Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

This week's Carbon Commentary Newsletter:

1, Hydrogen from North Africa into Europe. Italian natural gas giant SNAM sponsored research which argues that hydrogen made from solar in North Africa and exported by pipeline into Italy can be 10-15% cheaper than European production. The head of SNAM, Marco Alvera, is a very enthusiastic backer of the rapid development of a hydrogen-based energy system and he comments that ‘thanks to its geographical position, the strength of its manufacturing and energy sectors, and a widespread gas transport network, (Italy) has the potential to become a continental hub for green hydrogen and an infrastructural bridge with North Africa, taking on an important role in the European Hydrogen Strategy.’

2, Carbon sequestration from reducing animal products in the human diet. Animals require large amounts of land, both for pasture and for crops for their food. A group of researchers estimated (paywall) that between 332 and 547 gigatonnes of CO2 could be sequestered by 2050 on land that is currently used for maintaining animals. The sequestration would arise because woods would replace pastureland and arable land used for growing animal feed. This is a larger number than we might have expected, equal to perhaps 13 years of current emissions from energy use. Earlier work from some of the same researchers had shown that the converting animal lands to forestry could counterbalance 12 years of UK emissions. Rapid reduction of meat and dairy consumption is potentially a hugely important means of sequestering carbon. (Thanks to Anthony Simpson).
 
3, Global transition forecasts. DNV produced its assessment of current energy trends. It said that oil demand probably peaked in 2019 but that natural gas would not see a maximum until after 2030. If today’s trends persist, emissions from energy use in 2050 will still be about half today’s levels, implying that the world will comfortably exceed a target of 2 degrees of warming. DNV picked out three particular areas of insufficiently rapid progress – heat demand in some industrial processes, the heating of buildings and heavy transport. Personally, I think DNV is too pessimistic about the third of these blockages; the world is seeing very rapidly increasing emphasis on the electrification of even the heaviest vehicles. I thought that its assumption that about half of all cars sold in 2032 will be electric also looks too downbeat. Almost 5% of all cars sold in Europe this year will be purely battery powered, almost double last year’s level. At the current rate of change - and assuming successful large scale entry by Chinese manufacturers into the market - a 50% share may be achieved at least six years earlier than this in Europe.
 
4, Green Hydrogen Systems of Denmark. Two big wins for this Danish electrolyser company in the last few weeks.  Turbine manufacturer Siemens Gamesa picked it for the first trial of an ‘islanded’ wind turbine that exports power only to an electrolyser for making hydrogen. Green Hydrogen Systems also recently announced a successful experiment which sees green methanol (a partial substitute for petrol/gasoline or a precursor to many other fuels) made from CO2 and hydrogen. The company said it hopes to start using CO2 from a biogas plant in its next installation for making methanol. 
 
5, UK offshore wind plus hydrogen. Somewhat later than other NW European countries, the UK is starting to investigate the economics of building an energy system entirely based around renewables for making electricity and hydrogen. A government body working alongside the offshore industry said that green hydrogen might possibly be fully cost competitive by 2030 with hydrogen made with gas if recent trends in equipment and electricity prices continue. Its report suggested that UK terrestrial waters can feasibly accommodate at least 600 GW of offshore wind in locations at which electricity costs will fall below £60 ($75) a MWh. The group argues for the development of a hydrogen export sector using up to 250 GW of turbines. (For comparison, average UK electricity demand today is about 35 GW). In financial value, this would rival the size of the UK’s offshore oil and gas industry at its peak several decades ago. Most arrestingly, the group asserts that fixed foundation wind will be matched in cost by floating wind at the point at which only 16 GW of floaters have been installed globally. This is a richly detailed and careful analysis of prospective future costs across the whole offshore wind and hydrogen sector. Among many other examples, it provides estimates of hydrogen pipeline costs compared to electricity cables.
 
6, BP and offshore wind. BP made its first major move into offshore wind, joining with Norwegian oil giant Equinor to exploit two blocks off the eastern coast of the US. The company said the cost was about $1.1bn, or around 20% of its promised yearly investment in renewables and perhaps 6% of this year’s total capital expenditure on existing businesses. The eventual size of the the offshore farms will be about 4.4 GW, and BP's 50% share gives it a large fraction of one year's target of 5 GW of renewables development.
 
7, Citizens’ assembly. The UK’s climate assembly produced its report. About 100 randomly selected individuals had met over weekends (online and in-person) to listen to experts and reach their own conclusions on how the UK should get to ‘net zero’. As is usually found, the members of the assembly became significantly more alarmed about the climate threat as their understanding grew. Their report stresses ‘fairness’ more than the equivalent French document and proposes using incentives more than employing taxes or prohibitions. An unwillingness to constrain personal consumption, for example by sharply increasing prices, runs through the report. Some of the recommendations were a little unspecific and difficult to translate into precise legislation. I felt that too many proposals could be summarised as ‘we need to invest more in new technology’ or ‘we must have political leadership to get people to change behaviour’ rather than ‘we should tax polluters' or more specific proposals.
 
8, Low carbon agriculture. A £120m/$155m project funded by UK renewable infrastructure investor Greencoat Capital has resulted in almost 30 hectares of greenhouses built in eastern England. The greenhouses will grow up to 10% of the UK’s tomato crop, along with peppers and cucumbers. Heat pumps will extract heat from a local waste water treatment plant. An onsite combined heat and power plant (CHP) will provide electricity for the heat pump. The exhaust from the CHP generator will be pumped into the greenhouse, raising CO2 levels and increasing the rate of photosynthesis. The greenhouse will grow the vegetables hydroponically, meaning lower requirements for fertiliser and pesticides. The developers indicate that emissions will be only a quarter of conventional tomato agriculture in the UK. In a claim that might be contested by some similar Australian greenhouses, the developer says that the combination of measures in this marvellous venture are a ‘world first’.
 
9, Three early stage companies. I thought these ideas looked very interesting. Terabase, a US start-up staffed by solar project developers, looks to cut the cost of large scale PV farms by rigorous cost reduction across the scores of different categories of expenditure involved in building multi-megawatt developments. Apparently boring, but vital to get to that 1 cent per kilowatt hour target. MGA in Australia makes heat storage bricks from meltable metal. The heat can be retained for up to a week and is used to convert to steam for electricity generation. The costs of the blocks are claimed to be a fraction of lithium ion, but the round-trip efficiency will never be as high. (Thanks to Gage Williams). Scientists in Ohio found a specific bacterium that makes the gas ethylene, the most important precursor chemical for plastics manufacture. The critical aspect of the discovery is that oxygen is not produced alongside the ethylene, making the bacterium possibly useful for large scale use. (Thanks to Thad Curtz).

10, Progress towards decarbonisation. I wrote an article for ENEL Green Power’s education hub. Using a variety of examples already covered in this newsletter, I made the argument that business is now a more effective promoter of decarbonisation than governments. Governments can assist by active regulation and by subsidy for nascent industries but private companies offer the speediest route to net zero. 

Martyn1981

joefizz said:

ABrass said:

They are still far fetched. In that they're not going to be in place before 2029 according to Rolls Royce. Given nuclear powers track record of delivering more and earlier then maybe 2035? Assuming that it doesn't prove to be just as much of a disappointment as the EPR.

At least! Dont forget though they are aiming for 2050 so everything at the minute is a bit of a stopgap.

Saying that though the Russians are already just putting sub nukes in shipping containers and fitting them to old barges. Im sure thats going to end well.

Have a look at the crown estates wind farm roll out plans for that sort of timeframe and its possible to see the future gaps in where 'something' is going to be required to maintain supply and stability. Or simply we all get used to either having downtime or incredibly expensive periods of electricity (effectively social engineering).

I wasnt joking when I mentioned the coal aspect. If everything else is RE people are then preparing to justify using coal as stop gaps (or more likely gas in areas where its mainlined). Now thats a tough decision but for those places without the 10-15 year build for nuclear its not really much of a decision.

I'm sorry, but there's no logic in what you have posted.

You have referred to the need to cope with stop gaps, or slow roll outs of low carbon generation. You then suggest nuclear to fill these gaps!
But if we have any short falls, or want to roll out generation faster (a decision needed to opt for large or small nuclear) then we can of course simply roll out RE faster.

It's a kin to saying we will have to build factories to produce expensive hydrogen fuel cell cars, because we aren't building enough factories to make BEV's fast enough. The alternative of course would be to build more BEV factories. A shortfall, or stop gap argument relies entirely on an ability to scale up the better technology, and there is no such issue.

So pointing to suggested gaps, or short falls is not an argument, just a trick! It all comes back each time to a decision to roll out more low carbon generation, and at that point nuclear goes head to head with RE, which has no scaleability issues, and can be rolled out far faster than nuclear, and far cheaper.
So in any and all of the scenarios you can imagine, reality always brings us back to what makes most sense now going forward, and that's been RE for some time.

Note, I've left out '+ storage' since nuclear expansion too needs storage due to its economic inability to demand follow, and any roll out of storage KILLS nuclear as it supports intermittent RE, which again, just to repeat, is far cheaper and faster to build out than nuclear.

michaels

joefizz said:

ABrass said:

They are still far fetched. In that they're not going to be in place before 2029 according to Rolls Royce. Given nuclear powers track record of delivering more and earlier then maybe 2035? Assuming that it doesn't prove to be just as much of a disappointment as the EPR.

At least! Dont forget though they are aiming for 2050 so everything at the minute is a bit of a stopgap.

Saying that though the Russians are already just putting sub nukes in shipping containers and fitting them to old barges. Im sure thats going to end well.

Have a look at the crown estates wind farm roll out plans for that sort of timeframe and its possible to see the future gaps in where 'something' is going to be required to maintain supply and stability. Or simply we all get used to either having downtime or incredibly expensive periods of electricity (effectively social engineering).

I wasnt joking when I mentioned the coal aspect. If everything else is RE people are then preparing to justify using coal as stop gaps (or more likely gas in areas where its mainlined). Now thats a tough decision but for those places without the 10-15 year build for nuclear its not really much of a decision.

For those periods when wind, solar and sufficient imports are not available (or indeed nuclear has gone off line) and all sensible demand reduction has taken place I wonder what back up source is most cost effective to basically only run for at most a few weeks a year - I guess you would care much more about the capital cost than the operating cost (including pricing the carbon).  

You know the plan to use 'end of life' car battery packs as stationary storage - perhaps we could early retire combustion cars and use them as stationary (distributed) generating capacity....

Martyn1981

Nice little report on how all (but one) of the 48 contiguous US states could meet 100% of their leccy needs from in state renewable generation.
And before anyone (quite rightly) exclaims 'How can Florida be the odd one out, with all of their solar potential', that's because the report shows what can be done without utility scale PV generation.

Utility-scale solar is not mapped – every state has sufficient undeveloped land area to produce 100 percent of its annual electricity use from solar alone.

And no, I've no idea why they make that distinction, unless, as the wording might suggest, that would be too easy?

Report: 47 US States Could Meet 100% Of Electricity Needs Using In-State Renewables

If each US state took full advantage of its renewable resources, how much electricity would it produce? How much of its own electricity consumption could renewable energy fulfill? Would in-state renewable generation be enough to charge electric vehicles and power electric heating, too?

The answer, in almost every state, is a resounding yes.

Coastalwatch

Old news maybe but confirmation in writing now announced!

Wylfa: Hitachi 'withdraws' from nuclear project

The UK government went some way in offering financial support to the project but it wasn't enough to satisfy Hitachi's concerns over the financial risks.

The UK government also held a consultation on plans that would see energy customers pay upfront for the costs of construction.

The industry has been waiting for months for an outcome to that.

When the UK government said nuclear was part of its push for green energy, the industry thought it was a positive sign for Wylfa Newydd.

But critics question how green nuclear energy really is, not to mention how safe it is.

Wales has been called the "land of artists' impressions" with many big schemes that are talked about and never happen.

Supporters of Wylfa Newydd will be concerned it will become another of those, while its critics would be glad to see the back of the plans.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54158091

silverwhistle

joefizz said:

Or simply we all get used to either having downtime or incredibly expensive periods of electricity (effectively social engineering).

"Social engineering"? I thought the right wing term was 'market forces'? :-) You have used a very value laden term, but we've had market signals for ages with electricity usage: maximum demand charges, cheaper overnight electricity, interruptible supplies, and currently we are seeing wider adoption of variable time of day tariffs.  Quite a number of us here have signed up for them after an assessment of our own personal situations.

The oil price is an even more explicit demonstration of pricing signals!

I was going to post before I saw Martyn's response, but as he points out, if we are going the storage route that doesn't assist nuclear. We've recently seen National Grid asking them to scale back, we've seen cancellation of Wylfa, delays elsewhere, whilst there is a continuous incremental growth in wind and PV even without government enthusiasm, in line with the contrasting cost graphs.

Coastalwatch

A great project to get underway, let's hope it succeeds so maybe scaled up or even just encourage other similar projects along the way. I've no idea how cost effective or efficient it may be but guess it's at least a toe in the water!

‘Green hydrogen for Scotland’ gets underway with project powered by solar and wind

Solar energy together with wind is set to power a new 10MW electrolyser outside of Glasgow, helping to generate green hydrogen.

The Green Hydrogen for Scotland project is being developed by ScottishPower Renewables, BOC (a Linde company) and ITM Power, to create an end-to-end market solution for reducing vehicle emissions using hydrogen.

ScottishPower Renewables will provide power for the electrolyser, which will be delivered by ITM Power, and the facility will be run by gas specialist company BOC. It’s hoped the partners will have the site, which will be located on the outskirts of the Scottish city, running and ready to supply hydrogen to the commercial market in two years.

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/green_hydrogen_for_scotland_gets_underway_with_project_powered_by_solar_and

Coastalwatch

A worrying event for the storage industry. Thankfully no injuries reported, begging the question were the fire crews were well trained to deal with such an event ever happening or were purely defensive tactics employed to ensure minimal risk to crews!

The outcome of the investigation will be eagerly awaited. Let's hope it's a one off and the reasons for it established, clearly documented so any lessons learned can be utilised in future projects.

Ørsted confirms fire at Carnegie Road battery storage site

Danish renewables giant Ørsted has confirmed there has been a fire at its 20MW Carnegie Road battery energy storage system (BESS) site in Liverpool.

Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service, local first-responders, said that crews were alerted shortly before 1am on 15 September and arrived to find a “large grid battery system container well alight”.

The blaze went on for several hours, with an update from the service at 7:30am noting that although operations at the site had been scaled down, firefighting was ongoing, with two ground monitor units and a main water jet still in use. A further update at 11:45am said one fire engine was still at the scene, with firefighting still continuing, although by that stage only one hand-held pump was in use.

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/rsted_confirms_fire_at_carnegie_road_battery_storage_site

Martyn1981

Some news items on the proposed EU regulations to ramp up emission reductions. I'm assuming that these would (mostly) impact the UK too as operating to different standards would be too hard/expensive for most industries(?):

EU Recharges Climate Plan But Risks Letting Countries Off The Hook On Transport

Plans to increase the EU’s climate targets to achieve a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 have been welcomed by clean transport group Transport & Environment (T&E). The European Commission today indicated more ambitious CO2 reduction targets of -50% for new cars, a phase-out of engine cars, and action to start cleaning up ships and planes. However, the suggested inclusion of road transport in the EU’s carbon market would jack up fuel prices while undercutting the law that regulates 60% of European emissions, T&E said.

EU Parliament Tells VdL To Make Shipping Polluters Pay

The European Parliament this week voted for ships to be required by EU law to cut their carbon emissions. MEPs said that for the first time shipping industry polluters must pay for their emissions in the EU carbon market. Green group Transport & Environment is calling on President Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission to quickly propose both the ship CO2 standards that the parliament has demanded and the inclusion of the sector in the emissions trading system (ETS).

DiggerUK

michaels said:

joefizz said:

ABrass said:

They are still far fetched. In that they're not going to be in place before 2029 according to Rolls Royce. Given nuclear powers track record of delivering more and earlier then maybe 2035? Assuming that it doesn't prove to be just as much of a disappointment as the EPR.

At least! Dont forget though they are aiming for 2050 so everything at the minute is a bit of a stopgap.

Saying that though the Russians are already just putting sub nukes in shipping containers and fitting them to old barges. Im sure thats going to end well.

Have a look at the crown estates wind farm roll out plans for that sort of timeframe and its possible to see the future gaps in where 'something' is going to be required to maintain supply and stability. Or simply we all get used to either having downtime or incredibly expensive periods of electricity (effectively social engineering).

I wasnt joking when I mentioned the coal aspect. If everything else is RE people are then preparing to justify using coal as stop gaps (or more likely gas in areas where its mainlined). Now thats a tough decision but for those places without the 10-15 year build for nuclear its not really much of a decision.

.........You know the plan to use 'end of life' car battery packs as stationary storage - perhaps we could early retire combustion cars and use them as stationary (distributed) generating capacity....

Given that lead batteries are as close to 100% recyclable as it is possible to achieve, I can't see the added value profit of recycling them into new batteries being passed over for such a plan.
The need for the contents of old Lithium type batteries to be recycled would not be passed over either, for the same reason.

It's a cute headline, not a realistic proposition..._