Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

edited 12 July 2021 at 10:38AM in Green & Ethical MoneySaving
6.4K replies 435.5K views
1624625627629630640

Replies

  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    New wind turbine tower factory for Scotland.

    UK backs new tower factory for port of Nigg

    A joint venture of Global Energy Group (GEG) and Spanish company Haizea Wind Group are to receive grant funding through the UK government’s £160m Offshore Wind Manufacturing Investment Support programme, subject to completion of due diligence, for a new turbine tower factory in Scotland.

    GEG and HWG will use the investment to develop the £110m manufacturing facility at Nigg Energy Park on the banks of Cromarty Firth in Ross-Shire.

    Nigg Offshore Wind (NOW) will be a 450-metre-long, 38,000-metre square factory, capable of rolling steel plate to supply towers which will weigh in excess of 1000 tonnes each and other products, to the UK offshore fixed and floating wind industry and abroad.

    It is due to enter construction in January, subject to reaching financial close by year-end, and take 18-months to build.


    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • shinytopshinytop Forumite
    1.6K Posts
    Fifth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭
    shinytop said:
    This article looks at how the 'anti' movement has shifted their attack now that science denial no longer works for the vast majority of rational people. Bear in mind that the 'anti' argument has really just been a way for the FF industry to slow down action to deal with the climate crisis, and the transition to renewable generation where wind and PV don't need to buy the fuel. Similarly a move to BEV's, combined with an ever greater percentage of low carbon leccy generation, is a 'one-two punch' for the FF industry.

    Anti-EV & Anti-Renewable FUD Keeps Evolving

    Fossil fuel companies have known about the risks of climate change since the 1970s. For several decades, they did everything they could to convince the public and policymakers that it wasn’t real, spending vast sums on advertisements, planted articles in the press, and studies by sympathetic “think tanks,” many of which were (and are) cited by politicians to justify inaction.

    These days, outright climate change denial doesn’t get much traction with educated people, so the defenders of the status quo have shifted their strategies. The oil companies and their allies (which include many automakers, utilities, conservative political parties and oil-exporting nations) now seek to present themselves as the good guys. Not only do they believe in climate change, but they’re at the forefront of efforts to fight it. In fact, it turns out that we can fix our environment while continuing to burn ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels! (/s)

    Isn’t that great? Our grandchildren can still have the butterflies and polar bears, and oil companies can still rake in billions in profit. Everybody wins! But alongside this counterfeit carrot, there’s a sinister stick — radical commie-types and well-meaning but misinformed greenies are pushing pie-in-the-sky solutions like electric vehicles and renewable energy that won’t be viable for decades, if ever, and that will bankrupt taxpayers. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they also want to take away our burgers and pickup trucks.

    As Stella Levantesi and Giulio Corsi write in DeSmog, climate denial has evolved into “a softer, more insidious type of misinformation, one that focuses on denying urgency and action, one that targets the solutions more than anything else. Key elements of this strategy include promoting confusion, doomist perspectives, conspiracy theories, and fabricating lies to convince the public that there is no real need for climate change policy.”

    It's a shame both sides can't be a bit more reasoned and constructive.  That article is worse than the Daily Mail. 
    But there aren't two sides. There's reality, with all of the science confirming AGW. There's the science the FF industries carried out four decades ago, also confirming (very accurately in fact) AGW from FF emissions, that they then hid. But all of the science was in agreement.

    So there is only one side, the science/facts. The other 'side' is simply the FF industry that has done everything in its power for nearly half a century to mislead and misrepresent the truth about AGW, and now that they can no longer lie about the science, they choose to spread FUD about cleaner, greener and more ethical choices to slow down the necessary transition.

    I really don't understand why anyone would choose to be on, or believe in 'the other side'.
    That's precisely the approach that will prolong the road to decarbonisation.  If you want to change somebody's behaviour, you need to understand them.  Shouting them down and/or telling them they are wrong over and over again doesn't work.  We need to be a bit cleverer than that.    

     
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    shinytop said:
    shinytop said:
    This article looks at how the 'anti' movement has shifted their attack now that science denial no longer works for the vast majority of rational people. Bear in mind that the 'anti' argument has really just been a way for the FF industry to slow down action to deal with the climate crisis, and the transition to renewable generation where wind and PV don't need to buy the fuel. Similarly a move to BEV's, combined with an ever greater percentage of low carbon leccy generation, is a 'one-two punch' for the FF industry.

    Anti-EV & Anti-Renewable FUD Keeps Evolving

    Fossil fuel companies have known about the risks of climate change since the 1970s. For several decades, they did everything they could to convince the public and policymakers that it wasn’t real, spending vast sums on advertisements, planted articles in the press, and studies by sympathetic “think tanks,” many of which were (and are) cited by politicians to justify inaction.

    These days, outright climate change denial doesn’t get much traction with educated people, so the defenders of the status quo have shifted their strategies. The oil companies and their allies (which include many automakers, utilities, conservative political parties and oil-exporting nations) now seek to present themselves as the good guys. Not only do they believe in climate change, but they’re at the forefront of efforts to fight it. In fact, it turns out that we can fix our environment while continuing to burn ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels! (/s)

    Isn’t that great? Our grandchildren can still have the butterflies and polar bears, and oil companies can still rake in billions in profit. Everybody wins! But alongside this counterfeit carrot, there’s a sinister stick — radical commie-types and well-meaning but misinformed greenies are pushing pie-in-the-sky solutions like electric vehicles and renewable energy that won’t be viable for decades, if ever, and that will bankrupt taxpayers. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they also want to take away our burgers and pickup trucks.

    As Stella Levantesi and Giulio Corsi write in DeSmog, climate denial has evolved into “a softer, more insidious type of misinformation, one that focuses on denying urgency and action, one that targets the solutions more than anything else. Key elements of this strategy include promoting confusion, doomist perspectives, conspiracy theories, and fabricating lies to convince the public that there is no real need for climate change policy.”

    It's a shame both sides can't be a bit more reasoned and constructive.  That article is worse than the Daily Mail. 
    But there aren't two sides. There's reality, with all of the science confirming AGW. There's the science the FF industries carried out four decades ago, also confirming (very accurately in fact) AGW from FF emissions, that they then hid. But all of the science was in agreement.

    So there is only one side, the science/facts. The other 'side' is simply the FF industry that has done everything in its power for nearly half a century to mislead and misrepresent the truth about AGW, and now that they can no longer lie about the science, they choose to spread FUD about cleaner, greener and more ethical choices to slow down the necessary transition.

    I really don't understand why anyone would choose to be on, or believe in 'the other side'.
    That's precisely the approach that will prolong the road to decarbonisation.  If you want to change somebody's behaviour, you need to understand them.  Shouting them down and/or telling them they are wrong over and over again doesn't work.  We need to be a bit cleverer than that.    

     
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm just being honest, I simply can't understand climate science denial. In the same way I don't understand flat earthers or moon landing deniers. I know nothing about rocket science, I simply listen to the experts. Similarly, I know nothing about climate science so I listen to the experts. I don't understand why anyone would choose not too.

    The trouble though with AGW denial, and more importantly the deliberate misinformation campaign run by the FF industry since the 1980's, despite them knowing that AGW was real and correct, is that harm is being done, and people are suffering needlessly.

    I'm all for a fair and reasonable debate, and that has been attempted for half a century but 'the other side' are not interested in the truth, since their financial wellbeing is dependant on maintaining false doubt, first in the science, and now that that's no longer possible, in the alternatives to FF's. So pandering becomes appeasement, and before we know it, we've lost many decades. Had we acted sooner, the damage would be less, the cost would be less, the rush would be less.

    There's really not any time left now to pretend that there are two sides to this. The science is solid, despite what Fox News or the Koch Brothers may have said.

    Trying to argue that pushing for faster decarbonization, or losing tolerance for the FF industry and science deniers will somehow slow down decarbonization, is another false argument that is used very often.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Exiled_TykeExiled_Tyke Forumite
    593 Posts
    Fifth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    shinytop said:
    shinytop said:
    This article looks at how the 'anti' movement has shifted their attack now that science denial no longer works for the vast majority of rational people. Bear in mind that the 'anti' argument has really just been a way for the FF industry to slow down action to deal with the climate crisis, and the transition to renewable generation where wind and PV don't need to buy the fuel. Similarly a move to BEV's, combined with an ever greater percentage of low carbon leccy generation, is a 'one-two punch' for the FF industry.

    Anti-EV & Anti-Renewable FUD Keeps Evolving

    Fossil fuel companies have known about the risks of climate change since the 1970s. For several decades, they did everything they could to convince the public and policymakers that it wasn’t real, spending vast sums on advertisements, planted articles in the press, and studies by sympathetic “think tanks,” many of which were (and are) cited by politicians to justify inaction.

    These days, outright climate change denial doesn’t get much traction with educated people, so the defenders of the status quo have shifted their strategies. The oil companies and their allies (which include many automakers, utilities, conservative political parties and oil-exporting nations) now seek to present themselves as the good guys. Not only do they believe in climate change, but they’re at the forefront of efforts to fight it. In fact, it turns out that we can fix our environment while continuing to burn ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels! (/s)

    Isn’t that great? Our grandchildren can still have the butterflies and polar bears, and oil companies can still rake in billions in profit. Everybody wins! But alongside this counterfeit carrot, there’s a sinister stick — radical commie-types and well-meaning but misinformed greenies are pushing pie-in-the-sky solutions like electric vehicles and renewable energy that won’t be viable for decades, if ever, and that will bankrupt taxpayers. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they also want to take away our burgers and pickup trucks.

    As Stella Levantesi and Giulio Corsi write in DeSmog, climate denial has evolved into “a softer, more insidious type of misinformation, one that focuses on denying urgency and action, one that targets the solutions more than anything else. Key elements of this strategy include promoting confusion, doomist perspectives, conspiracy theories, and fabricating lies to convince the public that there is no real need for climate change policy.”

    It's a shame both sides can't be a bit more reasoned and constructive.  That article is worse than the Daily Mail. 
    But there aren't two sides. There's reality, with all of the science confirming AGW. There's the science the FF industries carried out four decades ago, also confirming (very accurately in fact) AGW from FF emissions, that they then hid. But all of the science was in agreement.

    So there is only one side, the science/facts. The other 'side' is simply the FF industry that has done everything in its power for nearly half a century to mislead and misrepresent the truth about AGW, and now that they can no longer lie about the science, they choose to spread FUD about cleaner, greener and more ethical choices to slow down the necessary transition.

    I really don't understand why anyone would choose to be on, or believe in 'the other side'.
    That's precisely the approach that will prolong the road to decarbonisation.  If you want to change somebody's behaviour, you need to understand them.  Shouting them down and/or telling them they are wrong over and over again doesn't work.  We need to be a bit cleverer than that.    

     
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm just being honest, I simply can't understand climate science denial. In the same way I don't understand flat earthers or moon landing deniers. I know nothing about rocket science, I simply listen to the experts. Similarly, I know nothing about climate science so I listen to the experts. I don't understand why anyone would choose not too.

    The trouble though with AGW denial, and more importantly the deliberate misinformation campaign run by the FF industry since the 1980's, despite them knowing that AGW was real and correct, is that harm is being done, and people are suffering needlessly.

    I'm all for a fair and reasonable debate, and that has been attempted for half a century but 'the other side' are not interested in the truth, since their financial wellbeing is dependant on maintaining false doubt, first in the science, and now that that's no longer possible, in the alternatives to FF's. So pandering becomes appeasement, and before we know it, we've lost many decades. Had we acted sooner, the damage would be less, the cost would be less, the rush would be less.

    There's really not any time left now to pretend that there are two sides to this. The science is solid, despite what Fox News or the Koch Brothers may have said.

    Trying to argue that pushing for faster decarbonization, or losing tolerance for the FF industry and science deniers will somehow slow down decarbonization, is another false argument that is used very often.
    I think we are seeing yet another example of this with the Cumbrian coal mine plans. The arguments being put forward (the steel industry needs it, it will cut down on imports etc...)  are all spurious to justify something we simply have to stop doing. Opening another coal mine will provide more coal to the market which in turn will reduce prices which in turn makes it more difficult to move away from coal. Stop the debate. Refuse this on principle and start using government funds to invest in the local community (wind turbine manufacture could be a possibility???) and reward steel produces for moving to electricity (even better reward them for using surplus wind energy at off peak times) AND then we are moving forward.  As Martyn says it's really time to stop the debate. 
    Install 28th Nov 15, 3.3kW, (11x300LG), SolarEdge, SW. W Yorks.
    Install 2: Sept 19, 600W SSE
    Solax 6.3kW battery
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    shinytop said:
    shinytop said:
    This article looks at how the 'anti' movement has shifted their attack now that science denial no longer works for the vast majority of rational people. Bear in mind that the 'anti' argument has really just been a way for the FF industry to slow down action to deal with the climate crisis, and the transition to renewable generation where wind and PV don't need to buy the fuel. Similarly a move to BEV's, combined with an ever greater percentage of low carbon leccy generation, is a 'one-two punch' for the FF industry.

    Anti-EV & Anti-Renewable FUD Keeps Evolving

    Fossil fuel companies have known about the risks of climate change since the 1970s. For several decades, they did everything they could to convince the public and policymakers that it wasn’t real, spending vast sums on advertisements, planted articles in the press, and studies by sympathetic “think tanks,” many of which were (and are) cited by politicians to justify inaction.

    These days, outright climate change denial doesn’t get much traction with educated people, so the defenders of the status quo have shifted their strategies. The oil companies and their allies (which include many automakers, utilities, conservative political parties and oil-exporting nations) now seek to present themselves as the good guys. Not only do they believe in climate change, but they’re at the forefront of efforts to fight it. In fact, it turns out that we can fix our environment while continuing to burn ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels! (/s)

    Isn’t that great? Our grandchildren can still have the butterflies and polar bears, and oil companies can still rake in billions in profit. Everybody wins! But alongside this counterfeit carrot, there’s a sinister stick — radical commie-types and well-meaning but misinformed greenies are pushing pie-in-the-sky solutions like electric vehicles and renewable energy that won’t be viable for decades, if ever, and that will bankrupt taxpayers. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they also want to take away our burgers and pickup trucks.

    As Stella Levantesi and Giulio Corsi write in DeSmog, climate denial has evolved into “a softer, more insidious type of misinformation, one that focuses on denying urgency and action, one that targets the solutions more than anything else. Key elements of this strategy include promoting confusion, doomist perspectives, conspiracy theories, and fabricating lies to convince the public that there is no real need for climate change policy.”

    It's a shame both sides can't be a bit more reasoned and constructive.  That article is worse than the Daily Mail. 
    But there aren't two sides. There's reality, with all of the science confirming AGW. There's the science the FF industries carried out four decades ago, also confirming (very accurately in fact) AGW from FF emissions, that they then hid. But all of the science was in agreement.

    So there is only one side, the science/facts. The other 'side' is simply the FF industry that has done everything in its power for nearly half a century to mislead and misrepresent the truth about AGW, and now that they can no longer lie about the science, they choose to spread FUD about cleaner, greener and more ethical choices to slow down the necessary transition.

    I really don't understand why anyone would choose to be on, or believe in 'the other side'.
    That's precisely the approach that will prolong the road to decarbonisation.  If you want to change somebody's behaviour, you need to understand them.  Shouting them down and/or telling them they are wrong over and over again doesn't work.  We need to be a bit cleverer than that.    

     
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm just being honest, I simply can't understand climate science denial. In the same way I don't understand flat earthers or moon landing deniers. I know nothing about rocket science, I simply listen to the experts. Similarly, I know nothing about climate science so I listen to the experts. I don't understand why anyone would choose not too.

    The trouble though with AGW denial, and more importantly the deliberate misinformation campaign run by the FF industry since the 1980's, despite them knowing that AGW was real and correct, is that harm is being done, and people are suffering needlessly.

    I'm all for a fair and reasonable debate, and that has been attempted for half a century but 'the other side' are not interested in the truth, since their financial wellbeing is dependant on maintaining false doubt, first in the science, and now that that's no longer possible, in the alternatives to FF's. So pandering becomes appeasement, and before we know it, we've lost many decades. Had we acted sooner, the damage would be less, the cost would be less, the rush would be less.

    There's really not any time left now to pretend that there are two sides to this. The science is solid, despite what Fox News or the Koch Brothers may have said.

    Trying to argue that pushing for faster decarbonization, or losing tolerance for the FF industry and science deniers will somehow slow down decarbonization, is another false argument that is used very often.
    I think we are seeing yet another example of this with the Cumbrian coal mine plans. The arguments being put forward (the steel industry needs it, it will cut down on imports etc...)  are all spurious to justify something we simply have to stop doing. Opening another coal mine will provide more coal to the market which in turn will reduce prices which in turn makes it more difficult to move away from coal. Stop the debate. Refuse this on principle and start using government funds to invest in the local community (wind turbine manufacture could be a possibility???) and reward steel produces for moving to electricity (even better reward them for using surplus wind energy at off peak times) AND then we are moving forward.  As Martyn says it's really time to stop the debate. 

    And now you'll be blamed for any and all lack of decarbonization!    :o

    Weirdly, 'the debate' started quite honestly. I may have this wrong, but I think it was Margaret Thatcher around 1980 that suggested to the World that we need to act on GHG emissions. There wasn't any pushback, Governments seemd quite accepting, the science was solid, and of course has only grown more solid/unanimous.

    But after a few years we started to get 'the other side', that the science wasn't 100% unanimous, that we should listen to dodgy claims from paid shills, and the start of the astroturfing campaigns (fake grass roots campaigns). All of this came from the FF industry, mostly US FF industry, and was (and still is) a carbon copy of the tobacco industry stalling methods.

    So now apparently, the only thing standing in the way of Global decarbonization, are those that accept AGW science and dare to ask for action, not the FF industry ...... of course.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Potential source for vast amounts of lithium, for batteries, but it's not simple and potentially polluting.

    Lithium Brine Bummer Could Turn Into Bonanza Soon

    File this one under S for so close, and yet so far. Geothermal power plants at the Salton Sea in California produce brine that is extraordinarily high in lithium, which means that the US could vault from a wallflower to a leading producer of the stuff that dreams — well, EV batteries — are made from. The devil is in the details, but the new Hell’s Kitchen geothermal power plant could soon lay all doubts to rest.

    All the juicy details come under the title, “Technology for the Recovery of Lithium from Geothermal Brines,” in the open-access journal Energies. The press release from Berkeley Lab starts off with the observation that “geothermal brines in the Salton Sea region of California are expected to be a major domestic source of lithium in the future.”

    Or, it could all go downhill from there.

    “Extraction of lithium from geothermal brines is expected to be particularly challenging,” the lab explains. “The brine is extremely hot when it comes out of the subsurface, and it contains a rich stew of many dissolved minerals in addition to lithium.”

    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Carbon Commentary newsletter from Chris Goodall

    Things I noticed and thought were interesting

    Week ending 5th December 2021

    1, Renewables growth. The IEA increased its forecasts for the installation of renewables. In 2020 it projected a rise of 1,300 GW over the next five years but it now expects over 1,800 GW of new capacity. About 60% of this increase is forecast to be in China, which will be by far the most important market for wind and solar. Other areas are expected to see new installations that are about 20% more than in last year forecast. Commentators saw the new IEA numbers as indications that the Agency has become notably more optimistic about future growth rates. This is probably an incorrect interpretation. All that has happened, as is frequently the case, is that the Agency was obliged to update its projections to reflect the unexpectedly high growth rate in 2021. In 2020, it had suggested that this year would see additions of about 225 GW. It has turned to be about 290 GW. The new increase in 2022-2026 projections is simply a reflection of the inaccuracy of the forecast for the current year. 
     
    2, Methanol vessels.  X-press Feeders, an operator of small container ships, said it was ordering 8 new small vessels that will be fitted with dual-fuel engines. The ships will either be powered by conventional heavy fuel oil or green methanol. All the vessels will be delivered by Chinese yards by the end of 2024. Although much of the industry sees ammonia as the best long-term solution for decarbonising shipping, the early orders seem to be directed towards dual-fuel methanol engines. 
     
    3, Using electricity to make ammonia. The many advantages of using ammonia to transport hydrogen are mitigated by the energy needed to power the Haber Bosch reaction. A quarter or more of the energy value of hydrogen can be required. Researchers at Monash University in Australia, a global centre of ammonia science, showed how a special class of chemicals containing lithium can be used to speed up the reaction and allow it to use renewable electricity. This work is still very early stage but demonstrates an easier, and less energy intensive, route to the production of green ammonia.
     
    4, Methane pyrolysis for making hydrogen. UK utility Centrica, Hyundai and others put $35m into HiiROC, a new company making hydrogen from the pyrolysis of methane. Heating methane, or natural gas, in the absence of air causes the carbon and hydrogen to disassociate, leaving pure carbon as a residue. This process is potentially the cheapest means of making hydrogen because HiIROC says it only uses a fifth as much electricity as electrolysis. However, it does require natural gas, (or biomethane) which may outweigh the benefits of lower electricity usage. Although the byproduct - carbon black - is potentially valuable today in applications such as tyre manufacture, this market will be quickly saturated. HiiROC follows a path already taken by Monolith Materials in the US and a small number of others. Monolith claims even lower electricity use than NiiROC and already has substantial operating experience, claiming to be the biggest clean hydrogen producer in the world. But is methane pyrolysis from natural gas really ‘clean’? Neither NiiROC nor Monolith mention the impact of the emissions of methane during the extraction or transportation of natural gas.
     
    5, Direct Air Capture. Carbon Engineering, the Canadian company partnering with Occidental Ventures on large scale carbon capture from the air, said it was starting an appraisal of a possible 1m tonnes a year plant in Norway. This would be equal in size the planned plant being developed by the partners in the Permian Basin in the south west USA. The difference is that in the US the CO2 will be used for ‘enhanced oil recovery’ while in Norway the captured gas will be injected into disused oil wells for permanent storage as part of the Northern Lights project to sequester CO2 from other Norwegian sources. So, if the project goes ahead, Carbon Engineering and Occidental will be using infrastructure that has already been created. Norway is a good place to start; it is one of the few countries with an active interest in sequestration of CO2 from industrial sources, accessible depleted oil fields and cheap renewable electricity to power the 1 million tonne DAC plant. By contrast, Swiss start-up Climeworks works at a different scale – just 4,000 tonnes a year for its first plant. But it sold another 2,000 tonnes of DAC to US technology firm Square in addition to a recent sale to online grocer Ocado. 
     
    6, Green Steel. Spain’s Iberdrola joined up with the Swedish start-up H2 Green Steel to push forward a plan for a 2 million tonne Direct Reduction plant ‘in the Iberian peninsula’. Production is intended to start in 2025 or 2026. Iberdrola’s role is to invest in the renewables and the electrolysers necessary to produce the hydrogen. This follows the recent announcement from Arcelor Mittal that it will convert one of its Spanish plants to hydrogen by 2025. This plan also proposes an output of about 2 million tonnes of steel, meaning that about a third of Spanish steel production could be made using hydrogen by the middle of the decade. The costs in both cases will be over €2bn. 
     
    7, Hubs. The port of Rotterdam has growing ambitions to dominate hydrogen production and imports into Europe. This week saw talks with South Africa and Western Australia about developing trade in hydrogen. In November the port announced that four of the large companies operating on its sites would be ready to import, process and export hydrogen by 2025. In June, the port said that it believed bringing hydrogen from Iceland would be technically and financially viable by 2030. Rotterdam currently imports about 13% of total EU energy demand, equivalent to 1,800 terrawatt hours, or more than the UK’s entire consumption. It is looking to import 18 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050, and make another 2 million tonnes locally. In total, this will equal over 650 terawatt hours of energy value or about 5% of current EU demand. Interestingly, utility Gasnunie also intends to use the waste heat from local electrolysers for a heat network in the Hague, about 20 km away. This link will open by 2025.

    8, Fuels for aviation. I wrote an article that looked at which fuel is likely to dominate in the aviation of 2040 (and shipping). I concluded that the energy density of ammonia made it highly unlikely to be the energy source of choice. For each unit of weight it carries less than half of the energy of conventional fuel. Since the loaded takeoff weight of a very long distance airliner can be almost 50% fuel, I argue that a synthetic substitute for aviation kerosene is most likely to become the standard energy source, even though it is always likely to be more expensive than ammonia. 
     
    9, Low carbon aluminium. The international market for aluminium now provides different prices for standard aluminium and low carbon versions. The price premium is tiny – currently less than 1%. But, nevertheless, producers are beginning to orient their manufacturing towards smelting plants that are able to use zero carbon electricity. (Using renewable electricity doesn’t completely avoid emissions because graphite electrodes are employed in manufacturing and they dissolve into CO2). Rio Tinto, which is also working towards the use of a process that doesn’t require graphite, said it was investing US $85m in a plant in Quebec that will use local hydro-electric power. After decades when all the expansion in the aluminium industry was in China, producers are beginning to rebuild production capacity in low carbon locations, another example of the probable stranding of assets that are distant from renewable sources of power.
     
    10, Recruitment. A large survey by a recruiting firm showed a rapid increase in the percentage of workers in the fossil fuel sector contemplating a move into renewables. Last year it was 39% and it rose to 56% in the current survey. The recruiters called this ‘a big shift in career direction’.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Blink and you'll miss it!

    This post won't age well, but at the moment on energy numbers there's a weird situation - despite good wind generation, we have a lot of gas gen, some coal, even some OCGT gas and oil (0.1GW) ..... and we are exporting to France (2GW) and Norway (0.5GW).

    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Plans/proposal to carry out tests on UK mainland oil and gas wells to see how suitable they may be for CO2 sequestration, or possibly for hydrogen storage.

    Old UK oilwells could be turned into CO2 burial test sites

    Exhausted oil and gas wells would be turned into the UK’s first deep test sites for burying carbon dioxide next year, under plans from a consortium of universities and energy companies.

    There are hundreds of active onshore oil and gas wells in the UK. But as they come to the end of their lives, some need to be redeployed for trials of pumping CO2 underground and monitoring it to ensure it does not escape, the group says. The test wells could also be used to assess how hydrogen can be stored underground.

    CO2 capture and storage (CCS) will be a significant part of tackling the climate crisis, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UK’s official advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC). The reservoirs under the North Sea provide the biggest potential storage for CO2 from fossil fuel burning, but the consortium said reusing existing onshore wells was the fastest and cheapest way to research and develop safe and effective systems.

    The Net Zero Rise (Research Infrastructure for Subsurface Energy) project involves the universities of Newcastle, Oxford and Durham, and the fossil fuel companies IGas and Third Energy.

    It has identified 20 candidate wells, mainly in Yorkshire and the Midlands. A CCS test site would bury a relatively small amount of CO2, about 1,000 tonnes, at 1-3km depth. The cost of repurposing a well, plus two monitoring wells and the monitoring equipment would be about £5m, the group said.


    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • CoastalwatchCoastalwatch Forumite
    2.1K Posts
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭

    Old UK oilwells could be turned into CO2 burial test sites

    A bit like Sellafield is to Nuclear then! ;)
    East coast, lat 51.97. 8.26kw SSE, 23° pitch + 0.59kw WSW vertical. Nissan Leaf plus Zappi charger and 2 x ASHP's. Still waiting for V2H and home storage to become available at sensible cost.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides