Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

This old (horse meat free) chestnut again, and a way to move away from 'harmful' meat production, like the beef industry (sorry, most of the beef industry) whilst sticking with our animal based burgers.
I think it'll tick 'green', but not entirely sure where it comes on the 'ethical' scale.

If we want to save the planet, the future of food is insects

Insect protein is not as “sexy” as the alternative meat companies, admits Leah Bessa of the South African start-up Gourmet Grubb, but she feels anyone interested in food security should be looking for multiple solutions. “I don’t think we should be expecting any one food to solve things,” she says. “The problem with our agriculture system is that we don’t have enough diversity to cater for different climates and landscapes. What’s great about insects is that you can farm them anywhere, in any environment. They don’t destroy land, you can grow them on by-products of the food industry and they’re full of nutrients.” But, she cautions: “It has taken the plant-based food movement decades to get to where it is now,” she says. “If insects can do the same, it will be a big win.”

Martyn1981

This article is sad from beginning to end, for so many different reasons. I do feel sorry for coal states as they lose income, but they could have diversified decades ago, and created new renewable industries for their workers, instead they fed the lies, and did their best to block 'progress'. Just a sad, sad mess for everyone.

Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it

Wyoming is faced by a transition to renewable energy that’s gathering pace across America, but it has now come up with a novel and controversial plan to protect its mining industry – sue other states that refuse to take its coal.

A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.

Legal experts have said the new strategy is on shaky ground.

While the US constitution’s commerce clause prevents one state from banning goods and services based upon their state of origin, there is nothing to prevent them banning certain things, such as coal, as long as the measure is not targeted at one specific state.

Environmentalists argue that lawmakers should be helping build alternate industries to compensate for the inevitable demise of coal, rather than prop up a sector increasingly viewed as polluting and outmoded.

Cardew

Bill seeks to make Louisiana ‘fossil fuel sanctuary’ in bid against Biden’s climate plans

In The Guardian

michaels

So I'm not sure if Fusion qualifies for 'green and ethical' or not.
Mind-boggling magnets could unlock plentiful power - BBC News

Obviously it has always been about 2 decades away from commercialisation but now we are seeing private investment it seems at least some people think it may be coming sooner in commercially realistic timescales.

However their remains the question of whether the falling prices of renewables and storage will mean that it is not commercially viable by the time it is developed.  I guess as it appears to be clean energy there is no harm done in pursuing it - it is hardly at a position now where renewable and storage investment will be curtailed by the threat of cheap fusion power coming any time soon.

Martyn1981

michaels said:

So I'm not sure if Fusion qualifies for 'green and ethical' or not.
Mind-boggling magnets could unlock plentiful power - BBC News

Obviously it has always been about 2 decades away from commercialisation but now we are seeing private investment it seems at least some people think it may be coming sooner in commercially realistic timescales.

However their remains the question of whether the falling prices of renewables and storage will mean that it is not commercially viable by the time it is developed.  I guess as it appears to be clean energy there is no harm done in pursuing it - it is hardly at a position now where renewable and storage investment will be curtailed by the threat of cheap fusion power coming any time soon.

Totally agree. Whilst spending money to build fission plants means we get less clean leccy, and more FF emission during the lengthy build out, I think investment in fussion research is worth it.
A downside though, is something I learned about 3 or 4yrs ago. A nuclear engineer (on the Navitron forum) reported that he was returning to fission, from fusion research, as the monies were slowing down / declining, as it was no longer believed that fusion would be able to compete with renewables, nor RE + storage, when/if solved (as you mention), and of course over the last 3 or 4yrs we have seen RE costs tumble, and for the UK, where solar won't be a majority source*, we have importantly seen off-shore wind prices fall towards on-shore wind and PV (UK PV) prices.
I was quite sad when I heard that fusion might not reach viability. I remember seeing Brian Cox, in one of his first tv appearances, explaining all about it, must be decades ago now?

* (Oops, I forgot to include the explanation, my brain is fried today) - The reports looking at 100% RE solutions to our future leccy world, all seem to suggest around 70% from solar (in total), but those that have country specific breakdowns, go on to suggest ~70% will come from wind, for the UK. Which seems fair/sensible.

EricMears

Not sure what all the 'excitement' is about ?  Earth has had it's own 'local' fusion reactor 93m miles away for the last 4 billion years and AFAIK it's still working well.  Attempts to set up smaller scale, closer reactors have been going on for all of my lifetime and I'm not expecting to hear any time soon that they've reached fruition.

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

Not sure what all the 'excitement' is about ?  Earth has had it's own 'local' fusion reactor 93m miles away for the last 4 billion years and AFAIK it's still working well.  Attempts to set up smaller scale, closer reactors have been going on for all of my lifetime and I'm not expecting to hear any time soon that they've reached fruition.

But Eric, when I was young they were 30yrs away, now I'm middle aged (give or take 10yrs) they are only 20yrs away, so 2080 is looking good. Fingers crossed.

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

Not sure what all the 'excitement' is about ?  Earth has had it's own 'local' fusion reactor 93m miles away for the last 4 billion years and AFAIK it's still working well.  Attempts to set up smaller scale, closer reactors have been going on for all of my lifetime and I'm not expecting to hear any time soon that they've reached fruition.

But Eric, when I was young they were 30yrs away, now I'm middle aged (give or take 10yrs) they are only 20yrs away, so 2080 is looking good. Fingers crossed.

OTOH,  when I was young (more like 60 years ago) the Zeta project was well advanced with industrial spin-offs expected within next 10 years (i.e. 50 years ago from now).  now (you say) they're 20 years away so arguably in another 60 years time they'll be expected in a further 30 years.  If I was confident of being around to collect my winnings,  I'd be betting on nothing significant happening for next hundred years.

Martyn1981

Article showing that RE capacity deployment grew last year. Also suggesting that it will start to grow faster again this year/next. It also mentions positive policy changes, such as in the US, now that they have a normal man in charge.
I'd assume/suggest that we should see significant growth in annual deployments again, as RE costs keep getting cheaper (more bang for your buck), cheaper RE, means less dithering about RE v's FF spending, and of course AGW denial is falling, and becoming less tolerable, as the climate crisis grows.

Global renewable energy industry grew at fastest rate since 1999 last year

The world’s renewable energy industry grew at its fastest pace since 1999 last year, despite the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and may have established a standard for growth in the future, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The global energy watchdog revealed that the delivery of renewable energy projects, including windfarms and solar power projects, grew by 45% last year in a step change for the global industry.

Wind power capacity doubled over the last year, while solar power grew by almost 50% more than its growth before the pandemic, due to the growing appetite for clean energy from governments and corporations.

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

Article showing that RE capacity deployment grew last year. Also suggesting that it will start to grow faster again this year/next. It also mentions positive policy changes, such as in the US, now that they have a normal man in charge.
I'd assume/suggest that we should see significant growth in annual deployments again, as RE costs keep getting cheaper (more bang for your buck), cheaper RE, means less dithering about RE v's FF spending, and of course AGW denial is falling, and becoming less tolerable, as the climate crisis grows.

Global renewable energy industry grew at fastest rate since 1999 last year

The world’s renewable energy industry grew at its fastest pace since 1999 last year, despite the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and may have established a standard for growth in the future, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The global energy watchdog revealed that the delivery of renewable energy projects, including windfarms and solar power projects, grew by 45% last year in a step change for the global industry.

Wind power capacity doubled over the last year, while solar power grew by almost 50% more than its growth before the pandemic, due to the growing appetite for clean energy from governments and corporations.

Good news but I hate headlines like this, sure the rate may have picked up but the comparison to what was added in terms of volume last year compared to 1999 is so different as to not be relevant - going up from 2 to 3 is 50% growth, as is going up from 2 trillion to 3 trillion, but comparing the two percentage changes is not really very useful.