The Alternative Green Energy Thread

ABrass

shinytop said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Burning ‘renewable’ biomass for power emits more CO2 than coal

This process of wood burning generated 15.6Mt of CO2 emissions in 2020, compared to 10Mt from coal, according to analysis by think tank Ember and Duncan Brack, a political analyst at Chatham House.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/08/burning-renewable-biomass-power-emits-co2-coal/

Since we get twice as much power from Biomass as Coal, isn't that a fairly unsurprising number?

It also ignores that biomass is essentially carbon neutral so all those emissions are balanced by absorption. It's also based on a lot of assumptions. See the report here

https://ember-climate.org/commentary/2021/10/08/uk-biomass-emits-more-co2-than-coal/

But isn't this the point the article is making, i.e. it's the relative amount, not the total. 

"Due to its lower energy density than fossil fuels, wood – the main source of biomass used for generating power in the UK – has to be burned in higher volumes than coal to produce the same amount of energy. This means that burning wood emits more carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity than coal"

And it is fairly scathing about the carbon neutrality of burning wood.  And the particulate emissions. I have idea of the validity of the claims, just that it's not about the total emissions.  If that were the case, how would gas compare with coal?  

If the process truely is net zero, it doesn't matter how much is emitted or captured. For a steady state the same amount is absorbed as emitted at any point.

As such the only bits that matters are the PM10 volumes and if it's net zero or not. It feels too speculative to merit the coverage.

Edit: For net zero it adds nothing new. For PM10 it's more interesting, but they appear to be referring to Drax too loosely, in some sections they reference the Biomass unit(s?) only, in others they loop in the Coal units as well, but ignore that not all the PM or the CO2 is from the Biomass. That's let of thing is either to be deliberately misleading or because the author is lazy.

It seems sloppy.

QrizB

ABrass said:

shinytop said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Burning ‘renewable’ biomass for power emits more CO2 than coal

This process of wood burning generated 15.6Mt of CO2 emissions in 2020, compared to 10Mt from coal, according to analysis by think tank Ember and Duncan Brack, a political analyst at Chatham House.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/08/burning-renewable-biomass-power-emits-co2-coal/

Since we get twice as much power from Biomass as Coal, isn't that a fairly unsurprising number?

It also ignores that biomass is essentially carbon neutral so all those emissions are balanced by absorption. It's also based on a lot of assumptions. See the report here

https://ember-climate.org/commentary/2021/10/08/uk-biomass-emits-more-co2-than-coal/

But isn't this the point the article is making, i.e. it's the relative amount, not the total. 

"Due to its lower energy density than fossil fuels, wood – the main source of biomass used for generating power in the UK – has to be burned in higher volumes than coal to produce the same amount of energy. This means that burning wood emits more carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity than coal"

And it is fairly scathing about the carbon neutrality of burning wood.  And the particulate emissions. I have idea of the validity of the claims, just that it's not about the total emissions.  If that were the case, how would gas compare with coal?  

If the process truely is net zero, it doesn't matter how much is emitted or captured. For a steady state the same amount is absorbed as emitted at any point.

I think the point (in as much as there is one) is that biomass isn't net zero. There is energy involved in planting trees, growing trees, harvesting trees, turning trees into wood pellets, transporting wood pellets to power plants, etc. and currently most of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

What they've failed to specify, because they don't know the answer, is exactly how much this is and how it compares to the equivalent energy used in extracting, transporting etc. coal or NG. 1%? 10%? 100%? 200%? They don't know.

Personally, I read this statement:

Phil MacDonald, COO at Ember, commented: “Recent science demonstrates that burning forest biomass for power is unlikely to be carbon neutral – and there’s a real risk that it’s responsible for significant emissions. Before the Government spends more taxpayer money on biomass, we should make sure we know we’re getting the emissions reductions that we’re paying for.”

... and it seems to me that Mr MacDonald could be angling for a nice taxpayer-funded contract to look at the whole-life carbon footprint of biomass fuel.

JKenH

I don’t see how Biomass can be carbon neutral. If we leave the trees standing they will absorb CO2. If we burn them they emit CO2. If we then replant how many years before the trees grow to the size where they absorb the amount of CO2 emitted by their burning? 

Over a long cycle the CO2 emitted during burning and CO2 absorbed by regrowing may come into balance but there will still be CO2 costs in growing, harvesting, transporting and processing the trees. 

In the short term all the CO2 emitted when burning is a net addition to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

At anyone point in time if we were to stop biomass electricity production there would be a an immediate net benefit to the atmosphere of the CO2 emissions avoided. 

JKenH

Anger as generators moved across Scotland to power electric vehicles carrying VIPs to COP26

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3526503/anger-as-generators-moved-across-scotland-to-power-electric-vehicles-carrying-vips-to-cop26/

JKenH

What really happened during the Texas grid power outage?

I found this video interesting. It is not political, it does not attempt to pin the blame on RE or FF, it simply explains the mechanisms which led to the massive power outages. 

https://youtu.be/08mwXICY4JM

JKenH

The climate change cult now owes more to religion than rationality

Opinion piece in the Telegraph. (Extracts)

Everybody seems to accept, after recent events, that scientific advice can lead to disastrous government policy. It is now widely believed that misjudgements on the part of official scientific advisers led to the wrong decisions being made in the early stages of the pandemic. Dutifully following what ministers insisted on calling The Science was, it turns out, not such a great idea after all.

But the essential mistake was made by ministers who treated science as if it were revealed truth rather than what it actually is: a mode of inquiry that relies on endless questioning, competing theories, exhaustive argument, the examination of contradictory evidence, and, above all, the toleration of disagreement, in order to progress. (To the extent that the scientific advisers were complicit in the Government’s naive view of their disciplines, they must be seen as culpable.)

All of this is critical to the way that the issue of climate change is being treated by governments and global institutions. The discourse around the danger that it represents and what should be done about it is now dominated by language which can only be described as apocalyptic in the true Biblical sense of the word.

Let me say from the start that I am not qualified to make scientific judgements about the empirical facts of this matter. (Nor, of course, are some of the prominent exponents of the most extreme version of the climate campaign: Greta Thunberg does not have a degree in any scientific subject and famously withdrew from formal education to pursue her public mission.) It is perfectly possible, so far as I know, that the most cataclysmic predictions and the inevitability of the worst prognoses are objectively correct.

And yet there is something about this movement that is so suspiciously imitative of an extreme religious cult that it is very hard to see how it could be compatible with the spirit of scientific endeavour. Climate campaigning, at least in its most well-publicised form, embodies everything that one would expect to see in a movement of fanatical fundamentalist fervour: the concept of original sin (industrialisation) that requires an acceptance of universal guilt which can only be expiated through self-denial and penance (sacrificing personal prosperity and freedoms).

The political establishments of the grown-up developed world are now promulgating accusations and vengeful warnings delivered by child saints of the terrible world-destroying punishments to come if their cries of woe are not heeded. All of this is somehow incongruous: a bizarre melding of modern media and the Middle Ages.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/16/climate-change-cult-now-owes-religion-rationality/

JKenH

Tidal power turbocharges hopes for shift to renewables

Article on tidal power in today’s Telegraph. Too long to copy in full but quite bullish on prospects.

That tenacity has paid off. According to Orec’s analysis, the cost of tidal power will fall to £90 per megawatt hour once 1 gigawatt of generating capacity is installed worldwide. That puts it in the same price bracket as energy coming from UK nuclear plants.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/17/tidal-power-turbocharges-hopes-shift-renewables1/

JKenH

World energy watchdog guides us to a painless net zero

For two decades the IEA was aligned with the fossil industry, but now they have put renewables front and centre

The shibboleths of the old energy order fall away. The International Energy Agency has systematically struck down every economic and social objection to net zero.

“The message is clear: a new global energy economy is coming, which is cheaper, cleaner, safer, more resilient, and much fairer across countries,” said Fatih Birol, the director of the agency (IEA).  

For two decades the IEA was aligned with the fossil industry, apt to treat renewables and electric cars in its World Energy Outlook as a romantic niche interest. This year the data tables begin with supply figures for solar, wind, bioenergy, and so forth. The lines for oil, gas, and coal are relegated to the bottom.

A decarbonisation dash will instead accelerate economic growth, lifting global GDP by an extra 0.4pc annually over the next decade. The 5m jobs lost in oil, gas, and coal will be trumped by up to 24m green jobs, and three-quarters of these will be local.

It will lower the average household cost of electricity, heating, cooling, and transport fuel from $2,800 to $2,300 a year by 2030 in wealthier countries, with gradual gains to follow as the energy share of disposable income falls from 4pc to 2pc by mid-century. Energy bills in the developing world will creep up, but that is because of rising affluence.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/17/world-energy-watchdog-guides-us-painless-net-zero/

JKenH

Price spike highlights how switching to greener energy will be a dirty job

The transition to renewables may take decades – in the meantime, the world can’t depend on notoriously fickle sources of power, writes David R Baker
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/energy-crisis-of-clean-power-transition-b1936281.html

JKenH

Biden’s clean electricity program could be dropped from spending bill – report

Major part of the Biden administration’s climate agenda will ‘likely’ be cut from the massive budget bill pending in Congress, New York Times reports

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/15/bidens-clean-electricity-program-could-be-dropped-from-spending-bill-report