Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

Looks like the Smart money is on Solar!

University of Edinburgh adds ground-mounted solar farm to its low carbon portfolio

The University of Edinburgh is installing a ground-mounted solar farm to help it with its carbon neutral by 2040 ambitions.

The Easter Bush campus in Midlothian is to play home to the 5,000 panels currently being installed, with over 1,400,000kWh of electricity expected to be generated from the farm each year, saving an estimated £200,000 per year in electricity costs and providing 15% of Easter Bush’s electricity consumption.

Alongside the existing generation capacity, 60% of Easter Bush’s electricity and 30% of its heat will therefore be generated on site using low or zero-carbon technologies. The Easter Bush campus is a fitting home for the farm, as it also includes a ‘living laboratory’ for solar PV research.

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

Coastalwatch

Looks like the US has a long way to go and little interest on the Eastern side to convert to renewables. Thankfully coals days look numbered but with further planned new builds of gas peaker plants(even though no longer economical) there's a few battles ahead in order to get regulatory balance allowing renewables to replace fossil fuels, not only due to the importance of being emissions free but on pure economic grounds alone as well!

How does the US retire 236 GW of coal and 1,000 gas peaker plants?

We’ve reached a massive milestone in the global energy transition — the ability, right now, of renewable energy sources and energy storage to match or beat the price of power from natural gas-fired peaker plants and coal-fired generators.

The problem is that energy markets are not exactly free markets — and replacement of existing generation is not entirely tied to price. There are artificial regulatory constructs and financial structures built into energy markets which can favor certain parties (utilities) and fuels (legacy coal, gas and nuclear).

So, victory in the economic realm (increasingly the case with solar, solar-plus-storage and wind) is no guarantee of market victory if the regulations are stacked against renewables.

In addition to regulatory bias against renewables, one of the massive challenges of the energy transition is the need to equitably retire thousands of existing and planned fossil-fuel plants.

About 85 GW of U.S. coal capacity has been shuttered since peak coal in 2007 — and the retirements have not slowed, even under a coal-sympathetic Trump regime. Actually, the pace seems to have quickened — with 31 GW of coal power retired since the beginning of 2018.

Outcompeting gas out West

The withering of the U.S. coal industry has an air of inevitability, whereas the existing (and planned) U.S. natural gas fleet will be a persistent part of the energy mix for decades.

Still, interconnection queue data, especially in the West, show new solar-plus-storage projects outcompeting gas plants. California’s interconnection queue included 29 GW of proposed solar-plus-storage plants as of year-end 2019, while Western utilities’ queues had another 33 GW. Yet planned gas units totaled only 0.2 GW in California’s queue and 4 GW in Western utilities’ queues. (data from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report “Hybrid power plants: Status of installed and proposed projects”)

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/09/18/how-does-the-us-retire-236-gw-of-coal-and-1000-gas-peaker-plants/?utm_source=pv+magazine+USA&utm_campaign=96ed5c479a-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_80e0d17bb8-96ed5c479a-159341337

Coastalwatch

Don't know if anyone saw the pictures on the beeb news last night of forest fires within the Arctic circle, but certainly a cause for concern, if not alarm!

Another indication of Global Warming and probably to be dismissed as poor forestry management by  another despot, currently installed as President!

Why forest fires in Siberia, Russia threaten us all

Wildfires in Siberia have been releasing record amounts of greenhouse gases, scientists say, contributing to global warming. The fires, fuelled by abnormally high temperatures, have been burning as far north as the Arctic Circle.

BBC Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg travelled to the remote Yakutia region, in northeastern Russia, to gauge the effects of climate change, both on local communities and on the planet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-54126762

Coastalwatch

The article below on the beeb website documents fifty years of deceipt practised by Oil companies on Climate change. Following the announcement in the last week by the incumbent US President re his belief that "Scientists don't understand the climate" this deceipt is still being practised today!

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

As climate change becomes a focus of the US election, energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming. In June, Minnesota's Attorney General sued ExxonMobil, among others, for launching a "campaign of deception" which deliberately tried to undermine the science supporting global warming. So what's behind these claims? And what links them to how the tobacco industry tried to dismiss the harms of smoking decades earlier?

To understand what's happening today, we need to go back nearly 40 years.

Marty Hoffert leaned closer to his computer screen. He couldn't quite believe what he was seeing. It was 1981, and he was working in an area of science considered niche.

"We were just a group of geeks with some great computers," he says now, recalling that moment.

But his findings were alarming.

"I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. And the warming would introduce climatic changes that would be unprecedented in human history. That blew my mind."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382

Martyn1981

Hiya CW, on the same subject here's another legal attempt to make the FF industry pay for the mounting damage in the US that they caused knowingly, whilst spreading the AGW denial that some unfortunates fell for, and still believe to this day.
Just like Big Tobacco, I assume that they only have to lose one case (regardless of how many they win first) to open the floodgates (no pun intended). At that point the whole FF industry will have to apply a carbon charge (tax) onto their own product to cover the damages they will keep having to pay - and that will economically kill of FF's and drive RE forward.

Charleston aims to force fossil fuel companies to pay $2bn to combat climate crisis

Charleston, the architectural jewel of the US south, has survived the ravages of revolutionary wars, an earthquake and even a siege waged by the notorious pirate Blackbeard. But the city now needs saving from its largest existential threat yet – the climate crisis.

Flooding has, in recent years, become a regular menace to streets lined with colonial and Georgian buildings. Protecting the historic core of South Carolina’s largest city from being consumed by the rising seas now comes with such a hefty price tag – around $2b – that Charleston is pinning its hopes on a bold gambit to force fossil fuel companies to foot the bill.

Charleston recently became the first city in the US south to sue large oil firms for damages, claiming they concealed knowledge that their product would heat up the planet and cause the sort of inundation that now bedevils many coastal cities around the world.

A trove of internal documents show oil companies knew from at least the 1960s that burning oil and other fossil fuels would cause the global temperature to rise, triggering heatwaves and causing the seas to rise due to rapidly melting glaciers. Charleston’s lawsuit claims that by obscuring these findings and funding a campaign of misinformation, the oil companies are liable for damage caused due to deception.

Martyn1981

Sing it Donna, sing it - "Lookin' for some hot stuff baby this evenin'"

First DEEP Geothermal Well In Saskatchewan Exceeds Expectations

As a source of renewable energy, geothermal has one advantage over wind turbines and solar power plants. It is operates continuously all day, every day. That means the electricity it provides is dispatchable whenever it is needed regardless of how windy or sunny it is. Deep Earth Energy Production (DEEP) is a Canadian company that wants to use the hot water located beneath the Deadwood Formation in Saskatchewan to produce geothermal energy. The temperature of the brine sequestered beneath the surface averages 122º C.

Engineering reports indicate the Deadwood Formation aquifer is capable of supporting multiple geothermal generating facilities but first a plan has to be created to collect the groundwater, bring it to the surface, use it to generate electricity, then inject it back underground to be reheated. The process uses advanced drilling techniques developed by the fracking industry.

DEEP says it has completed a preliminary subsurface design that optimizes the well spacing and configuration to produce 20 MW of geothermal power using ten horizontal wells — 6 producers and 4 injectors. Each will be drilled to a vertical depth of approximately 3.5 kilometers and a horizontal length of approximately 2 kilometers. The subsurface development area for each 20 MW installation measures approximately 5 kilometers by 8 kilometers while the surface facilities cover an area of 300 square meters. It can generate enough electricity to meet the needs of 20,000 households and will eliminate 114,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide — equal to the exhaust emissions of 32,000 conventional automobiles.

Martyn1981

Not sure I should keep putting random "stuff" on the BEV thread, so here is some green energy news regarding hydrogen fueled aircraft.

Airbus reveals plans for zero-emission aircraft fuelled by hydrogen

Airbus has announced plans for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft models that run on hydrogen and could take to the skies by 2035.

The European aersospace company revealed three different aircraft concepts that would be put through their paces to find the most efficient way to travel long distances by plane without producing the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global heating.

Vittadini said the safety of its hydrogen distribution systems would be a priority for Airbus, and also stressed the need to lower the cost of “green hydrogen” to help aviation have the smallest carbon footprint possible.

Hydrogen can be made by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen particles using an electrolyser machine powered by renewable electricity, or even nuclear energy. But it can also be made from fossil fuel gas in a process that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, meaning it would not be a clean energy source without using carbon capture technology during the process.

Airbus said hydrogen planes would also require airports to install hydrogen transport and refuelling infrastructure, and government support to upgrade aircraft fleets to allow airlines to retire their older, less environmentally friendly aircraft sooner than planned.

Martyn1981

Carbon Commentary newsletter time:

1, Energy transition. Two reports illustrated the developing consensus on what it will take to achieve net zero by 2050. BP’s most aggressive scenario proposes that about 60% of primary energy will come from renewable electricity while the Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) suggested about 70% of all energy use would be electrified. Total installations of wind and solar will multiply about 20 fold from today’s levels. Both BP and ETC see huge increases in hydrogen production by 2050. Surprisingly BP’s estimate is over 40% higher than the ETC. BP also sees natural gas production falling faster than the ETC to about half the current level. As might be expected, the BP prediction for oil use remains at about 25% of today while the ETC sees a fall of over 90%.  The ETC costs the transition to net zero by 2050 at 0.5% global GDP per year, which is around the same number as BP’s estimate for the 2030s. Carbon capture is a vital part of both net zero plans. 
 
3, Lithium ion battery recycling. At the moment recycling lithium ion batteries makes little or financial sense. The materials recovered are less valuable than the cost of recycling. But eventually separation of constituent metals will become one of the biggest industries in the world. We are beginning to see some jostling for position in this new market. Belgian chemicals giant Solvay announced a tie with French waste company Veolia to begin large-scale recovery of the metals (nickel, cobalt and lithium) contained in most of today’s EV batteries. Solvay claims to be in discussion with car manufacturers and battery cell producers. In the US Redwood Materials, the battery recycler set up by JB Straubel, the former Tesla CTO, received investment from the $2bn Amazon climate fund. Straubel says that his business is already doing limited amounts of recycling of batteries from consumer electronics and scrap from the original Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada.
 
4, Micro nuclear reactors. Hitachi cancelled the plans for a large nuclear plant in north Wales, leaving one new power station in construction and two in planning in the UK. But even as the prospects for large plants worsen, levels of interest in small nuclear reactors remain buoyant. In a recent report one group of consultants advocated 20 MW reactors to generate electricity constantly as a means of producing hydrogen more cheaply. Their report pointed out that renewable energy sources suffer from the disadvantage that intermittency means that expensive electrolysers might only work a fraction of the hours in a year. Their calculations showed the possibility of hydrogen at less than $1/kg, a cost which make electrolysis competitive even with cheap natural gas. And small nuclear will use far less space. Separately, the University of Illinois in the US expects funding soon for the development of a 15 MW micro reactor to generate steam and a small quantity of electricity on campus. One of the professors involved gave a YouTube talk on the operation of micro-reactors which I found very illuminating indeed.
 
5, Energy consumption of E-bikes. The researcher Kees van der Leun pointed out that replacing the average Dutch person’s entire car use with a e-bike would require about 60 kilowatt hours of electricity a year. That’s about a week’s power use for a typical European household. If all car journeys were actually made using an e-bike, Dutch electricity use would rise by less than 1%. Cars use approximately fifty times as much energy. A very useful Twitter thread is here.
 
6, Automated ecological restoration. Oxford-based Dendra Systems raised €10m from Airbus Ventures, amongst other investors. Dendra is active in the business of ecological restoration, using drones and AI. About 15 per cent of the world’s land surface is heavily degraded and the company claims it can cheaply restore some of this area. Its first customers are Australian mining companies that are obliged to repair the land they have disturbed. However the bigger market will eventually be areas that have been ruined by inappropriate agriculture around the world. Dendra says its drones can plant 120 seeds a minute and it can calculate the carbon capture benefits of tree growth from month to month. Large corporations in high fossil fuel use industries seem to be moving more cash into ventures which are only distantly related to their core business.
 
7, Effectiveness of voluntary reforestation progammes. An academic paper (paywall) produced a strong conclusion that REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programmes have limited or no effect on emissions. The article states that ‘overall, we find no significant evidence that voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon have mitigated forest loss’. This seems very robust research and should cast real doubt on whether carbon offsetting using reforestation is likely to be successful. 
 
8, Vertical farming. Another huge financing in the sector. Berlin-based InFarm will raise about $200m from investors to fund its international expansion. InFarm makes small vertical farming modules that are installed inside large supermarkets. It counts 17 of the world’s top 50 food retailers as customers and targets emissions-free food production next year.
 
9, Synthetic fuels. Nordic companies Wartsila and St1 sponsored a report from LUT University that showed how CO2 captured from paper making processes in Finland could be combined with hydrogen to make synthetic substitutes for oil products. The work suggested that building synthetic fuel plants at the ten largest Finnish pulp mills could enable the production of 250% of Finland’s needs for hydrocarbons. The publicity materials for this study say that the country could become fully energy self-sufficient in this way and improve its trade balance by €10bn, or about 15% of its current total exports. Improving national self-sufficiency seems to be becoming an important driver of the energy transition. The backers of the research state the economics of their proposal require the state to introduce quotas for the percentage of synthetic fuels in petrol/gasoline and diesel. The need for hydrogen would mean that Finland’s electricity production would have to almost triple but since Finland under-uses its wind resources, this should not represent a major problem. 

 

Martyn1981

Most times we can post about green and or ethical, but often it's just big bad economics to the rescue.

GE: Industrial giant will stop building coal-fired power plants

In a dramatic reversal, one of the world's biggest makers of coal-fired power plants is to exit the market and focus on greener alternatives.

US industrial giant General Electric said it would shut or sell sites as it prioritised its renewable energy and power generation businesses.

In a statement, the firm suggested the decision had been motivated by economics.

Russell Stokes, GE's senior vice president, said: "With the continued transformation of GE, we are focused on power generation businesses that have attractive economics and a growth trajectory.

silverwhistle

I thought this was pretty significant, and only leaves Trump out of step, as he is with most things:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/22/china-pledges-to-reach-carbon-neutrality-before-2060