ensures just that within the PJM footprint.”

The new directive, which was announced on December 19 and timed perfectly to fall beneath the Christmas radar, effectively serves to bail out the fossil fuel industries in play across PJM’s market area for being unable to compete against the declining prices of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, while blaming state subsidies as the overriding issue.

Importantly, PJM’s original proposal targeted state subsidies for renewable energy generation sources, but ignored the existing subsidies propping up fossil fuel generation sources — describing one as “market interference” and casually sliding past the other.

Unsurprisingly, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) slammed the decision, saying that it will increase electricity costs across the 13 states (and the District of Columbia) in PJM’s market area, sliding the cost onto consumers, who will have to pay an extra $2 billion to $8 billion per year in additional costs.

So, just top be clear, RE needs subsidies to help it get started, and to compete against the FF subsidies, and the externality costs of FF's that are not included in the prices ...... but that would help RE ...... and is therefore unfair. Face meet palm!

GreatApe

A wind/PV/biomass power heavy grid can work

It will however need significant interconntors Significant storage Significantly curtialment significant more biomass to fill in the gaps significant more backup generation and a significantly larger grid and the costs that entails

It's not fast easy or cheap just look at the Germans they started the wind project in 1995 (the first year wind generation exceeded 1TWh) and by 2030 they plan to only be 65% of their grid as non fossil and a significant percentage of the 65% is biomass which most people don't consider to be ethical or clean. So 35 years to get to 65% which is less than 1.9% conversion per year

Not that a large nuclear build is likely in the UK but just for comparison France went from close to zero nuclear to 110%-120%* nuclear in 15 years or over 7.5% a year. So considerably faster than the German wind/PV/biomass expansion of below 1.9% a year


France produces 380-400TWh nuclear and has normal electricity consumption of about 335TWh a year.
Additional electricity production in France is due to significant electrification of heating and significant net exports of electricity to other nations

Martyn1981

RE generation where fresh water meets salt water ...... hmm .... let me think, what does the UK have an awful lot off?

Renewable Energy From The Ocean, This Time With Bone

Considering all of the water in the oceans of the Earth, it’s no surprise that researchers the world over are hammering away at the challenge of extracting renewable energy from the sea. Now a team based in Australia has come up with a solution that leverages osmotic pressure to do the trick. In an odd twist, recycled Kevlar could also come into play.

Renewable Energy From Seawater: Great Idea!
For those of you new to the topic, osmosis refers to the passage of water through a membrane. The electricity angle comes in with the seawater.

Think salt and ions, and you’re on the right track.

If sea water is separated from fresh water by a membrane, the two sides will seek a balance. That puts pressure on the membrane, and pressure can be converted to energy.

That sounds simple enough, but the devil is in the details. The Australian team, based at the Institute for Frontier Materials at Deaking University, explains that osmotic membranes “must combine high mechanical properties with high surface charge, nanochannel density, scalability of production, and environmental resilience.”

Martyn1981

I thought this article might be interesting looking at electric flight and also automated flight. Especially if you (or your partner) are into helicopters.

Last CleanTechnica Electric Air Mobility News Roundup Of The Year!

Here’s more urban air mobility (UAM) electric vertical takeoff & landing (eVTOL) and electric fixed-wing aircraft news for the last week of 2019.

Martyn1981

Mark Carney again warns of serious losses if we don't start to move money out of FF's soon and sensibly.

Firms must justify investment in fossil fuels, warns Carney

The outgoing governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has said all companies and financial institutions must justify their continued investment in fossil fuels, and warned that assets in the sector could end up “worthless”.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme being broadcast on Monday, Carney said that although the financial sector was starting to cut back on investment in oil and gas companies, the process was not moving quickly enough.

Carney has been one of the most vocal central bank governors on the need for the financial sector to do more to transition towards a zero-carbon economy.

He told the programme that the climate crisis was a “tragedy on the horizon” and that more extreme weather events were inevitable. “By the time that the extreme events become so prevalent and so obvious, it will be too late to do anything about it,” he said. Political leaders had to “start addressing future problems today”.

On the issue of whether investors should be divesting from companies in the fossil fuel sector, Carney said fund managers would “have to make the judgment and justify to the people whose money it ultimately is”.

He warned: “If we were to burn all those oil and gases, there’s no way we would meet carbon budgets. Up to 80% of coal assets will be stranded, [and] up to half of developed oil reserves. A question for every company, every financial institution, every asset manager, pension fund or insurer: what’s your plan?”

The Bank of England has said assets worth up to $20tn (£16tn) could become worthless very quickly if the financial sector and business do not make a smooth transition towards a zero-carbon economy.

Martyn1981

Recently I posted some articles about going 100% RE under the WWS calcs.

This article looks at the costs, and the fact they become savings when compared to where we are today. I've quoted a lot of it, as it is simply jam packed with info and 'denial crushing' figures. I've marked one paragraph with double asterisks as it should be read a few times:

Green New Deals For The World Are Green Good Deals

The Earth is rapidly approaching 1.5°C global warming, air pollution kills over 7 million people worldwide each year, and diminishing fossil fuel resources portend social instability. Yet, recently, world leaders at the United Nations Madrid climate talks failed to agree on a path forward. The core of the problem is the belief by some leaders that solving global warming will be expensive and drain the economy of their country. However, new research indicates that this belief is incorrect. Solving the problems is much cheaper and creates many more jobs than not solving them while also keeping the lights on. This result was learned from a scientific study I and colleagues published December 20, in the scientific journal One Earth.

In that study, we developed Green New Deal roadmaps for each of 143 countries, representing 99.7% of global human-produced CO2 emissions. The plans involve transitioning each country’s all-purpose energy (electricity, transportation, building heating and cooling, industry, etc.) to 100% clean, renewable electricity and heat that is provided by wind, water, and solar (WWS) power after accounting for energy efficiency.

In this new paradigm, we will use electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles instead of fossil fuel or biofuel vehicles; electric heat pumps for air and water heating instead of gas, oil, or wood based heaters; electric furnaces instead of fossil fuel furnaces; and electric induction cooktops instead of gas cooktops. The electricity will come from wind turbines, solar panels, concentrated solar power plants, hydroelectric plants, geothermal electricity plants, tidal turbines, and wave devices. Building heat will come from solar and geothermal heat and electric heat pumps. We will also need electricity, heat, cold, and hydrogen storage. To avoid 1.5°C global warming, at least 80% of the transition needs to occur by 2030 and 100% by no later than 2050.

One of the most important results from our study is that, worldwide, WWS reduces energy needs by 57%. This is due to the efficiency of electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles over fossil fuel vehicles; the efficiency of electric heat pumps over fossil fuel heating; the efficiency of electrified industry over fossil fuel industry; eliminating energy to mine, transport, and refine fossil fuels, biofuels, and uranium; and modest energy efficiency improvements beyond those in a fossil-fuel economy.

**This large reduction in energy requirements is important because it, along with a slight reduction in WWS energy cost per unit energy compared with fossil fuels, reduces all-purpose energy costs worldwide by an astounding 61% (from $17.7 to $6.8 trillion per year in 2050). Because WWS eliminates almost 7 million deaths annually and emissions associated with global warming, it also reduces social costs (energy plus health plus climate costs) worldwide by an even larger 91% (from $76.1 to $6.8 trillion per year). **

The upfront capital needed for this transition worldwide (which is spread over 30 years) is about $73 trillion. However, this cost pays for itself in about 7 years due to the $11 trillion in annual energy cost savings due to WWS over fossil fuels. In the United States, the capital cost of the Green New Deal is $7.8 trillion. In Europe, it is $6.2 trillion. In China, it is above $16 trillion.

WWS creates 28.6 million more long-term, full-time jobs than lost worldwide, including 3.1 million in the United States, 2.9 million in Europe, and over 8.5 million in China. It needs only 0.65% of the world’s land, of which two-thirds is space between wind turbines that can be used for multiple purposes.

In sum, WWS needs less energy, costs less, and creates more jobs than current energy. What is there not to like? A transition to WWS will improve the quality of life while solving three major problems worldwide. It is truly a Green Good Deal. The key is to deploy, deploy, deploy as fast as possible.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Mark Carney again warns of serious losses if we don't start to move money out of FF's soon and sensibly.

But, the industry experts know better.

mmmmikey

NigeWick wrote: »

But, the industry experts know better.

Industry experts looking to promote investement don't make fame and fortune by predicting the demise of the industry they proclaim to be experts in.


Fund managers with investments in FF industries will talk up the value of their investments by telling you what a wonderful future they have ("climate crisis - no, no, no, it's just a media thing, trust me, my boy....") while quietly selling them in the background.


I suspect the true experts will be eye to eye with Mr Carney on this, but whether they will actually say that is another question......

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

Industry experts looking to promote investement don't make fame and fortune by predicting the demise of the industry they proclaim to be experts in.


Fund managers with investments in FF industries will talk up the value of their investments by telling you what a wonderful future they have ("climate crisis - no, no, no, it's just a media thing, trust me, my boy....") while quietly selling them in the background.


I suspect the true experts will be eye to eye with Mr Carney on this, but whether they will actually say that is another question......

Nearly 90yrs ago:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair