Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Some Carbon Commentary extracts:

1, Steel decarbonisation. Arcelor Mittal makes nearly 100 million tonnes of steel a year, 7% of the world total. Steelmaking typically causes two tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of metal, mostly from the combustion of coal in blast furnaces. Arcelor Mittal targets a reduction of 30% by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. It proposed five different measures across some of its main manufacturing sites to begin the journey. These involve carbon capture, conversion of flue gases to ethanol or synthesis gas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide), use of wood to replace coal and employing hydrogen to reduce the iron ore to pellets of pig iron. I’ve looked at the plans of many of the major Western steelmakers over the last week and almost all are intending to use hydrogen as the main route towards zero carbon output, rather than carbon capture. But this change will be expensive. ThyssenKrupp - about an eighth the size of Arcelor Mittal – says that conversion to hydrogen will cost the company €10 billion. At a time when the industry sales are weakening, partly as a result of falling car demand, this scale of investment is problematic.

2, Hydrogen from wind. Another large scale experiment at using electrolysis to deal with the problems from intermittent wind. Orsted owns a small wind farm just offshore outside Copenhagen. It will put a 2 MW electrolyser in place to make hydrogen for transport use in the Danish capital.

4, Share of renewables. Germany saw 43% of electricity production coming from renewables in 2019, up from just over 38% in the previous year. Wind power in Denmark contributed 47% of all electricity, up from 41% in 2018. The UK share of wind and solar was 26.5% and other sources of low carbon electricity pushed the number to almost a half of all production, exceeding fossil fuel sources for the first time. (Thanks to Raymond Betz)

5, Decarbonising shipping. All the main shipowner organisations jointly proposed a plan for R&D to find the best route or routes to low carbon shipping. It is clear that short distance shipping will move to batteries but the way forward for trans-oceanic vessels is not so obvious. The outline idea suggests a fee of $2 per tonne of marine fuel to produce a budget of around $5bn for research over the next ten years. This may be the first time that an industry association has put forward a scheme that is essentially a carbon tax with the aim of using the proceeds to find the right technology for full decarbonisation.

6, Low carbon cement. Decarbonisation of cement production is difficult. The manufacture of this crucial commodity inevitably involves driving off CO2 from calcium carbonate. An EU project controlled by Heidelberg, the world’s second largest manufacturer, showed a possible route to economical capture of the carbon dioxide. By applying heat to the raw materials indirectly and sealing the calciner, the project creates a stream of very pure and low temperature CO2. This will be much cheaper to store - or to use as a feedstock - than conventional flue gases in which carbon dioxide tends to form a very small percentage. Like Arcelor Mittal, Heidelberg aims for a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and full carbon neutrality by 2050. Alongside the new Belgium project, Heidelberg is experimenting with carbon capture in Norway and Canada.

9, Innovative energy storage technologies. The UK’s Highview Power announced the first contract in the US for its innovative technology that absorbs energy by liquefying air and then recreates electricity by allowing the liquid to expand through turbines. A 50MW/400MWh unit in Vermont will provide long term storage to help cope with excess production of renewable electricity on a portion of the local grid. Highview claims its technology can provide storage at half the price of lithium ion batteries, although I suspect its round-trip energy losses are far greater than batteries. Sweden’s Azelio said it had produced the first electricity at a new pilot plant in Morocco. Unlike Highview, which stores energy in cold form, Azelio uses surplus power to heat an aluminium alloy to 600 degrees and then recaptures the power using a highly reliable Stirling engine. This technology should work well in smaller, isolated locations where it will compete against diesel backup power.

Martyn1981

Some nice UK stats to show what has been achieved so far, and what's still needed.

Renewables beat fossil fuels on 137 days in greenest year for UK energy

Energy produced by the UK’s renewable sector outpaced fossil fuel plants on a record 137 days in 2019 to help the country’s energy system record its greenest year.

The report by the Carbon Brief website found that renewable energy – from wind, solar, hydro and biomass projects – grew by 9% last year and was the UK’s largest electricity source in March, August, September and December.

The rise of renewables helped drive generation from coal and gas plants down by 6% from the year before, and 50% lower from the start of the decade. Meanwhile, the number of coal-free days has accelerated from the first 24-hour period in 2017 to 21 days in 2018 and 83 days last year.

The target will require a huge increase in low-carbon generation to help meet the UK’s rising need for clean electricity for transport and heating. However, the government’s delayed energy white paper is yet to emerge.

“The amount of low-carbon power produced has doubled over the last decade but we need to go above and beyond that to keep pace with our climate change targets, especially with overall demand set to increase, rather than falling as it has done in recent years,” Gallacher said.

“This underlines the urgency of increasing all forms of low-carbon generation – and why we need to see [the government’s] energy white paper as soon as possible, with action and policies that can enable the required investment and innovation to make this happen.”

Martyn1981

Potential backlash in Australia regarding the cost impacts of AGW and the FF subsidies:

Should fossil fuels pay for Australia's new bushfire reality? It is the industry most responsible

Without a doubt, adaptation will be expensive. But not as expensive as the cost of inaction.

Of course the billion-dollar question remains: where will the money come from?

An obvious place to start the search is at the doorstep of the industry that is the most responsible for climate change: the fossil fuel industry. It is unconscionable that as Australia burns, the taxpayer subsidises this industry to the tune of $1,728 per person per year.

What if instead we channelled the $41.8bn worth of fossil fuel subsidies into a transitions fund, to support not only disaster preparedness and relief, but also workers and communities to transition to new jobs and industries?

A second option is found in the Australia Institute’s calls for a national climate disaster fund to be established. The Australia Institute’s modelling shows that a levy of $1 per tonne of embodied emissions from all coal, oil and gas mined in Australia would raise approximately $1.5bn per year.

Both approaches would go a long way towards addressing the needs of the victims of this climate crisis, while also stopping it from getting worse in the future.

[Note the figures given are in Australian $'s. M.]

Martyn1981

A look at the health impacts of reducing coal emissions in the US:

Shutdown of US coal power facilities saved over 26,000 lives, study finds

The human toll from coal-fired pollution in America has been laid bare by a study that has found more than 26,000 lives were saved in the US in just a decade due to the shift from coal to gas for electricity generation.

The shutdown of scores of coal power facilities across the US has reduced the toxic brew of pollutants suffered by nearby communities, cutting deaths from associated health problems such as heart disease and respiratory issues, the research found.

An estimated 26,610 lives were saved in the US by the shift away from coal between 2005 and 2016, according to the University of California study published in Nature Sustainability.

The coal sector has struggled in recent years, with 334 generating units taken offline during the period analyzed in the study. A cheap glut of natural gas has displaced coal, with 612 gas-fired units coming online during this time.

While a swift transition away from coal is seen by experts as imperative to limit global heating and the worst impacts of the climate crisis, there is a counterintuitive short-term local increase in warming once coal plants are shut down. This is because these plants emit aerosols that scatter sunlight, slightly cooling the surface.

The natural gas that is replacing coal is “not entirely benign”, Burney’s research points out. Gas is, like coal, a fossil fuel and its production involves the release of vast amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Previous research has shown that both coal and gas will need to be rapidly replaced by zero carbon alternatives such as solar and wind, or to at least deploy technology that captures emissions, if the world is to avoid more disastrous global heating.

The Trump administration, however, has sought to prop up the ailing coal industry in the US and has rolled back Obama-era standards aimed at curtailing pollution from coal-fired power plants.

But don't worry (if you are a supporter of FF's), Trump says 'hold my beer'.

Trump administration to overhaul environmental review regulations

The Trump administration is set to unveil new regulations which would limit the types of projects like highways and pipelines that require environmental review and no longer require federal agencies to weigh their climate impacts, sources familiar with the plan said.

The proposed overhaul will update how federal agencies implement the bedrock National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa), a law meant to ensure the government protects the environment when reviewing or making decisions about major projects, from building roads and bridges, cutting forests, expanding broadband to approving interstate pipelines such as the Keystone XL.

Environmental groups are concerned that by weakening Nepa implementation, the US will lose a significant tool to combat and guard against climate crisis impacts and allow companies to harm local communities with less scrutiny.

Martyn1981

Some mixed news from Europe.

Irish support for wind is enormous, even higher (I believe) than it gets in the UK:

Irish voice wind energy support

More than three-quarters of Irish people are in favour of wind energy, according to a survey carried out by Interactions on behalf of the Irish Wind Energy Association (IWEA).

The poll found that 79% back wind power, with 52% strongly in favour of the technology.

Only 4% of respondents oppose wind energy, with 2% strongly opposing the sector.
The main reasons for supporting wind energy were helping the environment, a readily available energy source, renewable energy, addressing climate change and cost efficiencies.

IWEA chief executive David Connolly said: “It’s no wonder that wind energy is so popular when it cuts our CO2 emissions, cuts our electricity prices and creates jobs and investment across the country.

Not such a positive article on Germany, as they may miss their 2030 target, but on the plus side, that's because of an estimated switch to leccy demand from transport and space heating, so good news overall:

Germany to 'miss 2030 clean power goals'

Germany is on course to miss its 65% 2030 renewable energy target, according to analysis by the Institute of Energy Economics (EWI) at the University of Cologne.

EWI said gross electricity consumption could rise to 748 terawatt hours by the end of the decade, while generation from clean power would rise to 345TWh, representing only a 46% share.

The institute said demand from electric vehicles and heat pumps will help drive demand for electricity over the next 10 years.

EVandPV

Nice one NW England !
:T

Martyn1981

A bit more financial pressure regarding loans/lending to FF companies:

Pension funds urge Barclays to stop lending to fossil fuel firms

Barclays is being urged to stop offering loans to fossil fuel companies as part of the first ever shareholder climate resolution aimed at a UK bank.

A group of 11 pension and investment funds managing more than £130bn worth of assets have filed a resolution calling for Barclays to set clear targets to phase out services to energy companies that fail to align with Paris climate goals.

That includes lending to specific fossil fuel projects or for companies themselves, which include electricity and gas providers which fall foul of climate targets. The Paris agreement requires emissions to peak then fall rapidly to reach net-zero by 2050.

The resolution, spearheaded by the campaign group ShareAction and signed by more than 100 additional individual shareholders, will be voted on at Barclays annual general meeting in May 2020.

The resolution comes ahead of the Bank of England’s first ever climate stress tests, which will force the UK’s largest banks to report how exposed they are to the climate crisis and how they would respond to temperatures rising by up to 4C. The bank has warned that drastic environmental damage could hit financial institutions by reducing asset values, lowering profitability and raising the cost of underwriting insurance losses.

Barclays is among the eight lenders expected to go through the exercise. While the central bank will only release aggregate results to the public, it plans to use the first batch of reports to inform how it supervises each company.

Martyn1981

Deny till you die!

So, those FF companies that knew AGW was real and serious 50 odd years ago, but campaigned/funded the opposite, are now at it again.

This time they are promoting natural gas (also known as FF methane, before it got the PR treatment) as the solution to reducing coal emissions.

Of course they could promote RE as the solution to FF emissions, rather than just reducing FF emissions down to a level that is still not sustainable.

Remember, FF's are not evil, they are currently essential to our economies, but denial of the damage they are causing, denial of the need to move away from them, and denial of the rate of change needed now is perhaps starting to border on the edge of the 'E' word, especially for those individuals actively campaigning to misinform.

Oil companies are spending billions on PR – but are they winning?

America’s oil companies are trying to rebrand themselves as part of the solution to the climate crisis, launching a campaign to counter top Democrats’ proposals to rapidly cut pollution from the power plants and cars that run on the industry’s petroleum and natural gas.

The campaign is part of a strategy in which the oil industry has funneled billions of dollars into its defense, threatening to outpace climate action advocates, say frustrated environmental activists who are increasingly calling on Democrats in Congress to take a tougher line on the sector.

Investigative reporting has already shown that Exxon has known since at least the 1960s that its products were causing global warming. But Exxon has fought back, saying it is the victim of “a coordinated campaign perpetuated by activist groups with the aim of stigmatizing ExxonMobil”.

Exxon touts itself instead as an answer to the climate crisis. The top advertisement on Exxon’s YouTube page touts research on making biofuels from algae in order to cut climate pollution, but the technique is currently prohibitively expensive, and the research represents a tiny portion of Exxon’s budget.

Despite fossil fuel companies massive spending, they have continued to lose public support. Elected officials just haven’t followed the shift.

A majority – 60% of Americans – want to “dramatically reduce” fossil fuel use in 10 or 20 years, according to Gallup. And between 2013 and 2019, the percentage of people who wanted to emphasize oil production has dropped from 46% to 28%.

“If you take climate change seriously, then you have to think about what your path is to getting a serious climate bill,” Whitehouse said. “And the path to a serious climate bill requires disabling the fossil fuel industry’s obstruction apparatus that has been the thing that has prevented that from happening.”

Martyn1981

This article is on Australia, but of course applies to any and all countries that try to hide behind the 'we only emit a small amount of World emissions' BS.

Since the nonsense argument came up on here back in the Summer, and even got its own thread a while back, it's perhaps worth an article regardless of the idiotic maths trick it (/the deniers and diet deniers who defend it) hides behind?

[Also the title contains the very same words that many folk on here used in response ..... 'morally bankrupt'.]

When it comes to emissions, the 'too small to matter' argument is absurd, reckless and morally bankrupt

Australia’s unforgiving, unrelenting and unprecedented fires have demonstrated so clearly that the climate doesn’t recognise tricky “Kyoto carryover” accounting and doesn’t care for juvenile finger pointing at other countries.

With a warming climate, this brutal summer is a preview of what will become a regular occurrence in our lifetimes. More and more Australians realise that climate change is a clear and present threat.

Our only chance to maintain our standard of living, and our economy, is if all countries rapidly decarbonise. Many are committed to this, Australia is not. We cannot expect global progress if we ourselves aren’t prepared to at least pull our weight, let alone show any leadership.

Yet, we have a prime minister who looks into the camera and speaks to a people in survival mode and deep trauma and waves away our responsibility. He claims that we are responsible for just 1.3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, as if we are irrelevant.

Australia has never been irrelevant and we certainly aren’t now.

Even though Scott Morrison’s logic for climate inaction has been debunked many times, let’s do it again, for the sake of letting the PM, his climate denier cronies and fossil fuel lobby puppet masters know they will be held accountable for their lies and negligent inaction.

Australia is the 14th largest emitter out of 208 countries. If all countries with emissions under a “measly” 2% were lumped together we’d together be responsible for almost as much annual emissions as China and India put together.

Just for some context about that last quoted paragraph. It's been suggested on here that the UK's 1% of CO2 emissions pa are too small to matter, and some Australians are trying the same for their 'small' emissions. But if the UK's emissions don't count, then neither do Australia's, and following that logic through, the emissions of those 2% or less countries don't matter, and QED China + India don't count too.

Problem solved then!

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Deny till you die!

So, those FF companies that knew AGW was real and serious 50 odd years ago, but campaigned/funded the opposite, are now at it again.

This time they are promoting natural gas (also known as FF methane, before it got the PR treatment) as the solution to reducing coal emissions.

Of course they could promote RE as the solution to FF emissions, rather than just reducing FF emissions down to a level that is still not sustainable.

Remember, FF's are not evil, they are currently essential to our economies, but denial of the damage they are causing, denial of the need to move away from them, and denial of the rate of change needed now is perhaps starting to border on the edge of the 'E' word, especially for those individuals actively campaigning to misinform.

Oil companies are spending billions on PR – but are they winning?

Indeed Mart, they may not be winning but the myth spreading goes on apparently. In Australia the Greens are being blamed for supposed arson attacks to make the fires look like global warming however an investigation into the "facts and figures" behind these posts show them to be misinformation. Now where have we heard that before!
Nice to have a balanced view on matters. Happy viewing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-australia-51043826/debunking-australia-arson-emergency-claims