Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

michaels

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Rather a negative view of blending hydrogen into natural gas from a US think-tank:

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/hydrogen-blending-will-raise-consumer-costs-and-risk-public-health-while-barely-reducing-emissions-us-think-tank/2-1-1193416

Proposals across the US to blend hydrogen with natural gas should be treated with scepticism by regulators and policymakers as the practice is highly inefficient, does little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and could even slow the energy transition — while increasing consumer costs and risking public health and safety, according to non-partisan energy and climate think-tank Energy Innovation.

Claims that hydrogen can help decarbonise the heating of buildings or the power sector, or cut consumer costs by using existing natural-gas infrastructure, are simply not true, says the San Francisco-based organisation in a new report entitled Hydrogen Proposals: Considerations for State Utility Regulators and Policymakers.

More at the link.

Not surprised as I've yet to see any proposal come up with a cost effective means of producing and delivering it. As stated often in the past it makes no sense from either a financial or emissions aspect so in my limited understanding of matters serves only to take much need resource away from the clean sources and storage required if we are to avoid the worst effects of AGW.

I thought  green hydrogen from RE spill was seen as part of a bridge to 100% zero carbon, especially as it has the potential to be used with existing infrastructure although there were issues around energy density and whether the existing infrastructure was actually suitable (corrosion etc).

From the article, links to our previous conversation re how far you can go with RE without long term storage:

It adds: “Numerous studies agree that an 80-90% clean electricity US power grid would be dependable without new “clean firm” or long-duration energy storage assets, and they concur that the most cost-effective, least-regrets investments in the near- and medium-term are renewables and battery storage.
“Although hydrogen-fired combustion turbines may be suitable to serve multi-day or seasonal energy storage needs as a means to decarbonize the last 10% of electricity generation, many emerging technologies are hoping to compete for this niche. At this point, other long-duration storage technologies such as iron-air batteries, advanced compressed air energy storage, and gravity energy storage systems all claim potentially higher efficiencies, fewer geographic constraints, or less pollution compared to hydrogen.

ABrass

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Rather a negative view of blending hydrogen into natural gas from a US think-tank:

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/hydrogen-blending-will-raise-consumer-costs-and-risk-public-health-while-barely-reducing-emissions-us-think-tank/2-1-1193416

Proposals across the US to blend hydrogen with natural gas should be treated with scepticism by regulators and policymakers as the practice is highly inefficient, does little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and could even slow the energy transition — while increasing consumer costs and risking public health and safety, according to non-partisan energy and climate think-tank Energy Innovation.

Claims that hydrogen can help decarbonise the heating of buildings or the power sector, or cut consumer costs by using existing natural-gas infrastructure, are simply not true, says the San Francisco-based organisation in a new report entitled Hydrogen Proposals: Considerations for State Utility Regulators and Policymakers.

More at the link.

Not surprised as I've yet to see any proposal come up with a cost effective means of producing and delivering it. As stated often in the past it makes no sense from either a financial or emissions aspect so in my limited understanding of matters serves only to take much need resource away from the clean sources and storage required if we are to avoid the worst effects of AGW.

I thought  green hydrogen from RE spill was seen as part of a bridge to 100% zero carbon, especially as it has the potential to be used with existing infrastructure although there were issues around energy density and whether the existing infrastructure was actually suitable (corrosion etc).

From the article, links to our previous conversation re how far you can go with RE without long term storage:

It adds: “Numerous studies agree that an 80-90% clean electricity US power grid would be dependable without new “clean firm” or long-duration energy storage assets, and they concur that the most cost-effective, least-regrets investments in the near- and medium-term are renewables and battery storage.
“Although hydrogen-fired combustion turbines may be suitable to serve multi-day or seasonal energy storage needs as a means to decarbonize the last 10% of electricity generation, many emerging technologies are hoping to compete for this niche. At this point, other long-duration storage technologies such as iron-air batteries, advanced compressed air energy storage, and gravity energy storage systems all claim potentially higher efficiencies, fewer geographic constraints, or less pollution compared to hydrogen.

Green hydrogen might have a place but that place is probably not in the existing gas infrastructure. The only way I see that happening is if the price drops to absurd prices and no one can use it for other more valuable activities like steel making or actual long term storage.

Martyn1981

Not great news, a group of Tory MP's is still working hard to limit onshore wind developments in England. S'funny how much the fear of change feeds into policies. WT's can be an incredible part of the view now as we move into a new energy revolution, I almost feel sorry for folk that don't get to see one each day, certainly make me smile, and opposition to onshore wind has been dropping since they started to be rolled out. [Giant spinny thing - what's not to love?  ]

Boris Johnson blows cold on onshore wind faced with 100-plus rebel MPs

Pro-green cabinet ministers are frustrated by Boris Johnson’s decision to back away from ambitious onshore windfarm plans for England, as it emerged more than 100 Tory MPs are lobbying against the policy behind the scenes.

One cabinet source said those cabinet ministers and Tory MPs arguing against the expansion in England said they “should look at the polling in favour of onshore wind. They are fighting a war from 10 years ago.”

ed110220

Martyn1981 said:

Not great news, a group of Tory MP's is still working hard to limit onshore wind developments in England. S'funny how much the fear of change feeds into policies. WT's can be an incredible part of the view now as we move into a new energy revolution, I almost feel sorry for folk that don't get to see one each day, certainly make me smile, and opposition to onshore wind has been dropping since they started to be rolled out. [Giant spinny thing - what's not to love?  ]

Boris Johnson blows cold on onshore wind faced with 100-plus rebel MPs

Pro-green cabinet ministers are frustrated by Boris Johnson’s decision to back away from ambitious onshore windfarm plans for England, as it emerged more than 100 Tory MPs are lobbying against the policy behind the scenes.

One cabinet source said those cabinet ministers and Tory MPs arguing against the expansion in England said they “should look at the polling in favour of onshore wind. They are fighting a war from 10 years ago.”

It's frustrating, especially given how limited opposition is in surveys. But I suspect the opponents tend to be very vocal and probably more articulate, politically connected and with more time and resources on their hands, say party members/activists.

2nd_time_buyer

ed110220 said:

Martyn1981 said:

Not great news, a group of Tory MP's is still working hard to limit onshore wind developments in England. S'funny how much the fear of change feeds into policies. WT's can be an incredible part of the view now as we move into a new energy revolution, I almost feel sorry for folk that don't get to see one each day, certainly make me smile, and opposition to onshore wind has been dropping since they started to be rolled out. [Giant spinny thing - what's not to love?  ]

Boris Johnson blows cold on onshore wind faced with 100-plus rebel MPs

Pro-green cabinet ministers are frustrated by Boris Johnson’s decision to back away from ambitious onshore windfarm plans for England, as it emerged more than 100 Tory MPs are lobbying against the policy behind the scenes.

One cabinet source said those cabinet ministers and Tory MPs arguing against the expansion in England said they “should look at the polling in favour of onshore wind. They are fighting a war from 10 years ago.”

It's frustrating, especially given how limited opposition is in surveys. But I suspect the opponents tend to be very vocal and probably more articulate, politically connected and with more time and resources on their hands, say party members/activists.

Will it be of much consequence? My understanding is that we have more than enough potential off-shore sites. One advantage of onshore, is that it lends itself to smaller developments and offerings like Ripple, but perhaps if there is an offshore policy with full backing and a sense of urgency, that is enough. 

shinytop

Martyn1981 said:

Not great news, a group of Tory MP's is still working hard to limit onshore wind developments in England. S'funny how much the fear of change feeds into policies. WT's can be an incredible part of the view now as we move into a new energy revolution, I almost feel sorry for folk that don't get to see one each day, certainly make me smile, and opposition to onshore wind has been dropping since they started to be rolled out. [Giant spinny thing - what's not to love?  ]

Boris Johnson blows cold on onshore wind faced with 100-plus rebel MPs

Pro-green cabinet ministers are frustrated by Boris Johnson’s decision to back away from ambitious onshore windfarm plans for England, as it emerged more than 100 Tory MPs are lobbying against the policy behind the scenes.

One cabinet source said those cabinet ministers and Tory MPs arguing against the expansion in England said they “should look at the polling in favour of onshore wind. They are fighting a war from 10 years ago.”

I completely accept that we need onshore wind but I really think it's stretching a point to say that wind turbines enhance the rural environment.  To me they're like electricity pylons; a necessary evil.  I think the best that can be said is that people will get used to them.  

Exiled_Tyke

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

Not great news, a group of Tory MP's is still working hard to limit onshore wind developments in England. S'funny how much the fear of change feeds into policies. WT's can be an incredible part of the view now as we move into a new energy revolution, I almost feel sorry for folk that don't get to see one each day, certainly make me smile, and opposition to onshore wind has been dropping since they started to be rolled out. [Giant spinny thing - what's not to love?  ]

Boris Johnson blows cold on onshore wind faced with 100-plus rebel MPs

Pro-green cabinet ministers are frustrated by Boris Johnson’s decision to back away from ambitious onshore windfarm plans for England, as it emerged more than 100 Tory MPs are lobbying against the policy behind the scenes.

One cabinet source said those cabinet ministers and Tory MPs arguing against the expansion in England said they “should look at the polling in favour of onshore wind. They are fighting a war from 10 years ago.”

I completely accept that we need onshore wind but I really think it's stretching a point to say that wind turbines enhance the rural environment.  To me they're like electricity pylons; a necessary evil.  I think the best that can be said is that people will get used to them.  

Each to their own view. I find them stunning and really enjoy seeing them.  They are elegant and 'living'.  For me they are nothing like pylons.  

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

Not great news, a group of Tory MP's is still working hard to limit onshore wind developments in England. S'funny how much the fear of change feeds into policies. WT's can be an incredible part of the view now as we move into a new energy revolution, I almost feel sorry for folk that don't get to see one each day, certainly make me smile, and opposition to onshore wind has been dropping since they started to be rolled out. [Giant spinny thing - what's not to love?  ]

Boris Johnson blows cold on onshore wind faced with 100-plus rebel MPs

Pro-green cabinet ministers are frustrated by Boris Johnson’s decision to back away from ambitious onshore windfarm plans for England, as it emerged more than 100 Tory MPs are lobbying against the policy behind the scenes.

One cabinet source said those cabinet ministers and Tory MPs arguing against the expansion in England said they “should look at the polling in favour of onshore wind. They are fighting a war from 10 years ago.”

I completely accept that we need onshore wind but I really think it's stretching a point to say that wind turbines enhance the rural environment.  To me they're like electricity pylons; a necessary evil.  I think the best that can be said is that people will get used to them.  

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's my opinion, and I stand by it, we all like (dislike) the look of different things, that's what makes life fun.

But the good news, if you truly believe - "the best that can be said is that people will get used to them." - then hopefully I for one have already beaten your best hope, so things are better than you thought when you got up today, certainly from a green and ethical point of view.

Perhaps time for a new upper target, since as Dee Snider once said "If that's your best, your best won't do".

Martyn1981

Just when you thought your crinkley bottom was safe, the science deniers and anti-RE campaign 'charities' are back.

Can't help thinking 'here we go again', but I'm not sure how much of this will stick this time. The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph hit RE hard, and were for ever quoting the gibberish from the REF (renewable energy foundation / Noel Edmonds) and the GWPF (global warming policy foundation /' Nigel Lawson), and despite having never seemed interested in FF curtailment payments before, suddenly freaked out when wind started to get some of it.

This started back about 10-11yrs and was discussed on the G&E board at the time, it was noticeable over the years (perhaps by the middle of the last decade) that the comments sections in the DM and DT started to go out of line with the articles, as did all of the public surveys, and the papers started to publish some quite nice pieces about RE, even on-shore wind, and the economics. So ....... fingers crossed, they won't stay down the same rabbit hole as long again this time.

Charity linked to UK anti-onshore wind campaigns active again

While the name of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) suggests it is a charity dedicated to promoting low-carbon electricity, it appears to spend most of its time campaigning against onshore wind.

When it was founded in 2004, with the TV personality Noel Edmonds as its chair, the organisation was clear it wanted to fight against the “grotesque political push” for onshore renewable energy in the UK.

It styles itself on its website as “a registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy”. However, many in the energy sector believe the charity to be full of anti-wind lobbyists.

The REF has strong links to a group accused of climate science scepticism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by the former chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has denied global heating is a problem.

While the REF has been relatively quiet in recent years, growing pressure on the government to support wind energy to help solve the energy crisis seems to have led to it becoming more active again.
In recent weeks, the charity has provided anti-onshore wind research to the Telegraph and Daily Mail. Colin Davie, a trustee of the REF, has appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme to oppose onshore wind.

michaels

Missed opportunity - and perhaps it is now too late to get it right?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61010605

I wonder to what extent my lifetime will be impacted by climate change?  Will it just be in the pocket through higher prices or will we see actual shortages of foodstuffs and severe weather impacts such as floods and heat waves affecting the majority in the UK?