Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

It would seem that the Chair of the Nuclear Association Industry announcement that Aviva and Legal & General have expressed an interest with investing in Sizewell C may not bring forth the vast sums the project is so desperate for if the article in todays Telegraph is anything to go by.

Aviva fears environmental fallout if it backs new nuclear reactors

Announcement comes as EDF seeks funding for the planned £20bn Sizewell C reactor

In response to queries from investors, Aviva Investors said: “As you are probably aware, the UK Government is looking at expanding nuclear capacity as part of its efforts to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. We consider the potential ESG impact in all of our investment decisions. However, the ESG impact of nuclear is far from clear at this time and we are not actively involved in any such investments.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/06/aviva-fears-environmental-fallout-backs-new-nuclear-reactors/

Martyn1981

New (to me) form of storage, which uses the same principal of PHS (pumped hydro storage) but uses a denser fluid for greater power/energy, allowing the use of smaller height differences and more sites.
Cue jokes about 'heavy water'.

Powering up: UK hills could be used as energy 'batteries'

Hundreds of hills across the UK could be transformed into renewable energy “batteries” through a pioneering hydropower system embedded underground.

A team of engineers have developed a system that adapts one of the oldest forms of energy storage, hydropower, to store and release electricity from gentle slopes rather than requiring steep dam walls and mountains.

This could unlock hundreds of potential hydropower sites across the UK, which would be quicker and cheaper to build than traditional hydropower dams and also lead to fewer negative environmental impacts.

The hillside projects would mimic the UK’s traditional hydropower plants by using surplus electricity to pump water uphill, and later releasing the water back down the hill through turbines to generate electricity when needed.

But the “high-intensity” hydro projects use a mineral-rich fluid, which has more than two and a half times the density of water, to create the same amount of electricity from slopes which are less than half as high.

Martyn1981

Speaking of storage, the UK now has more than 1GW operational, and a total of 16GW when the whole 'pipeline' is included, up from 10.5GW a year ago.

UK battery storage pipeline surges to 16GW

More than 16GW of battery storage capacity is operating, under construction or being planned in the UK across 729 projects.

This is up from 10.5GW across 600 projects identified in December 2019, according to RenewableUK’s latest Energy Storage Project Intelligence report.

The report identifies 1.1GW of battery storage capacity currently operational compared to 0.7GW in December 2019.

A further 0.6GW is under construction, 8.3GW of capacity is consented and 1.6GW is in the planning system.

Another 4.5GW are identified as being at an early stage of development for future submission into the planning system.

NigeWick

Coastalwatch said:

It would seem that the Chair of the Nuclear Association Industry announcement that Aviva and Legal & General have expressed an interest with investing in Sizewell C 

Aviva fears environmental fallout if it backs new nuclear reactors

I can't see why anybody would want to have anything to do with new nuclear energy generation. It is very expensive and takes many years to get up and running, then there's disposal of the waste. Renewables plus storage are cheaper and far less problematic.

Coastalwatch

NigeWick said:

I can't see why anybody would want to have anything to do with new nuclear energy generation. It is very expensive and takes many years to get up and running, then there's disposal of the waste. Renewables plus storage are cheaper and far less problematic.

Glad to learn I'm not the only one. Sadly her Majesty's government seem to be pinning all their hopes on, not only full scale nuclear facilities but lots of mini nuclear sites as yet untried or validated. Doesn't make sense to me either, especially the mini reactors but then I don't have a financial interest in Rolls Royce or Nuclear.

I know, just being cynical again.

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 said:

Some good news, regarding 'that coal mine', lots of people aren't happy, and the argument (a fair one I think) is that we should be sending a better signal than mining coal and exporting it for the next 30yrs.
As alternatives to coal for steel production now exist, I think a strong argument can be made to expand those choices, rather than create new sources of coking coal.

In an interview in yesterdays Telegraph the Energy Minister, Anne-MarieTrevelyan admitted that only 15 pc of the coal extracted from Whitehaven will be used for steel production in the UK. So a huge coalmine with just a small % being used here which then leaves the remainder for exporting thus creating even more pollution via transport in ocean going vessells etc.

Good for exports, I hear you say. Yes, but not quite so good for the planet, which presumably would be better off if we imported the lesser 15% figure while transititioning steel production away from coal to more sustainable means!

If Whitehaven goes ahead then there will be no incentive to move to a cleaner form of steel production at all. Instead it would appear the Government is quite content to keep on repeating the same ol', same ol' practises and mistakes as in the past.

Makes me wonder if they aren't beginning to run out of steam.  Doh, did I really say that.

Martyn1981

I have to say this article shocked me (and the researchers too). Always worth remembering that the FF era 'fueled' our rapid technological advances, but it seems more important than ever that we move on to newer technology, much of which has been developed thanks to said technological advances. So FF's have earned their retirement, but the faster they move to Florida for a quiet game of golf and an early dinner, the better.

'Invisible killer': fossil fuels caused 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, research finds

Air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil was responsible for 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, a staggering one in five of all people who died that year, new research has found.

Countries with the most prodigious consumption of fossil fuels to power factories, homes and vehicles are suffering the highest death tolls, with the study finding more than one in 10 deaths in both the US and Europe were caused by the resulting pollution, along with nearly a third of deaths in eastern Asia, which includes China. Death rates in South America and Africa were significantly lower.

The enormous death toll is higher than previous estimates and surprised even the study’s researchers. “We were initially very hesitant when we obtained the results because they are astounding, but we are discovering more and more about the impact of this pollution,” said Eloise Marais, a geographer at University College London and a study co-author. “It’s pervasive. The more we look for impacts, the more we find.”

Exiled_Tyke

A ray of hope?  

Whitehaven coal mine plan to be re-examined by council

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-56001458

EVandPV

Exiled_Tyke said:

A ray of hope?  

Whitehaven coal mine plan to be re-examined by council

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-56001458

Hopefully, common sense will prevail.

ASavvyBuyer

BP blows away bid rivals with big bet on wind farms

The energy giant and its German partner will pay £924m for the option to develop two sites - but the price may concern investors.

Being cynical, is this a Fossil Fuel company, trying to make renewable generation more expensive.