Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

DiggerUK said:

"So, whilst politics and beliefs may still be slightly against RE, economics is firmly on side"

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

Renewables are winning out now all over the World, with less, little and often now, no subsidy support. So your comments seem to belong to 5-10yrs ago.
Yes nuclear needs subsidies, always did, always will, and since its cost is vastly greater than RE, also requires storage, takes around 10-15yrs (of FF emissions) to build, and is increasing less popular everywhere (especially nuclear nations such as the US and France), it's clear that nuclear lost the fight some time ago.
Yes Michael Shellenberger the nuclear lobbyist supports nuclear, as do other nuclear lobbyists, but as the creator of Energy Numbers recently stated on another forum - "In short, the quack has produced more quackery."

Edit - Please don't play silly games trying to defend nuclear, this thread is for green and ethical energy issues, and whilst nuclear can be classed as low carbon (not if the FF emissions emitted during the long build are included), it can not be classed as green.
I used to support nuclear as a cleaner alternative to coal power, but as coal has been pushed off the grid by renewables, and renewables have just about reached economic parity with FF's (when we ignore the cost of their externalities), then nuclear brings nothing to the table now, other than swallowing up vast amounts of money that would actually deliver larger amounts of RE generation, sooner.

ed110220

Martyn1981 said:

DiggerUK said:

"So, whilst politics and beliefs may still be slightly against RE, economics is firmly on side"

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

Renewables are winning out now all over the World, with less, little and often now, no subsidy support. So your comments seem to belong to 5-10yrs ago.
Yes nuclear needs subsidies, always did, always will, and since its cost is vastly greater than RE, also requires storage, takes around 10-15yrs (of FF emissions) to build, and is increasing less popular everywhere (especially nuclear nations such as the US and France), it's clear that nuclear lost the fight some time ago.
Yes Michael Shellenberger the nuclear lobbyist supports nuclear, as do other nuclear lobbyists, but as the creator of Energy Numbers recently stated on another forum - "In short, the quack has produced more quackery."

Edit - Please don't play silly games trying to defend nuclear, this thread is for green and ethical energy issues, and whilst nuclear can be classed as low carbon (not if the FF emissions emitted during the long build are included), it can not be classed as green.
I used to support nuclear as a cleaner alternative to coal power, but as coal has been pushed off the grid by renewables, and renewables have just about reached economic parity with FF's (when we ignore the cost of their externalities), then nuclear brings nothing to the table now, other than swallowing up vast amounts of money that would actually deliver larger amounts of RE generation, sooner.

I think (new) nuclear is pretty much dead in the "western world" so the question is moot. Mostly it just seems to be raised as a way of attacking renewable energy, possibly in the full knowledge of the implausibility of any large scale new nuclear program - ie a mere spoiler or a way of making an ideological point by bashing "greenies" . Finland might still build another VVER reactor from Russia's Rosatom and France may build some more (but see the news today questioning EDF's ability to do so), but beyond that I think it's unlikely anything else will happen in western Europe or the USA. Russia and especially China will carry on building reactors at home and for export. Mostly they will be prestige projects in developing countries, though they may also have the benefit of raising scientific and technical levels in the host countries. 

If Rosatom and Chinese companies can genuinely dramatically reduce costs, the picture might change. I'd actually welcome that! But unless they do nuclear is just too expensive and financially risky to play more than than a small role on a world scale and renewables will carry on increasing faster and faster than nuclear.

DiggerUK

"Yes Michael Shellenberger the nuclear lobbyist supports nuclear, as do other nuclear lobbyists"
Yes Martyn1981, that's because they do what they say on the tin, why else call them nuclear lobbyists. What makes these nuclear lobbyists so different is their histories as current or former supporters of climate catastrophe dangers. All still vehemently defend their reputations as continuing to be environmentalists, as do I..._

DiggerUK

"I think (new) nuclear is pretty much dead in the "western world" so the question is moot. Mostly it just seems to be raised as a way of attacking renewable energy, possibly in the full knowledge of the implausibility of any large scale new nuclear program - ie a mere spoiler or a way of making an ideological point by bashing "greenies"

Well ed110220, the issue you raise is very much alive in the western world. Especially when two more prominent environmentalists raised the issue again in the last two weeks.
The issue of implausibility centres around what will, or will not provide, reliable supplies of power to a world with growing energy demands.

It has provided a convenient argument for those who just want to discredit "greenies", but Michael Schellenberger and Zion Lights are not "bashing greenies" anymore than George Monbiot is..._

ed110220

The most recent statistics I can find on world electricity production by source are from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy
It gives the world production of electricity from renewables (not including hydro-electricity) as 2468.0 TWh in 2018, increasing by 337.5 TWh (13.68%) to 2805.5 TWh in 2019. Nuclear produced 2700.4 TWh in 2018, increasing by 95.6 TWh (3.54%) to 2796.0 TWh in 2019.

For 2008 - 2018 it gives the annual growth rate for non-hydro renewables as 13.7% and -0.7% for nuclear. 

Martyn1981

The US is still fighting back hard against RE, or in favour of FF's, but perhaps this will change (a bit) if the current White House administration lose in November!

“All Energy Matters,” US Energy Secretary Tells Global Conference

Dan Brouillette, the current Secretary of Energy for the United States, told the IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit on July 9 that the US favors an “all of the above” strategy when it comes to formulating energy policies for the future. What that means, loosely translated, is the US opposes the push to make renewable energy the central focus of coronavirus economic recovery strategies.

Unlike most officials in the Trump maladministration, Brouillette is not a graduate of the faux think tanks promoted by Koch Industries and other fossil fuel advocates, but he still peddles the conservative line about how governments shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Better to let Adam Smith’s unseen hand decide what is best, based solely on market forces.

Sadly, that approach does not take into account the negative impact that burning fossil fuels has on human health and the sustainability of the Earth’s environment. Since the economic engine of capitalism does not assign a value to waste products like carbon dioxide and fine particulate matter, the calculus is distorted to the point where it become meaningless.

Martyn1981

Carbon Commentary Newsletter extracts. There are a few solar and EV articles, but they seem to relate to overall energy production, consumption and management, so I've left them on this thread:

1, Collective self-consumption. Engie publicised the first results of a project on a small island off the west coast of France. Solar PV is installed on 5 homes, the surplus is stored and consumed when needed by 17 other local houses. Intelligent software manages the allocation of the power, meaning that almost 100% of the electricity from the solar panels is used among the homes linked to the project. There are 30 similar projects in France but this is the first one to produce solar power and then share it among a group of houses. Other countries need to follow France in creating regulations that allow local groups to beneficially combine to share the power produced by small-scale solar, wind or hydro in a similar way. This would revolutionise the economics of renewables in small communities.
.
2, Energy Forecasts. Respected forecaster DNV GL said that world emissions from energy use probably peaked in 2019. Global energy demand, which COVID has substantially affected, will probably be no higher in 2050 than last year. DNV sees ‘transport energy use never again reaching 2019 levels’. These are major changes to many of the standard predictions although researchers such as Carbon Tracker have made similar forecasts.
 
3, Biggest green hydrogen project. Saudi renewables company ACWA announced a 4 GW solar and wind farm in the far north west of the country. The electricity will all go towards making hydrogen for shipping overseas to fuel vehicles. Wind and sun are both strong, meaning that much of the electrolyser capacity will be used 24 hours a day. Shipment will be in the form of ammonia, which will then be converted back to hydrogen at the various destinations. The principal funder of the distribution chain will be the American industrial gas giant Air Products with a $2bn investment. Due for completion in just five years, this is likely to be by far the largest single ‘renewables plus hydrogen’ project, creating about 240,000 tonnes of hydrogen a year or about 0.4% of today’s worldwide production. One interesting related point: the 4 GW of electrolysers will be made by ThyssenKrupp, not usually seen as a leader in this business. But ThyssenKrupp’s share price fell during last week and the whole company, with huge but troubled worldwide interests, is now worth only about twice the value of UK electrolyser company ITM Power, which has annual sales of less than £10m. (Thanks to several subscribers who noted this story)
 
4, The costs of home insulation. It is often said that energy efficiency improvements are the cheapest way of achieving emissions reductions. In the case of domestic homes, this is simply not true. The UK government’s announcement this week of a £2bn ($2.5bn) fund to improve insulation standards illustrated the point. The fund is expected to save about 0.5 millions of CO2 a year, or about 0.7% of CO2 emissions from UK houses. Assuming the improvements last 20 years, the cost per tonne of CO2 saved is around £200/£250. (And the government’s new fund only pays part of the bill). This is about twice the cost of reducing emissions by building a large new solar farm. It is obviously vital to improve the lamentable insulation standards of UK homes but existing techniques simply do not do so cost effectively. 
 
5, EU hydrogen strategy. Those looking for the key numbers on the economics of hydrogen will find the new EU hydrogen paper a very useful source of material. Among many other pieces of data, the EU says that hydrogen from fossil fuels costs about €1.50 per kg. Adding carbon capture takes this figure up to around €2 while ‘green’ hydrogen made from renewables currently ranges from about €2.50 to €5.50 per kg. Electrolyser costs are expected to fall by 50% by 2030 and another 60% by 2040. Falling costs of electricity and electrolyser will bring green hydrogen to parity with the fossil product by about 2030. When I give talks about hydrogen I’m often asked about storage and I say that salt caverns are the obvious place. I have to admit than until I read the EU document I didn't know that hydrogen was already stored in caverns in north-eastern England. 1 million cubic metres of the gas, with an energy value of around 130 GWh, are safely kept.
 
6, Basalt weathering. A study in Nature excited interest. The work showed that grinding up basalt, a very abundant volcanic rock, and then spreading the resulting fine sand on agricultural land would result in CO2 capture from the air and (probably) improved fertility through a reduction in soil acidity. The costs in some regions of the world are as low as $100 a tonne, mostly derived from the energy needed to grind the rock. The researchers assume that the grinding operation will need high priced diesel but falling costs for electricity will mean that it will soon be cheaper to use electric motors. So I think the cost estimates are too high. It might be possible to capture 5% of world emissions this way, particularly if the approach succeeds in hot, rainy countries where CO2 capture will proceed rapidly. In a previous newsletter I mentioned projects to weather olivine, a similar rock to basalt. These schemes use the energy of the waves tumbling onto beaches to break down olivine stones into sand, much enhancing the speed of weathering and hugely reducing external energy needs compared to plans for basalt. The grains of sand will absorb CO2 from the sea water, also reducing ocean acidification. Taking CO2 out of ocean water will create a gradient between the concentration of the gas in the air and the lowered levels in the sea, resulting in a flow of CO2 from air to water and reducing atmospheric concentrations. (Many subscribers wrote to me about this – thank you). 
 
7, Carbon footprints. What is the carbon impact of working from home? Does the reduction in travel and office energy costs exceed the increased electricity and heating costs from spending more time in the house? Analysis of this question is unusual but Basecamp, which runs online project management software for ‘work from home’ (WFH) businesses, gave us some figures. Most of its own people work from home. It calculates that its overall activities generate about 16 tonnes of CO2 per employee, or about twice the emissions of the average UK citizen. However much of this arises at the server farms on which its software is loaded. Its very rough estimate (which excludes heating and air conditioning costs) of home working is 0.1 tonnes of CO2 per person, only about 1% of the per capita footprint of its office in Chicago in which about 30% of the staff work. There are many methodological issues with the Basecamp calculations but the company deserves praise for the clarity and transparency of the work. And they also promise more than $100 a tonne as payment for realistic carbon offsets for all their CO2 emissions. (Thanks to Danielle Toutoungi). 
 
8, Decarbonising cement production. Cement is one of the most difficult challenges. UK start-up Carbon8 captures CO2 and then reacts it with wastes to form useful construction materials. It announced its first commercial sale of a containerised plant to a cement producer in southern France. The CO2 will be obtained from the flue gas stream and will be merged with the dust arising from cement production. The end product from the 12,000 tonnes of captured dust combined with CO2 will be lightweight concrete blocks for construction.
 
9, Hydrogen trucks. Two announcements this week. Manufacturer Hyundai said it had imported 10 hydrogen trucks to Switzerland as part of a plan to bring 1,600 units by 2024. The trucks will be rented to customers on a pay-per-use with Hyundai claiming that tax breaks mean that the vehicles will be as cheap to use as their diesel equivalents. The range is 400 km. The Port of Rotterdam, a leader in pushing for hydrogen use, is at the centre of new consortium to install hydrogen refuelling capacity in the Netherlands, Belgium and western Germany. The group includes logistics firms, truck manufacturers and Air Liquide, which will make and supply the gas, and it hopes to have 1,000 heavy trucks on the road by 2025. 

10, Vehicle-to-grid. The Nissan LEAF is the only mainstream EV that can easily offer vehicle-to-grid services. In the medium term, I suspect that all electric cars will possess this capacity because of its vital role in improving grid stability. An experiment in Australia’s capital offers to pay users for the right to extract power when electricity is scarce. Government cars will be typically paid about US$700 a year for providing this service ‘a few dozen’ times a year’, typically for less than half an hour, leaving the amount of charge in the battery largely untouched. If all Australia’s car had the capacity to offer V2G, the electricity stored could in theory provide about 3 days of the country’s total power use. 

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

Carbon Commentary Newsletter extracts. 

 
6, Basalt weathering.
The researchers assume that the grinding operation will need high priced diesel but falling costs for electricity will mean that it will soon be cheaper to use electric motors. 
 
8, Decarbonising cement production. Cement is one of the most difficult challenges. UK start-up Carbon8 captures CO2 and then reacts it with wastes to form useful construction materials. It announced its first commercial sale of a containerised plant to a cement producer in southern France. The CO2 will be obtained from the flue gas stream and will be merged with the dust arising from cement production. The end product from the 12,000 tonnes of captured dust combined with CO2 will be lightweight concrete blocks for construction.
 

It's always been cheaper to grind rock to dust using electricity rather than diesel !  Having spent my whole working life in the cement industry where process included grinding limestone& shale to a fine powder then grinding the product from the kilns to finished cement,  I can't think of a single example of anyone anywhere trying to 'save money' by using any form of hydrocarbon engine to operate the grinding mills (unless you go a little further back than my experience when someone might have used a steam engine  )

I left the cement quote intact :  perhaps not everyone realises that burning coal (or gas or whatever) makes only a small contribution to the CO2 emissions;  most of it comes from the main process of heating limestone to convert the CaCO3 to the more reactive CaO which then goes on to react with the argillaceous material.   Not convinced about using "the dust arising from cement production" as a product stream though : in any well run factory the only 'waste' would be dust recovered from the flue gasses and even that is usually returned to the process unless it's very high in alkali metals (which wouldn't be an ideal ingredient of a building block !)

Martyn1981

Quick update on the Viking Link interconnector:

Construction starts on UK-Denmark Viking Link interconnector

Plans to enable the UK to share renewable energy with countries across northern Europe took a major step forward today, as construction began on an electricity interconnector linking the country's power grid with its Denmark's national network.

Delivered as a joint project between National Grid Ventures and the Danish electricity system operator Energinet, the Viking Link project is set to deliver the world's longest subsea electricity interconnector. Capable of providing up to 1.4GW of electricity transmission, the interconnector will stretch 765km onshore and under the sea from Bicker Fen in Lincolnshire to Revsing in South Jutland.

Coastalwatch

Good to see the Energy market in the US easing energy Storage into the market place.

Victory for wholesale energy storage, but does Order 841 allow FERC to assault net metering?

According to RTO Insider, “The court also rejected arguments by utility groups and state utility regulators seeking to opt out of allowing energy storage resources (ESRs) to participate under Order 841, which allows for units as small as 100 kilowatts to access wholesale markets. Instead, the…U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with FERC’s contention that ‘[k]eeping the gates open to all types of ESRs — regardless of their interconnection points in the electric energy systems — ensures that technological advances in energy storage are fully realized in the marketplace, and efficient energy storage leads to greater competition, thereby reducing wholesale rates.'”

Energy Storage Association CEO Kelly Speakes-Backman said in a statement, “This is an enormous step for energy storage, with the affirmation that energy storage connected at the distribution level must have the option to access wholesale markets. As our electric system becomes more modernized and distributed, we are seeing the regulatory frameworks at both the wholesale and retail levels adjust to that reality.”

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee was enthusiastic about the ruling: “I have said repeatedly that I think [with] 841, we may look down the road and say it was one of the single most significant actions taken by a government agency to address carbon mitigation and the transition to a clean energy future,” according to reporting in S&P Global.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/13/victory-for-wholesale-energy-storage-but-does-order-841-allow-ferc-to-assault-net-metering/?utm_source=pv+magazine+USA&utm_campaign=9f40950e8e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_80e0d17bb8-9f40950e8e-159341337