Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

silverwhistle said:

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

I don't understand why 'they' do it, but it seems that Trump and the far right are trying to weaponize science denial. Perhaps it's because nobody's buying their lies anymore, but they are still desperate to sell their FF's without accounting for the true costs.
I don't believe that they have a monopoly on 'stupid' so their opposition to facts and truth, and reliance instead on rumour and opinions must be deliberate.
Often it's said 'follow the money', and that may be the real reason, after all America is the best example of - Privatizing profits and socializing losses - so Trump is neck deep in the deny till you die game, whilst the FF companies make money in good times, and then ask the US to fund them during hard times, all the while lying about the harm they've caused, and refusing to take responsibility when caught.

Oh well, at least Trump is down to just a few more months in office, assuming he leaves willingly in January???

Coastalwatch

Well I knew Nuclear energy was more expensive, but to learn by three times as much was something of a surprise. Coupled with years long delays in completion of those under construction in China doesn't instill confidence in those making the decision to build more here!

‘Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants’

The latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report indicates the stagnation of the sector continues. Just 2.4 GW of new nuclear generation capacity came online last year, compared to 98 GW of solar. The world’s operational nuclear power capacity had declined by 2.1%, to 362 GW, at the end of June.

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from nuclear power rose from around $117/MWh in 2015 to $155 at the end of last year, according to the latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, published annually by French nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider.

By contrast, the LCOE from solar power decreased from $65/MWh to approximately $49 and that of wind from $55 to $41.

The cost difference is having a huge impact in new generation capacity deployment, with just 2.4 GW of new nuclear plants installed last year, compared to 98 GW of solar and 59.2 GW of wind, according to the report. The world’s operational nuclear capacity fell 2.1% to 362 GW by the end of June. “The number of operating reactors in the world has dropped … to 408 as of mid-2020, that is below the level already reached in 1988 and 30 units below the historic peak of 438 in 2002,” the study reported.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/24/nuclear-power-is-now-the-most-expensive-form-of-generation-except-for-gas-peaking-plants/

Coastalwatch

How confusing! Now, I just don't know who to believe, Scientists or, in some circles, that much respected climate expert Donald Trump.

California wildfire trend 'driven by climate'

Climate change is driving the scale and impact of recent wildfires that have raged in California, say scientists.

Their analysis finds an "unequivocal and pervasive" role for global heating in boosting the conditions for fire.

California now has greater exposure to fire risks than before humans started altering the climate, the authors say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54278988

Martyn1981

Just a quick shout out and personal thank you to ABrass and PoS who are politely pushing back against the torrent of nonsense that Team Denial have been posting lately, including promoting the vile anti-AGW/RE website of Nigel Lawson (the UK's own Trump of denial) the GWPF.
Keep up the good work guys.

ABrass

I'd steer clear of that sort of comment. It tends to feed the narrative that sceptics are being picked on and invitees them to chip in again and drag this thread off topic again.

Solarchaser

Well you would say that since you are obviously a founder member of team Mart!!🤬

Tongue firmly in cheek. 😂😂
Conspiracy theorists gonna Conspiracy theorise.

Martyn1981

ABrass said:

I'd steer clear of that sort of comment. It tends to feed the narrative that sceptics are being picked on and invitees them to chip in again and drag this thread off topic again.

True, we may even get a celebrity visit from Mr Lawson, or Noel Edmonds ...... or dare I tempt fate ...... The Mango-in-Chief himself, praise be to coal!

Pile_o_stone

It is nice that the pro-fossil fuel nutters are confining themselves to their "Alternative to Green energy Thread". I pop in there from time to time to stoke it along. If that thread withers on the vine, then the crazies will come into the main board. Much better to keep it limping along

EVandPV

Pile_o_stone said:

It is nice that the pro-fossil fuel nutters are confining themselves to their "Alternative to Green energy Thread". I pop in there from time to time to stoke it along. If that thread withers on the vine, then the crazies will come into the main board. Much better to keep it limping along

    

Martyn1981

What time is it? It's Carbon Commentary Newsletter time.

1, Circular retailing. A shopping centre in Sweden only sells used or recycled goods. In a tentative move towards participation in this market, IKEA opened a store there that sells products that have been damaged and repaired. This is a small step because IKEA already offers these goods in its full-size stores. Nevertheless, the company’s participation in what is probably the world’s first and only shopping mall for used products is some indication of its commitment to building a fully circular business. A related press release said ‘In ten years, all IKEA products will be produced using only renewable or recycled material, designed to be reused, resold or recycled’.
 
2, Hydrogen aircraft. Airbus showed off some good looking illustrations of possible hydrogen aircraft. The world’s press duly featured the designs in enthusiastic articles. But these are only ideas at present and fully commercial large aircraft are probably at least twenty years away. Although hydrogen carries about three times as much energy per unit weight as conventional aviation fuel, even in a liquid form it has only about a quarter the energy per unit volume. The shape of large planes will need to change significantly to offer comparable performance. In a much less noticed news story, ZeroAvia carried out a trial flight of a 6 seater hydrogen fuel cell aircraft from an airfield in England. This airplane is targeting a flight between Edinburgh in central Scotland to Orkney, 400 km to the north, by the end of this year. (Thank you to the subscribers who wrote to me about Airbus).

3, CCS Norway. The Norwegian government proposed to fund one of the most important of the ‘Northern Lights’ CCS projects. After approval by parliament, it will pay about 2/3rds of the 10 year cost of collecting CO2 from a cement plant, a world first for the CCS industry. The CO2 will be taken by ship to a port from which it will be transported by pipeline to a depleted oil field for permanent storage. The costs really don’t make this seem an attractive project: about €600 a tonne of stored CO2 over ten years, or several times the price of alternative ways of cutting emissions, but this probably includes some infrastructure that can be shared with other projects. Unsurprisingly, the government seems to have backed away from another carbon capture project that would transported carbon dioxide from a waste disposal plant near Oslo.
 
4, More on cement and CCS. The high cost of the Norwegian solution was illustrated by a competing claim from the UK’s CarbonClean that a deal with Mexico’s CEMEX should result in a pilot CCS plant at a cement factory in 2021 with an expected cost of $30 a tonne of CO2 captured. (However the €600 Norwegian figure that I quote also includes the cost of transport and storage). The CarbonClean technology uses a proprietary solvent and claims capture rates of more than 90%. Because cement plants have ready access to high temperature heat that is needed to drive off CO2 from the solvent, costs may eventually be lower than in some other CCS applications. Even if CarbonClean is correct in its assessment of the cost of the process, it will add at least 50% to the price of cement. However, this is twenty times better than the Norwegian trial.

5, Carbon benefits of cellulosic ethanol. An academic paper argues that converting grazed grasslands to switchgrass - a perennial plant native to North America - for use in making cellulosic ethanol has beneficial effects on carbon emissions. It particularly makes the case that harvested switchgrass can at least equal the carbon benefits of reforestation. Get everything right, the scientists argue, and the mitigation benefits could be 4 to 15 times greater. This is an important counter-argument against those who believe that all use of land for biofuels is wrong from a climate change perspective.
 
6, Regenerative agriculture. Giant retailer Walmart already planned carbon neutrality in its own operations by 2040. It went further this week by announcing that it will put 50 million acres (20 million hectares) of agricultural land into regenerative agriculture. This means that the area will be managed to absorb carbon, not release it. It will also actively protect a million square miles (2.6m sq. km.) of marine area. This has been an important trend in recent months, with several large businesses (e.g. Cargill, Timberland), announcing the intention to widen their decarbonisation plans to include agricultural improvement, often combined with reforestation. 
 
7, Opinion surveys. Cardboard packaging giant Smurfit Kappa published a survey showing that changing shopping habits may have raised the importance of sustainability in fashion. The idea is that online purchasing has allowed consumers to more easily investigate the sustainability characteristics of brands. 25% of people across four European countries covered in the survey had researched the eco-credentials of a product online. ‘23% of those surveyed have re-purchased from a fashion brand based on its sustainability credentials’ the company wrote. Of course there’s a commercial interest here: Smurfit Kappa wants consumers to buy products packaged in cardboard rather than products made from fossil fuels but this is another indication of growing resistance to single use plastics. ‘35% of fashion consumers stated they would not make an online purchase from a fashion company if they discovered its packaging wasn't eco-friendly’, said the company.
  
9, Railway electrification. Railway operators want to electrify trains that currently use diesel but building the infrastructure for fully electric networks has typically cost vastly more than expected. Railways are looking for alternatives. Hydrogen is possible and Scotland’s operator has just promised that one train will be ready for COP26 in Glasgow next year. Deutsche Bahn in Germany is moving much faster with experiments and one particular idea caught my eye. The company proposes to use battery power, combined with short sections of overhead cables to deliver top-ups of power to trains on the move. (Thanks to Jennifer Cooke)

10, More pleas for a carbon tax. It always comes as a slight surprise to see companies arguing for something that will cost them money. Trafigura, a huge commodities trader that charters 4,000 ships a year, has suggested that shipping fuels should pay a $250-$300 per tonne tax on CO2 emissions. More specifically, it argues for a levy that penalises high carbon fuels and rewards zero-carbon shipping (and also diverts some cash to R&D and as payments to small island states threatened by climate breakdown). Trafigura says that $300 a tonne represents the approximate cost difference today between marine diesel and low-carbon alternatives. But it would more than double the price of using existing fuels. The company puts forward the argument that the tax should start at this eye-wateringly high level and then gradually decline as the costs of hydrogen, green methanol and ammonia fall. This is an unusual view - most proponents want carbon taxes that start low and gradually increase – but I think the Trafigura proposal is strikingly logical. I also suspect that this proposal might just be able to win support from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).