Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

More testing of oceanic energy in Scotland:

Malin wins wave converter work

Marine services company Malin Renewables has secured a £1m contract to supply a 50 tonne wave energy converter.

Malin has been appointed by AWS Ocean Energy to build the half-scale Archimedes Waveswing power generation device, designed for offshore wave energy production. The development of the Archimedes Waveswing is funded by Wave Energy Scotland through its Novel Wave Energy Converter programme.

The Waveswing will be fabricated and assembled at Malin’s Westway Park site in Renfrew.

Martyn1981

And loads of off-shore wind news, starting with international:

Offshore wind to 'attract $211bn up to 2025'

Offshore wind will attract capital expenditure (Capex) of $211bn (€189bn) between 2020 and 2025, according to new research by Wood Mackenzie.

The researchers said investors traditionally targeting the oil and gas sector will find offshore wind increasingly attractive, helping to drive Capex.

“There is limited crossover today, but first movers have gone with the wind and more will soon follow,” Wood Mackenzie said.

Now on to the fun bit, UK news/developments:

UK may need more offshore wind than planned

More offshore wind capacity than previously envisaged is likely to be required to meet the UK's net zero emissions target for 2050, according to the government.

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) made the statement in an update one year on from the unveiling of the Sector Deal with the offshore wind industry.

BEIS said the renewable energy sector, especially offshore wind, will have a major role in helping the UK achieve the net zero goal.

The UK government increased the country's 2030 target for offshore wind to 40GW from 30GW in December last year.
But, BEIS said, “we will also look to be even more ambitious.”

It said: “We will also work with the sector to prepare for the 2030s and 2040s, for example by enabling new innovations such as floating offshore wind and hybrid projects.”

Offshore sector targets 3000 new UK apprentices

The UK offshore wind industry has set a target to employ 3000 new apprentices and create a more diverse workforce on the first anniversary of Sector Deal with the government.

The Offshore Wind Industry Council (OWIC) unveiled plans for the industry to create job opportunities for thousands of new apprentices and recruit more black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) employees by 2030.

The industry is pledging to employ at least 3000 apprentices between now and the end of the decade.

They will work in a wide variety of jobs from turbine technicians and maintenance engineers to roles in management and finance, OWIC said

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

A bit more ethanol proposed for UK petrol.

E10 petrol: UK to standardise higher ethanol blend

The government is set to introduce E10 fuel containing 10% ethanol as a new form of “cleaner” petrol aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

The headline is therefore a bit of sloppy reporting !  Adding BIOethanol is 'A Good Thing' but headline missed the "bio" and concentrated on CO2 reduction which is probably minimal.

Headline looks perfectly correct to me.

If you want to be pedantic,  I'm referring to the subheading of "Government says ‘cleaner’ fuel will help cut carbon dioxide emissions before electric cars become the norm".  

I'm really not sure that the undoubted benefits will include cutting carbon dioxide emissions !

I think you are looking for negatives, based on assumptions, based on one short article. If it helps, this article was posted on the BEV thread :

Greener petrol at UK pumps to target emissions

Current petrol grades in the UK - known as E5 - contain up to 5% bioethanol.
E10 would see this percentage increased up to 10% - a proportion that would bring the UK in line with countries such as Belgium, Finland, France and Germany.

Some countries have E85, but I think the vehicle has to be built (or adapted) to use this as specialised fuel lines are needed. So

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

As Z points out, this would be short term carbon emissions, which aren't a concern, like you eating food and emitting CO2 (when exhaling), it's all part of the natural cycle and natural CO2 atmospheric balance.

It's the issue of releasing long term (and long buried) FF CO2 that is driving AGW. As part of the decarbonisation, If we can reduce some fuel CO2 emissions to short term cycle fuels, then that's fine.

As I made very clear both times,  I consider adding more Ethanol to be 'A Good Thing' - but NOT because it would save very much CO2 - or even  any at all - because as both Z & I have explained the total amount of CO2 emitted would remain pretty constant but both the BBC article & the grauniad subheading are claiming "The move could cut CO2 emissions from transport by 750,000 tonnes per year" .  Moreover,  not all Ethanol is bioethanol so not quite as beneficial in moving consumption from fossil fuel to renewable as might have been hoped and indeed there are huge caveats about bioethanol production which can impinge on food production.
The real benefit of Ethanol in vehicle fuel is to improve combustion efficiency hence reducing NOx emissions.

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

A bit more ethanol proposed for UK petrol.

E10 petrol: UK to standardise higher ethanol blend

The government is set to introduce E10 fuel containing 10% ethanol as a new form of “cleaner” petrol aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

The headline is therefore a bit of sloppy reporting !  Adding BIOethanol is 'A Good Thing' but headline missed the "bio" and concentrated on CO2 reduction which is probably minimal.

Headline looks perfectly correct to me.

If you want to be pedantic,  I'm referring to the subheading of "Government says ‘cleaner’ fuel will help cut carbon dioxide emissions before electric cars become the norm".  

I'm really not sure that the undoubted benefits will include cutting carbon dioxide emissions !

I think you are looking for negatives, based on assumptions, based on one short article. If it helps, this article was posted on the BEV thread :

Greener petrol at UK pumps to target emissions

Current petrol grades in the UK - known as E5 - contain up to 5% bioethanol.
E10 would see this percentage increased up to 10% - a proportion that would bring the UK in line with countries such as Belgium, Finland, France and Germany.

Some countries have E85, but I think the vehicle has to be built (or adapted) to use this as specialised fuel lines are needed. So

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

As Z points out, this would be short term carbon emissions, which aren't a concern, like you eating food and emitting CO2 (when exhaling), it's all part of the natural cycle and natural CO2 atmospheric balance.

It's the issue of releasing long term (and long buried) FF CO2 that is driving AGW. As part of the decarbonisation, If we can reduce some fuel CO2 emissions to short term cycle fuels, then that's fine.

As I made very clear both times,  I consider adding more Ethanol to be 'A Good Thing' - but NOT because it would save very much CO2 - or even  any at all - because as both Z & I have explained the total amount of CO2 emitted would remain pretty constant but both the BBC article & the grauniad subheading are claiming "The move could cut CO2 emissions from transport by 750,000 tonnes per year" .  Moreover,  not all Ethanol is bioethanol so not quite as beneficial in moving consumption from fossil fuel to renewable as might have been hoped and indeed there are huge caveats about bioethanol production which can impinge on food production.
The real benefit of Ethanol in vehicle fuel is to improve combustion efficiency hence reducing NOx emissions.

Sorry Eric, but you've completely missed the point with your statement - "I have explained the total amount of CO2 emitted would remain pretty constant".

Not all CO2 is the same, we do not have a problem with the short term carbon cycle, so, so long as the bio-energy is produced from a sustainable source, then that's fine. If we shifted all of our petrol/diesel consumption today, to sustainable bio-fuels (and I know that's not possible, but I'm just trying to be clear to you) then we wouldn't have to worry about those emissions as they won't add to the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere in the medium/long term, as they would be part of the short term carbon cycle.

Perhaps if you think abut it in net terms it will make more sense - when we burn FF's we are releasing old carbon that was trapped and stored away over millions of years, and therefore releasing it into today's atmosphere disrupts the equilibrium and adds to the CO2 level which has been relatively stable at about 260-280ppm for thousands of years, but since the 19thC has risen to ~416ppm.

The net effect of sustainable bio-fuels will not impact the atmospheric CO2 level. In fact with BECCS, we could even see carbon negative energy production from a bio-mass powerstation. So bio-fuels can save CO2 being released, certainly in the context of this thread, the article, AGW, and the reasons why we are doing this, as it saves FF based CO2 being released. The context here is of course AGW, and therefore the difference is one of 'releasing' FF CO2 by burning FF products, or 'circulating' atmospheric CO2 by burning bio-fuels. You can of course argue that the vehicle is 'releasing' CO2 in both cases, but that would mean ignoring the entire context in which this is being done - reduction in FF CO2 emissions and the subsequent rise in the atmospheric level of CO2, which scientists agree is causing the current warming.

I believe this issue (FF v's short term carbon emissions) has come up many times with you, and I can only repeat the same answer every time, I know it's boring and repetitive, but there is a crucial difference here which you seem to miss or ignore each time you challenge the benefits of bio-energy.

[Edit - to avoid any confusion, can I state that I'm aware, and totally agree, that there are many concerns about bio-energy, hence why I've stressed the need for it to be sustainable. I'm not ignoring the negatives, nor the concerns, just focusing on the release of FF CO2, which we need to do our best to reduce to zero as fast as possible. That's why the term used commonly now is that we need to move the World to a net zero carbon economy, since we will still be releasing CO2 (simply by eating and breathing, etc), but need to stop releasing additional CO2 into the environment. M.]

Martyn1981

This is interesting, a local authority asking residents if they'll pay more for the council's share of the costs to allow it to go carbon neutral by 2025. This would add £52pa to the average bill. I appreciate this might be tough for some, but sounds good to me. I wonder if this idea will spread, if it gets a positive vote?

Warwick asks voters to back climate plans and 34% council tax rise

“This plan will enable the council to be carbon neutral by 2025 and help the district to also be carbon neutral by 2030, plus make necessary local preparations for climate disasters such as flooding. Investment today will help our communities ‘face the future’ with confidence.”
Proposals include making its 5,500 council homes energy-efficient, introducing electrical charging points for cars, replacing diesel-fuelled refuse trucks with electric-powered versions, introducing tighter planning rules to ensure all new homes are built to the highest environmental standards, and planting new trees.

EricMears

both the BBC article & the grauniad subheading are claiming "The move could cut CO2 emissions from transport by 750,000 tonnes per year" .  

It really doesn't matter if you think there's "good CO2" and "bad CO2"  the phrase used was "cut CO2 emissions from transport " 

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

both the BBC article & the grauniad subheading are claiming "The move could cut CO2 emissions from transport by 750,000 tonnes per year" .  

It really doesn't matter if you think there's "good CO2" and "bad CO2"  the phrase used was "cut CO2 emissions from transport " 

Correct, it will cut CO2 emissions from transport in the context of AGW, that's why we are doing these things.

I fully appreciate that an ICE burning a hydro-carbon fuel will release CO2, be it FF or bio-fuel based, and therefore I understand your main point/argument. However, as I've said (and Z also said) the difference here is a move to the short term carbon cycle, and the bio-fuel burning doesn't 'release' any FF CO2, when releasing CO2 it is simply circulating carbon, the same way that we humans circulate carbon (air to crops to food (or crops to animals to food)), which doesn't release long term stored carbon to the environment.

So, in terms of the article, AGW, and the aim behind adding ever higher amounts of bio-fuel, it is to reduce the amount of FF CO2 released, which the articles have simply shortened to 'releasing less CO2', and I think that is both fair and obvious when considered in context, and it's the way it's usually referred to in news and articles these days.

So, will it cut emissions from transport - pedantically, no, but in context to the real issue, absolutely.

[Just in case you still don't get the big issue here, can I ask if you understand the difference to net carbon in the atmosphere when a crop is grown (consuming CO2) and then consumed (releasing CO2), v's FF extraction and the subsequent release of stored CO2 on the total amount of CO2 in the environment? Thanks. M.]

Martyn1981

Great growth in wind turbine orders

Turbine orders 'hit almost 100GW in 2019'

A record number of wind turbine orders totalling almost 100GW were placed in 2019, up 39GW on 2018, according to new analysis from Wood Mackenzie

The researchers said in the 'Global Wind Turbine Order Analysis: Q1 2020' report that the orders last year were worth an estimated $78bn.

Almost $25bn of that total was in the fourth quarter, which saw an 8.4GW increase on 2018, they said.

Developers in China accounted for 50GW of the orders, the report said.

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

both the BBC article & the grauniad subheading are claiming "The move could cut CO2 emissions from transport by 750,000 tonnes per year" .  

It really doesn't matter if you think there's "good CO2" and "bad CO2"  the phrase used was "cut CO2 emissions from transport " 

Correct, it will cut CO2 emissions from transport in the context of AGW, that's why we are doing these things.

I fully appreciate that an ICE burning a hydro-carbon fuel will release CO2, be it FF or bio-fuel based, and therefore I understand your main point/argument. However, as I've said (and Z also said) the difference here is a move to the short term carbon cycle, and the bio-fuel burning doesn't 'release' any FF CO2, when releasing CO2 it is simply circulating carbon, the same way that we humans circulate carbon (air to crops to food (or crops to animals to food)), which doesn't release long term stored carbon to the environment.

So, in terms of the article, AGW, and the aim behind adding ever higher amounts of bio-fuel, it is to reduce the amount of FF CO2 released, which the articles have simply shortened to 'releasing less CO2', and I think that is both fair and obvious when considered in context, and it's the way it's usually referred to in news and articles these days.

So, will it cut emissions from transport - pedantically, no, but in context to the real issue, absolutely.

[Just in case you still don't get the big issue here, can I ask if you understand the difference to net carbon in the atmosphere when a crop is grown (consuming CO2) and then consumed (releasing CO2), v's FF extraction and the subsequent release of stored CO2 on the total amount of CO2 in the environment? Thanks. M.]

How patronising can you get ?
As a professional chemist,  I am well aware of issues relating to CO2.  As one who learnt to read and write many years ago, I'm also aware of the importance of saying what you mean and reading the words on the page rather than trying to guess what the author might have meant.

Will  cut emissions from transport was the claim NOT will change emissions from transport !  

Moreover, extrapolating from "some ethanol is bioethanol" to "all ethanol is bioethanol" is an unwarranted assumption.  What proportion of UK ethanol production do you suppose is bioethanol ?  

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

both the BBC article & the grauniad subheading are claiming "The move could cut CO2 emissions from transport by 750,000 tonnes per year" .  

It really doesn't matter if you think there's "good CO2" and "bad CO2"  the phrase used was "cut CO2 emissions from transport " 

Correct, it will cut CO2 emissions from transport in the context of AGW, that's why we are doing these things.

I fully appreciate that an ICE burning a hydro-carbon fuel will release CO2, be it FF or bio-fuel based, and therefore I understand your main point/argument. However, as I've said (and Z also said) the difference here is a move to the short term carbon cycle, and the bio-fuel burning doesn't 'release' any FF CO2, when releasing CO2 it is simply circulating carbon, the same way that we humans circulate carbon (air to crops to food (or crops to animals to food)), which doesn't release long term stored carbon to the environment.

So, in terms of the article, AGW, and the aim behind adding ever higher amounts of bio-fuel, it is to reduce the amount of FF CO2 released, which the articles have simply shortened to 'releasing less CO2', and I think that is both fair and obvious when considered in context, and it's the way it's usually referred to in news and articles these days.

So, will it cut emissions from transport - pedantically, no, but in context to the real issue, absolutely.

[Just in case you still don't get the big issue here, can I ask if you understand the difference to net carbon in the atmosphere when a crop is grown (consuming CO2) and then consumed (releasing CO2), v's FF extraction and the subsequent release of stored CO2 on the total amount of CO2 in the environment? Thanks. M.]

How patronising can you get ?
As a professional chemist,  I am well aware of issues relating to CO2.  As one who learnt to read and write many years ago, I'm also aware of the importance of saying what you mean and reading the words on the page rather than trying to guess what the author might have meant.

Will  cut emissions from transport was the claim NOT will change emissions from transport !  

Moreover, extrapolating from "some ethanol is bioethanol" to "all ethanol is bioethanol" is an unwarranted assumption.  What proportion of UK ethanol production do you suppose is bioethanol ?  

Hiya Eric. There's no need to get rude, I'm genuinely trying to help you understand the difference, and I'm pretty sure you do get this, and therefore I might 'just be feeding you', but just in case, back to your obsession with the 'release' of CO2. Try thinking of free CO2 and trapped CO2. FF CO2 is released when the FF carbon is burned, otherwise it remains 'trapped'. But the CO2 in our environment is already free, and released, it's circulating through the air, water, flora and fauna in a natural cycle, so collecting it as a bio-fuel is just a transitory state and doesn't impact the status quo, other than perhaps over a brief short term cycle, which in the case of a bio-fuel crop may be months, bio-mass, months to years.

So, and sorry to keep repeating this, but 'releasing' CO2 from the exhaust pipe of a car running on bio-fuel, is not the same as 'releasing' CO2 from long term, stored (trapped) FF's, since the former doesn't change the amount of CO2 in the environment, whilst the later does, has, and continues to increase it, which is causing global warming. That is the issue, that is the concern, that is the context in which the articles refer to reducing emissions.

From what I can understand, your entire issue here is on the articles' use of the term 'reducing carbon emissions', and once again, in context (AGW) they will, even if CO2 is coming out of the exhaust pipe.

You state the importance of saying what you mean and the importance of reading what's on the page, and I do agree with you on that, however, this topic is not new, it's been around for 50+yrs, and reading articles, or watching the news you will constantly hear the need to reduce our emissions. That doesn't mean we can't eat and exhale does it? It refers to our extraction and consumption of FF's which are adding to what was before a CO2 equilibrium. So I'm sorry, but I think it's perfectly fair for articles to talk in these terms today, since we all know what they mean, though I completely agree with you, that if I put my pedant hat on, I can challenge the wording if I wish to be difficult. I have previously and repeatedly agreed with you that the bio-fuel will 'release' CO2, but have tried to get you to see the subject in context.

In context the statement that 'bio-fuels will cut emissions from transport' is entirely correct.

[Edit - Please see the government document provided by Z (a few posts further on), it refers to the addition of bio-fuels and to reducing/decarbonising, even though, as you point out, burning these fuels will release CO2, so it seems that your rigid interpretation of the news articles is no longer in line with common place interpretation, something I've struggled to convince you off:

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport will be vital to achieving the UK's commitments on climate change. Electric vehicles and other dedicated low carbon transport modes will provide some of these emissions savings, particularly in the medium to long term. Nonetheless, there is an immediate and ongoing need to decarbonise the traditional road fuels used by the vast majority of existing vehicles.

M.]

Regarding your question about the proportion of bio-ethanol, if you read back, you will see I've always tried to refer to sustainable bio-fuel use, so I'm explaining how bio-fuels don't 'release' additional CO2. You can of course point to non bio-fuels, and yes, I would be interested to know how much of the ethanol being added to E5 and E10 petrol isn't bio, but that's not the point here, since you have claimed that the CO2 emissions would 'remain pretty constant', thus dismissing the bio element, and that's what I've been trying to explain to you.

Can we at least agree that using bio-fuels instead of FF's would mean no old trapped CO2 would be released into the atmosphere/environment ....... even though the combustion process would involve the release of CO2, and thus not increase the total amount of CO2 in the environment?

As previously stated, I already agree with you that there are other issues and concerns regarding production and consumption of bio-fuels, but as also previously stated - 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'