Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

The bio-fuel part of this article is interesting, with UK universities finding ways to streamline the process of turning seaweed into bio-fuel. This can also help to support clean ups when seaweed blooms cause problems, and remove some plastics from the sea as a side effect. Also there is potential to co-locate seaweed farming with off-shore wind.

Seaweed To The Rescue, From Renewable Energy To COVID-19 Treatment

The amount of time, energy, and expense involved in processing Sargassum for biofuel and other products is still problematic, partly because it involves drying as an initial step.

However, researchers have been working on that angle.

Last May, for example, the UK’s University of Exeter and University of Bath proposed a seaweed pretreatment method that tackles the problem. Here’s the explainer from Exeter:
“Using acidic and basic catalysts, the team devised a process that releases sugars that can be used to feed a yeast that produces a palm oil substitute. The same method also prepares the residual seaweed for the next stage of processing, called hydrothermal liquefaction.
“This process subjects the organic material to high temperature and pressure, turning the seaweed into bio-oil that can be processed further into fuels, and high-quality, low-cost fertiliser.”

Red carbon flags would normally go up at the mention of high temperature and pressure, except that nowadays low cost renewable energy is available to do the heavy lifting.

In addition, the Exeter/Bath solution indicates that the Sargassum-to-biofuel supply chain doesn’t necessarily have to rely exclusively on organized macroalgae farming. Invasive mats of Sargassum routinely clog beaches and impact the tourism industry in parts of the world. They are also linked to dead zones in the ocean. A biofuel pathway would help offset the costs of cleanup and improve both the environment and local economies, so there’s your sustainability twofer.

Of interest, the Bath/Exeter system is also designed to handle the plastic debris often intertwined with Sargassum mats, so there’s that.

Martyn1981

This is a big and bold claim, and relies heavily on carbon capture from bio-energy generation (BECCS) to go negative. Obviously bio-energy, especially bio-mass from imported wood pellets is highly controversial, and to go negative would have to be from sustainably managed sources and account for energy in processing and transporting ...... but, it is theoretically possible I suppose.

It also mentions hydrogen production from FF gas, but even if the carbon capture was 100% efficient, that would not be negative emissions, just neutral. So personally, I'd have thought RE derived green H2 would be better, and avoid mucking about with FF's.

Putting aside my thoughts and waffle, carbon neutral to negative by 2033 would be a great target to work towards for leccy, especially if it's removing CO2 emissions from space heating and transport too as we move to heat pumps and BEV's.

UK electricity grid's carbon emissions could turn negative by 2033, says National Grid

Carbon emissions from Britain’s electricity system could turn negative by as early as 2033 if the UK uses carbon capture technology alongside more renewable energy to reach its climate targets, according to a report from National Grid.

The electricity network operator on Monday set out its vision for an “emissions negative” grid that would include 30m electric vehicles on UK roads, and 8m heat pumps used to replace gas boilers in energy-efficient homes.

In National Grid’s most progressive vision for Britain’s pathway towards its 2050 climate targets it claims that net carbon emissions from the electricity sector could turn negative within 13 years by using carbon capture technology alongside bioenergy sources.

Martyn1981

Some promising wind news.

Ireland is the star it seems when it comes to on-shore wind, so well done to them, and their off-shore potential is massive.

Ireland has 'greatest' onshore wind share

Ireland generates a greater proportion of its electricity from onshore wind than any other country in the world, a new report shows.

The annual Renewables Global Status Report from think tank REN 21 says Ireland is second only to Denmark in the share of electricity provided by wind energy.

Denmark’s supply is boosted by its large offshore wind sector, leaving Ireland with a greater onshore electricity share.

Last year Denmark generated an estimated 47% of its electricity demand, with Ireland generating 32.5 %.

The IWEA said it believed that offshore wind could become the country’s leading power source by the end of 2025 if the country put in place a planning system for it, with a 12GW pipeline so far.

And Portugal's floating off-shore wind farm (3x WT's), is fully operational, which means we should get feedback on the potential of this type of wind power.

WindFloat Atlantic hits full power

The 25MW WindFloat Atlantic floating offshore wind farm off Portugal is now fully operational and supplying electricity to the country's national grid.

WindFloat Atlantic features three 8.4MW MHI Vestas turbines installed on floating structures designed by Principle Power.

Pile_o_stone

Martyn1981 said:

This is a big and bold claim, and relies heavily on carbon capture from bio-energy generation (BECCS) to go negative. Obviously bio-energy, especially bio-mass from imported wood pellets is highly controversial, and to go negative would have to be from sustainably managed sources and account for energy in processing and transporting ...... but, it is theoretically possible I suppose.

It also mentions hydrogen production from FF gas, but even if the carbon capture was 100% efficient, that would not be negative emissions, just neutral. So personally, I'd have thought RE derived green H2 would be better, and avoid mucking about with FF's.

Putting aside my thoughts and waffle, carbon neutral to negative by 2033 would be a great target to work towards for leccy, especially if it's removing CO2 emissions from space heating and transport too as we move to heat pumps and BEV's.

UK electricity grid's carbon emissions could turn negative by 2033, says National Grid

Carbon emissions from Britain’s electricity system could turn negative by as early as 2033 if the UK uses carbon capture technology alongside more renewable energy to reach its climate targets, according to a report from National Grid.

The electricity network operator on Monday set out its vision for an “emissions negative” grid that would include 30m electric vehicles on UK roads, and 8m heat pumps used to replace gas boilers in energy-efficient homes.

In National Grid’s most progressive vision for Britain’s pathway towards its 2050 climate targets it claims that net carbon emissions from the electricity sector could turn negative within 13 years by using carbon capture technology alongside bioenergy sources.

I may be cynical but whenever I see the words Carbon Capture I think it's yet another fossil fuel company trying to muddy the water and promote the retention of FF with the fairytale of a technological solution that will solve everything. This is done in the hope that Joe Public will fall for the flannel and not lobby their MPs for faster uptake of renewables. After all, "We will have carbon capture soon, so why invest in wind turbines when our existing infrastructure can be retrofitted with these devices at a fraction of the price?". The fact that these devices don't actually exist is never mentioned, or if it is they always say it will be available in only a few short years....

The FF industry seemed to have learned from a nuclear industry that keeps dangling the carrot of 'clean nuclear fusion' to justify keeping nuclear fission going until it arrives. This has been 'only a decade away' for the last 40 years.

Martyn1981

Pile_o_stone said:

Martyn1981 said:

This is a big and bold claim, and relies heavily on carbon capture from bio-energy generation (BECCS) to go negative. Obviously bio-energy, especially bio-mass from imported wood pellets is highly controversial, and to go negative would have to be from sustainably managed sources and account for energy in processing and transporting ...... but, it is theoretically possible I suppose.

It also mentions hydrogen production from FF gas, but even if the carbon capture was 100% efficient, that would not be negative emissions, just neutral. So personally, I'd have thought RE derived green H2 would be better, and avoid mucking about with FF's.

Putting aside my thoughts and waffle, carbon neutral to negative by 2033 would be a great target to work towards for leccy, especially if it's removing CO2 emissions from space heating and transport too as we move to heat pumps and BEV's.

UK electricity grid's carbon emissions could turn negative by 2033, says National Grid

Carbon emissions from Britain’s electricity system could turn negative by as early as 2033 if the UK uses carbon capture technology alongside more renewable energy to reach its climate targets, according to a report from National Grid.

The electricity network operator on Monday set out its vision for an “emissions negative” grid that would include 30m electric vehicles on UK roads, and 8m heat pumps used to replace gas boilers in energy-efficient homes.

In National Grid’s most progressive vision for Britain’s pathway towards its 2050 climate targets it claims that net carbon emissions from the electricity sector could turn negative within 13 years by using carbon capture technology alongside bioenergy sources.

I may be cynical but whenever I see the words Carbon Capture I think it's yet another fossil fuel company trying to muddy the water and promote the retention of FF with the fairytale of a technological solution that will solve everything. This is done in the hope that Joe Public will fall for the flannel and not lobby their MPs for faster uptake of renewables. After all, "We will have carbon capture soon, so why invest in wind turbines when our existing infrastructure can be retrofitted with these devices at a fraction of the price?". The fact that these devices don't actually exist is never mentioned, or if it is they always say it will be available in only a few short years....

The FF industry seemed to have learned from a nuclear industry that keeps dangling the carrot of 'clean nuclear fusion' to justify keeping nuclear fission going until it arrives. This has been 'only a decade away' for the last 40 years.

I agree totally about FF CCS. All those years that the coal industry promised 'clean(er) coal' if governments simply gave them enough money to develop it. If it was so good and viable, then why didn't they invest in it, instead of going bust?
As I mentioned, I'm skeptical about large scale bio-mass, but if it is done sustainably, then BECCs could be a great way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, whilst also offering some load following generation. The Paris Accord target for a 2/3rds chance of avoiding runaway global warming depends on removing CO2 from the atmosphere from 2050-2100 (after reaching carbon neutral).
I want to be convinced, and wish the BECCS industry well, but FF CCS just seems like a delaying tactic, as you say.

Martyn1981

Off-shore wind technology races forward, even before you can build the stuff out. Permission sought for a 30% reduction in WT numbers by installing bigger ones.

East Anglia 3 seeks green light for bigger turbines

ScottishPower Renewables has asked for permission from the UK government to allow its fully consented 1400MW East Anglia 3 offshore wind farm to use larger turbines.

Existing consents awarded to the project in 2017 allow for up to 172 turbines at the 305 square kilometre project, each with rotors up to 220 metres in diameter and tip heights of 242 metres.

The developer is looking to reduce the maximum turbine number at the project to 121 and has asked planners to allow EA3 to use machines with rotors diameters up to 230 metres and tip heights reaching 262 metres.

Martyn1981

"FF's are the new tobacco." Jim Cramer CNBC
Divestment from FF's continues:

UK's biggest pension fund begins fossil fuels divestment

The UK’s biggest pension fund, the government-backed National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) scheme with nine million members, is to begin divesting from fossil fuels in what climate campaigners have hailed as a landmark move for the industry.

The fund will ban investments in any companies involved in coal mining, oil from tar sands and arctic drilling. But the move puts Nest – a public corporation of the Department for Work and Pensions – potentially at odds with the current pensions minister, Guy Opperman, who earlier this month condemned divestment as “counter productive”.

Nest, which handles much of the pensions of workers saving under the government’s “auto enrolment” scheme, will shift £5.5bn into “climate aware” investments as it anticipates a green economic recovery from coronavirus.

The ban will mean that some of the world’s biggest mining companies, such as BHP, can never be part of Nest’s share holdings, as long they derive profits from digging coal. It said it will sell its final holdings in BHP by 3 August.

Polling for Nest found that 65% of pension savers believed their pension should be invested in a way that reduced the impact of climate change. Just 4% strongly disagreed.

Martyn1981

Remember those low CfD prices for off-shore wind in 2019, and I suggested they may be net subsidy free, as they appear to be below the average UK wholesale price? Well, there appears to be even better news. [Note - there is a valid counter argument that when off-shore wind is generating strongly and delivering loads of generation, then it will depress the wholesale price, which will reduce subsidy paybacks. Time will tell.]

UK offshore wind ‘to hit negative-subsidy from mid-2020s'

The latest round of offshore wind farms to be built in the UK could reduce household energy bills by producing electricity cheaply enough, according to researchers at Imperial College London.
The most recently approved offshore wind projects will most likely operate with “negative subsidies” – paying money back to the government from the middle of this decade, the researchers found.

The Imperial team analysed likely future electricity price trends and found that contracted price is very likely to be below the UK wholesale price over the lifetime that these wind farms would produce electricity, from the mid-2020s onwards.
The team found that these wind farms are likely to be built and run with these costs, since financing is now accessible at lower costs for such projects, owing to trust in the now mature technology.

Martyn1981

Further to the negative subsidy post, I've been having a ponder (NO! What a surprise) and looking at the CfD Register, I see that the earliest and highest (very high) off-shore wind subsidies will start to end around 2032/33, which, dare I say, isn't that far away. So, with zero, or even negative RE schemes contributing to the subsidy pot, then we should see some very positive news for bill payers next decade, perhaps reaching a neutral position by 2035, and negative overall soon after. (Nobody mention HPC  ).

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 said:

Off-shore wind technology races forward, even before you can build the stuff out. Permission sought for a 30% reduction in WT numbers by installing bigger ones.

You could also have mentioned the reduction in number of off-shore substations..

It's this constant incrementing by commissioning of capacity and increasing efficiencies that is so encouraging. In your other thread about pension fund divestment you could have mentioned that a  government minister was  trying to discourage it, on the basis that within the funds you'd have the ability to influence the companies (but lose more in stranded assets?). He may have a point but I bet he voted the government line on Brexit, where that principle applies far more.