Category Archives: Energy

Sea level rise threatens UK nuclear reactor plans

Sea level rise may consign the planned UK site for two large nuclear reactors to vanish beneath the waves.

LONDON, 28 April, 2020 – Controversial plans by the French nuclear giant EDF to build two of its massive new reactors on the low-lying east coast of England are causing alarm: the shore is eroding and local people fear sea level rise could maroon the station on an island.

A newly published paper adds weight to the objections of two local government bodies, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council, which have already lodged objections to EDF’s plans because they fear the proposed sea defences for the new station, Sizewell C, will be inadequate.

EDF, which is currently expecting the go-ahead to start building the station from the British government, says it has done its own expert assessment, had its calculations independently checked, and is satisfied that the coast is stable and the planned concrete sea defences will be adequate.

The argument is whether the coastal banks which prevent storm waves hitting this part of the coast will remain intact for the next 150 years – roughly the life of the station, taking into account 20 years of construction, 60 years of operation and then the time needed to decommission it.

The paper is the work of a structural engineer, Nick Scarr, a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group, which is an independent, non-profit virtual institute that provides expert research and analysis of nuclear issues.

As relevant, though, is his knowledge of the coastal waters of Suffolk, where he spends time sailing. He believes the coast is inherently unstable.

Catastrophic accident risk

With sea level rise and storm surges, he says, the site will become an island with its defences eroded by the sea well before the station reaches the end of its active life, risking a catastrophic accident, which is why he wrote his report.

He told the Climate News Network: “Any sailor, or lifeboat crew, knows that East Coast banks need respect – they have dynamic patterns, and even the latest charts cannot be accurate for long.

“I was deeply concerned by EDF’s premise that there is micro-stability at the Sizewell site, which makes it suitable for new-build nuclear. It is true if you restrict analysis to recent historical data, but it is false if you look at longer-term data and evidence-based climate science predictions.

“Climate science not only tells us that storm surges have a higher median level to work from, but that they will also render the banks ineffective for mitigating wave power on the Sizewell foreshore (because of reduced friction, as the water depth is greater).”

The longer-term data Scarr mentions are not altogether reassuring. Less than 10 miles from the site are the remains of Dunwich, once a thriving medieval port that disappeared in 1338 because of coastal erosion and a huge storm.

Nick Scarr added: “Note that Sizewell security needs to last at least from now to the year 2150. A shorter period than this, 1868-1992, shown in hydrographic charting, tells us clearly how unstable the offshore banks are over a longer time frame, and that is without sea level rise.”

“Any sailor, or lifeboat crew, knows that East Coast banks need respect – they have dynamic patterns, and even the latest charts cannot be accurate for long”

Sea level rise is expected to be up to a metre on this coast by the end of the century, but that is only part of the problem – the “once in a century” storm surges are expected to occur as often as once a year by 2050.

This is not the first time that ambitious plans by the government to build nuclear power stations on the British coast have been questioned. A proposed station at Dungeness in Kent, on England’s south-east coast,  has already been shelved because the existing station there is in danger from the sea.

The Suffolk site already has two stations. Sizewell A has been closed and is being decommissioned. The second, Sizewell B,  owned by EDF, has been operating since the early 1990s and is due to close some time in the 2030s.

The new reactors, together called Sizewell C, will be built further out to sea than A and B and will rely on an undersea ridge, a coralline crag, as a bastion against storm waves crashing into the station.

EDF’s contention that the site is safe is partly based on a report by engineers Mott Macdonald, compiled in 2014 and based on historical data, which says that this undersea ridge is stable and will continue to be a form of natural coastal defence.

However, East Suffolk and Suffolk County Councils, in their joint response to EDF’s consultation, make it clear that Sizewell C’s development has not in their view been shown to be able to be  protected from erosion or flood risk over the site’s life.

Fuel storage problem

Scarr’s report goes further, concluding: “This threat to the Sizewell foreshore is clearly an untenable risk.”

One contentious issue on nuclear sites, including those at Sizewell, is the need for decades-long storage of large quantities of highly dangerous spent nuclear fuel in cooling ponds once it is removed from the reactors. Currently the UK has no such disposal route.

Asked about Starr’s report and the councils’ objections, EDF told the Network: “The design of the power station, including its sea defence and the raised platform it will be built on, will protect Sizewell C from flooding.”

It added: “Sizewell C will safely manage the spent fuel from the station on the site for its lifetime, or until a deep geological repository becomes available.

“Sizewell is located within a stable part of the Suffolk coastline between two hard points and the offshore bank of sediment, the Dunwich-Sizewell bank.  We have undertaken extensive studies of the coastline in developing our plans.

“We have performed a great deal of modelling to forecast potential future scenarios along the Sizewell coast, with and without Sizewell C, to fully assess the effect of the station on coastal processes. We then asked independent experts to critique the forecasts to provide the very best assessment of long-term coastal change.

Dungeness jeopardy

“When built, the permanent sea defences would protect the power station from a 1 in 10,000-year storm event, including climate change and sea level rise. We’ve designed flexibility into our permanent coastal sea defence, meaning it could be raised during the lifetime of Sizewell C if needed.”

Another of EDF’s existing reactors, at Dungeness, which is built on a vast shingle bank, was taken offline seven years ago for five months while an emergency sea wall was built to prevent it being flooded.

For decades the defences of the twin reactors have had constantly to be reinforced because the shingle banks on which they stand are being eroded by the sea.

That station was designed more than 30 years ago, before scientists realised the dangers that sea level rise posed, and apparently without understanding how the shingle constantly moves.

Although it is due to shut later this decade it will still represent a serious danger to the public for another century until it can be safely decommissioned and demolished.

During that time millions of pounds will have to be spent making sure it is not overwhelmed by storms and sea level rise. – Climate News Network

Sea level rise may consign the planned UK site for two large nuclear reactors to vanish beneath the waves.

LONDON, 28 April, 2020 – Controversial plans by the French nuclear giant EDF to build two of its massive new reactors on the low-lying east coast of England are causing alarm: the shore is eroding and local people fear sea level rise could maroon the station on an island.

A newly published paper adds weight to the objections of two local government bodies, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council, which have already lodged objections to EDF’s plans because they fear the proposed sea defences for the new station, Sizewell C, will be inadequate.

EDF, which is currently expecting the go-ahead to start building the station from the British government, says it has done its own expert assessment, had its calculations independently checked, and is satisfied that the coast is stable and the planned concrete sea defences will be adequate.

The argument is whether the coastal banks which prevent storm waves hitting this part of the coast will remain intact for the next 150 years – roughly the life of the station, taking into account 20 years of construction, 60 years of operation and then the time needed to decommission it.

The paper is the work of a structural engineer, Nick Scarr, a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group, which is an independent, non-profit virtual institute that provides expert research and analysis of nuclear issues.

As relevant, though, is his knowledge of the coastal waters of Suffolk, where he spends time sailing. He believes the coast is inherently unstable.

Catastrophic accident risk

With sea level rise and storm surges, he says, the site will become an island with its defences eroded by the sea well before the station reaches the end of its active life, risking a catastrophic accident, which is why he wrote his report.

He told the Climate News Network: “Any sailor, or lifeboat crew, knows that East Coast banks need respect – they have dynamic patterns, and even the latest charts cannot be accurate for long.

“I was deeply concerned by EDF’s premise that there is micro-stability at the Sizewell site, which makes it suitable for new-build nuclear. It is true if you restrict analysis to recent historical data, but it is false if you look at longer-term data and evidence-based climate science predictions.

“Climate science not only tells us that storm surges have a higher median level to work from, but that they will also render the banks ineffective for mitigating wave power on the Sizewell foreshore (because of reduced friction, as the water depth is greater).”

The longer-term data Scarr mentions are not altogether reassuring. Less than 10 miles from the site are the remains of Dunwich, once a thriving medieval port that disappeared in 1338 because of coastal erosion and a huge storm.

Nick Scarr added: “Note that Sizewell security needs to last at least from now to the year 2150. A shorter period than this, 1868-1992, shown in hydrographic charting, tells us clearly how unstable the offshore banks are over a longer time frame, and that is without sea level rise.”

“Any sailor, or lifeboat crew, knows that East Coast banks need respect – they have dynamic patterns, and even the latest charts cannot be accurate for long”

Sea level rise is expected to be up to a metre on this coast by the end of the century, but that is only part of the problem – the “once in a century” storm surges are expected to occur as often as once a year by 2050.

This is not the first time that ambitious plans by the government to build nuclear power stations on the British coast have been questioned. A proposed station at Dungeness in Kent, on England’s south-east coast,  has already been shelved because the existing station there is in danger from the sea.

The Suffolk site already has two stations. Sizewell A has been closed and is being decommissioned. The second, Sizewell B,  owned by EDF, has been operating since the early 1990s and is due to close some time in the 2030s.

The new reactors, together called Sizewell C, will be built further out to sea than A and B and will rely on an undersea ridge, a coralline crag, as a bastion against storm waves crashing into the station.

EDF’s contention that the site is safe is partly based on a report by engineers Mott Macdonald, compiled in 2014 and based on historical data, which says that this undersea ridge is stable and will continue to be a form of natural coastal defence.

However, East Suffolk and Suffolk County Councils, in their joint response to EDF’s consultation, make it clear that Sizewell C’s development has not in their view been shown to be able to be  protected from erosion or flood risk over the site’s life.

Fuel storage problem

Scarr’s report goes further, concluding: “This threat to the Sizewell foreshore is clearly an untenable risk.”

One contentious issue on nuclear sites, including those at Sizewell, is the need for decades-long storage of large quantities of highly dangerous spent nuclear fuel in cooling ponds once it is removed from the reactors. Currently the UK has no such disposal route.

Asked about Starr’s report and the councils’ objections, EDF told the Network: “The design of the power station, including its sea defence and the raised platform it will be built on, will protect Sizewell C from flooding.”

It added: “Sizewell C will safely manage the spent fuel from the station on the site for its lifetime, or until a deep geological repository becomes available.

“Sizewell is located within a stable part of the Suffolk coastline between two hard points and the offshore bank of sediment, the Dunwich-Sizewell bank.  We have undertaken extensive studies of the coastline in developing our plans.

“We have performed a great deal of modelling to forecast potential future scenarios along the Sizewell coast, with and without Sizewell C, to fully assess the effect of the station on coastal processes. We then asked independent experts to critique the forecasts to provide the very best assessment of long-term coastal change.

Dungeness jeopardy

“When built, the permanent sea defences would protect the power station from a 1 in 10,000-year storm event, including climate change and sea level rise. We’ve designed flexibility into our permanent coastal sea defence, meaning it could be raised during the lifetime of Sizewell C if needed.”

Another of EDF’s existing reactors, at Dungeness, which is built on a vast shingle bank, was taken offline seven years ago for five months while an emergency sea wall was built to prevent it being flooded.

For decades the defences of the twin reactors have had constantly to be reinforced because the shingle banks on which they stand are being eroded by the sea.

That station was designed more than 30 years ago, before scientists realised the dangers that sea level rise posed, and apparently without understanding how the shingle constantly moves.

Although it is due to shut later this decade it will still represent a serious danger to the public for another century until it can be safely decommissioned and demolished.

During that time millions of pounds will have to be spent making sure it is not overwhelmed by storms and sea level rise. – Climate News Network

It’s a galloping goodbye to Europe’s coal

This story is a part of Covering Climate Now’s week of coverage focused on Climate Solutions, to mark the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. Covering Climate Now is a global journalism collaboration committed to strengthening coverage of the climate story.

 

Europe’s coal has powered it for centuries. But with gathering speed it is now turning its back on the fuel.

LONDON, 26 April, 2020 – The energy that has powered a continent for several hundred years, driving its industry, fighting its wars and keeping its people warm, is on the way out, fast: Europe’s coal is in rapid decline.

Coal is far and away the most polluting of fossil fuels and is a major factor in the build-up of climate-changing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But, according to a recent report by two of Europe’s leading energy analyst groups, the use of coal for power generation among the 27 countries of the European Union fell by a record 24% last year.

The report, by the Germany-based Agora Energiewende group and Ember, an independent London climate think-tank focused on speeding up the global electricity transition, will make stark reading for Europe’s coal lobbyists.

Renewables are on the rise across most of Europe, while coal use is in sharp decline. In 2019 wind and solar power together accounted for 18% of the EU’s power generation, while coal produced 15%. That’s the first time renewables have trumped coal in Europe’s energy generation mix.

“Europe is leading the world on rapidly replacing coal generation with wind and solar and, as a result, power sector CO2 emissions have never fallen so quickly”, says Dave Jones, an electricity specialist at Ember.

“Europe has become a test bed for replacing coal with wind and solar power, and the fast results should give reassurance to other countries that they can rapidly phase out coal too.”

Total phase-out soon

The report says that greenhouse gas emissions from the EU’s power sector have fallen by more than 30% since 2012, with a year-on-year drop of 12% in 2019.

A number of European countries have already said goodbye to coal. In 2016 Belgium closed its last coal-fired energy plant. In April this year both Austria and Sweden followed suit.

The report highlights the way in which many EU countries have sharply reduced coal use in recent years: most plan to totally eliminate it as an energy source in the near future.

Eight years ago more than 30% of the power generated in the UK came from coal-fired power plants. Last year only 2% of power was derived from coal. The UK plans to stop using it for energy generation in four years’ time.

Germany has traditionally been one of the EU’s biggest coal users. In 2013 coal fuelled 45% of the country’s power generation: last year that figure fell to 28%.

Germany says it will eliminate coal from its power mix by 2038, though government critics say this is not nearly fast enough to meet EU-wide emission reduction targets.

A number of factors are behind coal’s decline. Economics has played a big role.

“Europe has become a test bed for replacing coal with wind and solar power, and the fast results should give reassurance to other countries that they can rapidly phase out coal too”

In the wake of the 2008 financial crash industrial activity slowed and Europe’s coal use dropped.

The power sector became more efficient: although in recent years – before the Covid-19 pandemic – industrial activity picked up, the EU’s total electricity consumption was 4% lower in 2019 than a decade earlier.

Falling installation and operating costs for solar and wind power plants have resulted in renewable energy becoming ever more competitive: the price of natural gas – a less polluting fossil fuel than coal – has also been declining, while reforms in the European carbon trading scheme resulting in higher charges being levied on polluters have driven up the cost of coal.

All is not clean air and clear blue skies in Europe, however. Coal is still a significant source of power in Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. And while Germany has reduced its reliance on coal, it still burns large amounts of lignite or brown coal, the dirtiest form of the fuel.

Pollution and climate change do not recognise borders. Many states surrounding the EU are still reliant on coal and have plans for expanding coal-fired power plants.

China is helping Serbia to expand its coal-fired power capacity. Kosovo, which has some of the biggest reserves of lignite in the world, is also building more coal-fired power plants.

The World Bank says Kosovo has some of the worst air pollution in Europe, with emissions from its lignite-fuelled power stations causing many premature deaths each year. – Climate News Network

This story is a part of Covering Climate Now’s week of coverage focused on Climate Solutions, to mark the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. Covering Climate Now is a global journalism collaboration committed to strengthening coverage of the climate story.

 

Europe’s coal has powered it for centuries. But with gathering speed it is now turning its back on the fuel.

LONDON, 26 April, 2020 – The energy that has powered a continent for several hundred years, driving its industry, fighting its wars and keeping its people warm, is on the way out, fast: Europe’s coal is in rapid decline.

Coal is far and away the most polluting of fossil fuels and is a major factor in the build-up of climate-changing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But, according to a recent report by two of Europe’s leading energy analyst groups, the use of coal for power generation among the 27 countries of the European Union fell by a record 24% last year.

The report, by the Germany-based Agora Energiewende group and Ember, an independent London climate think-tank focused on speeding up the global electricity transition, will make stark reading for Europe’s coal lobbyists.

Renewables are on the rise across most of Europe, while coal use is in sharp decline. In 2019 wind and solar power together accounted for 18% of the EU’s power generation, while coal produced 15%. That’s the first time renewables have trumped coal in Europe’s energy generation mix.

“Europe is leading the world on rapidly replacing coal generation with wind and solar and, as a result, power sector CO2 emissions have never fallen so quickly”, says Dave Jones, an electricity specialist at Ember.

“Europe has become a test bed for replacing coal with wind and solar power, and the fast results should give reassurance to other countries that they can rapidly phase out coal too.”

Total phase-out soon

The report says that greenhouse gas emissions from the EU’s power sector have fallen by more than 30% since 2012, with a year-on-year drop of 12% in 2019.

A number of European countries have already said goodbye to coal. In 2016 Belgium closed its last coal-fired energy plant. In April this year both Austria and Sweden followed suit.

The report highlights the way in which many EU countries have sharply reduced coal use in recent years: most plan to totally eliminate it as an energy source in the near future.

Eight years ago more than 30% of the power generated in the UK came from coal-fired power plants. Last year only 2% of power was derived from coal. The UK plans to stop using it for energy generation in four years’ time.

Germany has traditionally been one of the EU’s biggest coal users. In 2013 coal fuelled 45% of the country’s power generation: last year that figure fell to 28%.

Germany says it will eliminate coal from its power mix by 2038, though government critics say this is not nearly fast enough to meet EU-wide emission reduction targets.

A number of factors are behind coal’s decline. Economics has played a big role.

“Europe has become a test bed for replacing coal with wind and solar power, and the fast results should give reassurance to other countries that they can rapidly phase out coal too”

In the wake of the 2008 financial crash industrial activity slowed and Europe’s coal use dropped.

The power sector became more efficient: although in recent years – before the Covid-19 pandemic – industrial activity picked up, the EU’s total electricity consumption was 4% lower in 2019 than a decade earlier.

Falling installation and operating costs for solar and wind power plants have resulted in renewable energy becoming ever more competitive: the price of natural gas – a less polluting fossil fuel than coal – has also been declining, while reforms in the European carbon trading scheme resulting in higher charges being levied on polluters have driven up the cost of coal.

All is not clean air and clear blue skies in Europe, however. Coal is still a significant source of power in Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. And while Germany has reduced its reliance on coal, it still burns large amounts of lignite or brown coal, the dirtiest form of the fuel.

Pollution and climate change do not recognise borders. Many states surrounding the EU are still reliant on coal and have plans for expanding coal-fired power plants.

China is helping Serbia to expand its coal-fired power capacity. Kosovo, which has some of the biggest reserves of lignite in the world, is also building more coal-fired power plants.

The World Bank says Kosovo has some of the worst air pollution in Europe, with emissions from its lignite-fuelled power stations causing many premature deaths each year. – Climate News Network

Some leaked US methane ‘is double official figure’

This story originally appeared in InsideClimate News, and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

 

The leaked methane is a byproduct of fracking for oil, often burned off or simply emitted instead of captured for use as fuel.

NEW YORK, 25 April, 2020 − Methane emissions from the Permian basin of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, one of the largest oil-producing regions in the world, are more than twice as high as US federal estimates, a new study suggests.

The findings, published recently in the journal Science Advances, reaffirm the results of a recently released assessment and further call into question the climate benefits of natural gas.

Using hydraulic fracturing, energy companies have increased oil production to unprecedented levels in the Permian basin in recent years.
Methane, or natural gas, has historically been viewed as an unwanted byproduct to be flared, a practice in which methane is burned instead of emitted into the atmosphere, or vented by oil producers in the region.

While new natural gas pipelines are being built to bring the gas to market, pipeline capacity and the low price of natural gas has created little incentive to reduce methane emissions.

Daniel Jacob, a professor of atmospheric chemistry and environmental engineering at Harvard University and a co-author of the study, said methane emissions in the Permian are “the largest source ever observed in an oil and gas field.”

He added, “There has been a big ramp up in oil production in that region and when you don’t care too much about recovering the natural gas, it makes for a large emission.”

As a global oil glut threatens to curtail oil production in the region, it remains unclear if methane emissions from the Permian will diminish, or if emissions will continue to climb, as operators scale back monitoring and maintenance operations during the coronavirus pandemic.

“I’m afraid there is all manner of mayhem happening out there”

“There is going to be a lot less wells being drilled, probably less gas being flared, even wells [that] will [probably] be shut in,” said David Lyon, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund and a co-author of the study.

“If that is done properly, then I think you will have less emissions. At the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of operators cut back on their environmental staff and they do less leak inspections and other activities that would reduce emissions. They may have less ability to respond to malfunctions and things that cause emissions.”

The current study estimates 3.7% of all the methane produced from wells in the Permian basin is emitted, unburned, into the atmosphere. That is more than twice the official EPA estimate for the region.

While the percentage may seem small, methane is a super-pollutant that is approximately 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is often called a “short-lived climate pollutant” because it lasts only 12 years in the atmosphere when carbon dioxide can last for centuries.

Methane’s relatively short life in the atmosphere means that any reduction in methane emissions will have a near-term benefit in helping to slow climate change.

Climate scientists estimate that if just 3.2% of all the gas brought above ground at the well leaks into the atmosphere, rather than being burned to generate electricity, natural gas becomes, as a result, worse for the climate than burning coal.

The gas leaked and vented from the Permian makes nearly the same contribution to global warming as carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. residences, according to the study. If that same volume of methane were to be used instead for residential purposes, it would meet the gas needs of seven million households in Texas, according to the study.

“That … adds further confirmation that the high methane concentrations observed in the Permian stem from emissions from oil and gas production”

The study was based on 11 months of data from the European Space Agency’s Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) collected during 2018 and 2019. TROPOMI is a space-based spectrometer that uses infrared imaging to detect the average concentration of methane in columns of the atmosphere averaged across approximately 4 mile by 4 mile sections of the Earth’s surface.

Launched aboard a European Space Agency satellite in 2017, the device has significantly enhanced researchers’ ability to quantify methane emissions across regions like the Permian basin.

The study also draws on data from a U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite that detects heat from gas flaring and thereby pinpoints the location of oil and gas wells. When the data from the two different satellites are combined, they show that areas with a high number of wells correspond to areas with high methane concentrations.

“That is important because it adds further confirmation that the high methane concentrations observed in the Permian stem from emissions from oil and gas production,” said Riley Duren, a research scientist at the University of Arizona and an engineering fellow at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who was not involved in the new study.

The findings confirm data released by the Environmental Defense Fund on April 7 as part of its ongoing PermianMAP project. Drawing on airplane monitoring data, the group concluded that 3.5% of methane produced in the Permian was leaking or being intentionally vented into the atmosphere.

The recent report and current study come as EDF and others allege that changes in how the EPA estimates methane releases from oil and gas field facilities has decreased the agency’s official emissions estimates, as they appear in its recently released 2020 inventory of greenhouse gas emissions.

“America’s natural gas and oil companies have initiated multiple initiatives across the U.S. to build upon the progress we’ve made to reduce emissions”

“EPA makes updates to methods and data sources periodically when new information is available to improve our emissions calculations,” EPA spokesperson Enesta Jones said in a written statement.

American Petroleum Institute senior counselor Howard Feldman, who was also asked to comment on the new study, said, “As with any report, we will review the methods that Harvard used to validate the data and their conclusions.”

Feldman said that methane emissions are declining. “America’s natural gas and oil companies,” he said, “have initiated multiple initiatives across the U.S., like The Environmental Partnership and the Texas Methane and Flaring Coalition, to build upon the progress we’ve made to reduce emissions in producing basins like the Permian, during a period of significant oil and natural gas production growth.”

Feldman added, “These initiatives underscore the industry’s commitment to leveraging new technologies and innovative practices that reduce emissions and establish clear pathways for continuous environmental improvement.”

Exxon Mobil Corp. announced earlier this month that it is conducting field trials of various methane detection technologies, including satellite and aerial surveillance monitoring of nearly 1,000 sites across the Permian basin, to further reduce methane emissions.

In 2018, Exxon, as part of a coalition of oil and gas producers known as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, pledged to reduce methane emissions from a 2017 baseline of 0.32% to 0.25% by 2025. The current study’s basin-wide estimate of a 3.7% rate of emissions suggests that, at least in the Permian, Exxon and other producers are well off of their emission reduction targets.

An April 6 report by the Norwegian energy research firm Rystad Energy noted that flaring in the Permian has decreased from a high of nearly 900 million cubic feet per day in the third quarter of 2019 to approximately 700 million cubic feet per day in the first quarter of 2020. The firm projects that flaring will continue to decline by an additional 40% this year as an oil production downturn caused by Covid-19 and the ongoing oil price war continues.

Flaring significantly reduces methane’s greenhouse gas impact. When methane is burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere instead of methane. Reductions in flaring are typically an indicator that less methane is being wasted and that more of it is being shipped to market via pipelines.

Flaring, however, isn’t entirely effective. Flares that aren’t operating properly result in incomplete combustion, and the portion of methane that isn’t burned by the flare is released into the atmosphere. In other cases, unlit flares allow all the methane that passes through them to vent, unburned, into the air.

“Reductions in flaring are typically an indicator that less methane is being wasted and that more of it is being shipped to market via pipelines”

Earthworks, an environmental advocacy group, argues that a steady increase in unlit gas flares  may offset any benefits from the decreasing volume of flared gas. Field measurements of approximately 100 flares in the Permian basin by the group show that the phenomenon of unlit flares increased from 14% of all flares monitored in 2017 to 34% in 2020, according to an April 6 report by the group.

Sharon Wilson, a gas imaging specialist for Earthworks, said she anticipates unlit flaring to increase as financial pressure, work restrictions imposed by Covid-19 and the inability of environmental watchdogs to continue field observations, results in decreased maintenance of existing flares. “At the moment I’m afraid there is all manner of mayhem happening out there,” Wilson said.

EDF is now conducting a larger study of unlit wells or wells with incomplete combustion and plans to release its findings in the coming weeks. State regulators in Texas are also considering whether to mandate a reduction or “proration” in the state’s oil production, as supply outstrips demand.

EDF is urging the state’s Railroad Commission, which regulates oil production, to include mandatory reductions in flaring as part of any requirement to reduce oil production.

“The goal of having flaring as part of proration would be to reduce the volume of gas being flared in the basin,” Colin Leyden, a senior manager for regulatory and legislative affairs at EDF said. “Obviously with less flares you’d have less chance of things going wrong.” − InsideClimate News

This story originally appeared in InsideClimate News, and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

 

The leaked methane is a byproduct of fracking for oil, often burned off or simply emitted instead of captured for use as fuel.

NEW YORK, 25 April, 2020 − Methane emissions from the Permian basin of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, one of the largest oil-producing regions in the world, are more than twice as high as US federal estimates, a new study suggests.

The findings, published recently in the journal Science Advances, reaffirm the results of a recently released assessment and further call into question the climate benefits of natural gas.

Using hydraulic fracturing, energy companies have increased oil production to unprecedented levels in the Permian basin in recent years.
Methane, or natural gas, has historically been viewed as an unwanted byproduct to be flared, a practice in which methane is burned instead of emitted into the atmosphere, or vented by oil producers in the region.

While new natural gas pipelines are being built to bring the gas to market, pipeline capacity and the low price of natural gas has created little incentive to reduce methane emissions.

Daniel Jacob, a professor of atmospheric chemistry and environmental engineering at Harvard University and a co-author of the study, said methane emissions in the Permian are “the largest source ever observed in an oil and gas field.”

He added, “There has been a big ramp up in oil production in that region and when you don’t care too much about recovering the natural gas, it makes for a large emission.”

As a global oil glut threatens to curtail oil production in the region, it remains unclear if methane emissions from the Permian will diminish, or if emissions will continue to climb, as operators scale back monitoring and maintenance operations during the coronavirus pandemic.

“I’m afraid there is all manner of mayhem happening out there”

“There is going to be a lot less wells being drilled, probably less gas being flared, even wells [that] will [probably] be shut in,” said David Lyon, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund and a co-author of the study.

“If that is done properly, then I think you will have less emissions. At the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of operators cut back on their environmental staff and they do less leak inspections and other activities that would reduce emissions. They may have less ability to respond to malfunctions and things that cause emissions.”

The current study estimates 3.7% of all the methane produced from wells in the Permian basin is emitted, unburned, into the atmosphere. That is more than twice the official EPA estimate for the region.

While the percentage may seem small, methane is a super-pollutant that is approximately 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is often called a “short-lived climate pollutant” because it lasts only 12 years in the atmosphere when carbon dioxide can last for centuries.

Methane’s relatively short life in the atmosphere means that any reduction in methane emissions will have a near-term benefit in helping to slow climate change.

Climate scientists estimate that if just 3.2% of all the gas brought above ground at the well leaks into the atmosphere, rather than being burned to generate electricity, natural gas becomes, as a result, worse for the climate than burning coal.

The gas leaked and vented from the Permian makes nearly the same contribution to global warming as carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. residences, according to the study. If that same volume of methane were to be used instead for residential purposes, it would meet the gas needs of seven million households in Texas, according to the study.

“That … adds further confirmation that the high methane concentrations observed in the Permian stem from emissions from oil and gas production”

The study was based on 11 months of data from the European Space Agency’s Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) collected during 2018 and 2019. TROPOMI is a space-based spectrometer that uses infrared imaging to detect the average concentration of methane in columns of the atmosphere averaged across approximately 4 mile by 4 mile sections of the Earth’s surface.

Launched aboard a European Space Agency satellite in 2017, the device has significantly enhanced researchers’ ability to quantify methane emissions across regions like the Permian basin.

The study also draws on data from a U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite that detects heat from gas flaring and thereby pinpoints the location of oil and gas wells. When the data from the two different satellites are combined, they show that areas with a high number of wells correspond to areas with high methane concentrations.

“That is important because it adds further confirmation that the high methane concentrations observed in the Permian stem from emissions from oil and gas production,” said Riley Duren, a research scientist at the University of Arizona and an engineering fellow at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who was not involved in the new study.

The findings confirm data released by the Environmental Defense Fund on April 7 as part of its ongoing PermianMAP project. Drawing on airplane monitoring data, the group concluded that 3.5% of methane produced in the Permian was leaking or being intentionally vented into the atmosphere.

The recent report and current study come as EDF and others allege that changes in how the EPA estimates methane releases from oil and gas field facilities has decreased the agency’s official emissions estimates, as they appear in its recently released 2020 inventory of greenhouse gas emissions.

“America’s natural gas and oil companies have initiated multiple initiatives across the U.S. to build upon the progress we’ve made to reduce emissions”

“EPA makes updates to methods and data sources periodically when new information is available to improve our emissions calculations,” EPA spokesperson Enesta Jones said in a written statement.

American Petroleum Institute senior counselor Howard Feldman, who was also asked to comment on the new study, said, “As with any report, we will review the methods that Harvard used to validate the data and their conclusions.”

Feldman said that methane emissions are declining. “America’s natural gas and oil companies,” he said, “have initiated multiple initiatives across the U.S., like The Environmental Partnership and the Texas Methane and Flaring Coalition, to build upon the progress we’ve made to reduce emissions in producing basins like the Permian, during a period of significant oil and natural gas production growth.”

Feldman added, “These initiatives underscore the industry’s commitment to leveraging new technologies and innovative practices that reduce emissions and establish clear pathways for continuous environmental improvement.”

Exxon Mobil Corp. announced earlier this month that it is conducting field trials of various methane detection technologies, including satellite and aerial surveillance monitoring of nearly 1,000 sites across the Permian basin, to further reduce methane emissions.

In 2018, Exxon, as part of a coalition of oil and gas producers known as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, pledged to reduce methane emissions from a 2017 baseline of 0.32% to 0.25% by 2025. The current study’s basin-wide estimate of a 3.7% rate of emissions suggests that, at least in the Permian, Exxon and other producers are well off of their emission reduction targets.

An April 6 report by the Norwegian energy research firm Rystad Energy noted that flaring in the Permian has decreased from a high of nearly 900 million cubic feet per day in the third quarter of 2019 to approximately 700 million cubic feet per day in the first quarter of 2020. The firm projects that flaring will continue to decline by an additional 40% this year as an oil production downturn caused by Covid-19 and the ongoing oil price war continues.

Flaring significantly reduces methane’s greenhouse gas impact. When methane is burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere instead of methane. Reductions in flaring are typically an indicator that less methane is being wasted and that more of it is being shipped to market via pipelines.

Flaring, however, isn’t entirely effective. Flares that aren’t operating properly result in incomplete combustion, and the portion of methane that isn’t burned by the flare is released into the atmosphere. In other cases, unlit flares allow all the methane that passes through them to vent, unburned, into the air.

“Reductions in flaring are typically an indicator that less methane is being wasted and that more of it is being shipped to market via pipelines”

Earthworks, an environmental advocacy group, argues that a steady increase in unlit gas flares  may offset any benefits from the decreasing volume of flared gas. Field measurements of approximately 100 flares in the Permian basin by the group show that the phenomenon of unlit flares increased from 14% of all flares monitored in 2017 to 34% in 2020, according to an April 6 report by the group.

Sharon Wilson, a gas imaging specialist for Earthworks, said she anticipates unlit flaring to increase as financial pressure, work restrictions imposed by Covid-19 and the inability of environmental watchdogs to continue field observations, results in decreased maintenance of existing flares. “At the moment I’m afraid there is all manner of mayhem happening out there,” Wilson said.

EDF is now conducting a larger study of unlit wells or wells with incomplete combustion and plans to release its findings in the coming weeks. State regulators in Texas are also considering whether to mandate a reduction or “proration” in the state’s oil production, as supply outstrips demand.

EDF is urging the state’s Railroad Commission, which regulates oil production, to include mandatory reductions in flaring as part of any requirement to reduce oil production.

“The goal of having flaring as part of proration would be to reduce the volume of gas being flared in the basin,” Colin Leyden, a senior manager for regulatory and legislative affairs at EDF said. “Obviously with less flares you’d have less chance of things going wrong.” − InsideClimate News

UK plutonium stockpile is a costly headache

This story is a part of Covering Climate Now’s week of coverage focused on Climate Solutions, to mark the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. Covering Climate Now is a global journalism collaboration committed to strengthening coverage of the climate story.

 

The end of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has left an expensive UK plutonium stockpile with no peaceful use.

LONDON, 23 April, 2020 − For 70 years Britain has been dissolving spent nuclear fuel in acid, separating the plutonium and uranium it contains and stockpiling the plutonium in the hope of finding some peaceful use for it, to no avail: all it has to show today is a UK plutonium stockpile.

To comply with its international obligations not to discharge any more liquid radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, the United Kingdom government agreed more than 20 years ago under the Ospar Convention on the protection of the north-east Atlantic to shut its nuclear fuel reprocessing works at Sellafield in northwestern England at the end of this year.

As well as 139 tonnes of plutonium, which has to be both carefully stored to prevent a nuclear chain reaction and protected by armed guards as well, to avoid terrorist attack, there are thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium at Sellafield.

The reprocessing plant shut down prematurely as a result of a Covid-19 outbreak among its employees, and most of the 11,500 workers there have been sent home, leaving a skeleton staff to keep the site safe. Whether the plant will be restarted after the epidemic is unknown.

Fewer than half Sellafield’s workers are involved in reprocessing. Most are engaged in cleaning up after decades of nuclear energy generation and related experiments. There are 200 buildings at the massive site, many of them disused. It costs British taxpayers around £2.3 billion (US$2.8bn) a year to run Sellafield and keep it safe.

Solution needed soon

While the British government has been reluctant to make any decision on what to do about its stockpiled plutonium and uranium, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has expressed alarm about the danger it poses.

“The United Kingdom has to find a solution for its plutonium stockpile, and quickly,” its report says.

The scientists point out that there is enough plutonium to make hundreds of thousands of nuclear weapons, and that it is a permanent proliferation risk. The annual cost of £73m to keep the plutonium safe is dwarfed by the much larger cost of trying to make safe the whole site with its thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste.

The Bulletin reports that the original reason for the reprocessing works was to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The UK supplied the US at times, as well as producing its own weapons. A 2014 agreement between the British and US governments gives an outline of the nuclear links which then existed between them.

“The British government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and reactor operators in general should accept that separated plutonium is a burden, not a resource”

For decades there were also plans to use plutonium in fast breeder reactors and to blend it with uranium to make Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) .

This was a time when governments believed that the world’s supply of uranium would run out and that re-using it with plutonium would be a way of generating large amounts of electricity, as a way to avoid burning fossil fuels and as part of the solution to climate change.

MOX was one possible fuel. Using recycled plutonium in fast breeder reactors was another possibility. And a third option was new-style reactors that burned plutonium, theoretically possible but never built.

But uranium did not run out, and MOX did not prove economic. It and the new reactors proved so technically difficult they were abandoned.

Despite these setbacks, successive British governments have continued reprocessing, always refusing to class plutonium as a waste, while still exploring ways of using it in some kind of new reactor. This is likely to remain the official position even after reprocessing ends in December.

The UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the agency that runs Sellafield, faced by this indecision, continues to store the plutonium behind three barbed-wire barricades, guarded by the only armed civilian police force in the country.

Here to stay?

One of the tricky political problems is that 23 tonnes of the plutonium is owned by Japan, which sent its spent fuel to be reprocessed at Sellafield but is unable to use the recycled material, which cannot be returned to Japan in its current state because of nuclear proliferation concerns.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has examined all the potential options suggested to put the 139 tonnes of plutonium to some useful peaceful purpose (in other words, to create energy), but concludes that none of them is viable.

It says: “The British government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and reactor operators in general should accept that separated plutonium is a burden, not a resource, and authority should again take a closer look at immobilisation options.”

Among the solutions that have been suggested is to mix the plutonium with ceramics to immobilise and stabilise it, so that it can be safely stored or disposed of, not used for weapons. The government has so far rejected that option. − Climate News Network

This story is a part of Covering Climate Now’s week of coverage focused on Climate Solutions, to mark the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. Covering Climate Now is a global journalism collaboration committed to strengthening coverage of the climate story.

 

The end of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has left an expensive UK plutonium stockpile with no peaceful use.

LONDON, 23 April, 2020 − For 70 years Britain has been dissolving spent nuclear fuel in acid, separating the plutonium and uranium it contains and stockpiling the plutonium in the hope of finding some peaceful use for it, to no avail: all it has to show today is a UK plutonium stockpile.

To comply with its international obligations not to discharge any more liquid radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, the United Kingdom government agreed more than 20 years ago under the Ospar Convention on the protection of the north-east Atlantic to shut its nuclear fuel reprocessing works at Sellafield in northwestern England at the end of this year.

As well as 139 tonnes of plutonium, which has to be both carefully stored to prevent a nuclear chain reaction and protected by armed guards as well, to avoid terrorist attack, there are thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium at Sellafield.

The reprocessing plant shut down prematurely as a result of a Covid-19 outbreak among its employees, and most of the 11,500 workers there have been sent home, leaving a skeleton staff to keep the site safe. Whether the plant will be restarted after the epidemic is unknown.

Fewer than half Sellafield’s workers are involved in reprocessing. Most are engaged in cleaning up after decades of nuclear energy generation and related experiments. There are 200 buildings at the massive site, many of them disused. It costs British taxpayers around £2.3 billion (US$2.8bn) a year to run Sellafield and keep it safe.

Solution needed soon

While the British government has been reluctant to make any decision on what to do about its stockpiled plutonium and uranium, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has expressed alarm about the danger it poses.

“The United Kingdom has to find a solution for its plutonium stockpile, and quickly,” its report says.

The scientists point out that there is enough plutonium to make hundreds of thousands of nuclear weapons, and that it is a permanent proliferation risk. The annual cost of £73m to keep the plutonium safe is dwarfed by the much larger cost of trying to make safe the whole site with its thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste.

The Bulletin reports that the original reason for the reprocessing works was to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The UK supplied the US at times, as well as producing its own weapons. A 2014 agreement between the British and US governments gives an outline of the nuclear links which then existed between them.

“The British government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and reactor operators in general should accept that separated plutonium is a burden, not a resource”

For decades there were also plans to use plutonium in fast breeder reactors and to blend it with uranium to make Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) .

This was a time when governments believed that the world’s supply of uranium would run out and that re-using it with plutonium would be a way of generating large amounts of electricity, as a way to avoid burning fossil fuels and as part of the solution to climate change.

MOX was one possible fuel. Using recycled plutonium in fast breeder reactors was another possibility. And a third option was new-style reactors that burned plutonium, theoretically possible but never built.

But uranium did not run out, and MOX did not prove economic. It and the new reactors proved so technically difficult they were abandoned.

Despite these setbacks, successive British governments have continued reprocessing, always refusing to class plutonium as a waste, while still exploring ways of using it in some kind of new reactor. This is likely to remain the official position even after reprocessing ends in December.

The UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the agency that runs Sellafield, faced by this indecision, continues to store the plutonium behind three barbed-wire barricades, guarded by the only armed civilian police force in the country.

Here to stay?

One of the tricky political problems is that 23 tonnes of the plutonium is owned by Japan, which sent its spent fuel to be reprocessed at Sellafield but is unable to use the recycled material, which cannot be returned to Japan in its current state because of nuclear proliferation concerns.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has examined all the potential options suggested to put the 139 tonnes of plutonium to some useful peaceful purpose (in other words, to create energy), but concludes that none of them is viable.

It says: “The British government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and reactor operators in general should accept that separated plutonium is a burden, not a resource, and authority should again take a closer look at immobilisation options.”

Among the solutions that have been suggested is to mix the plutonium with ceramics to immobilise and stabilise it, so that it can be safely stored or disposed of, not used for weapons. The government has so far rejected that option. − Climate News Network

UK gas plans a carbon-free future with hydrogen

This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

Committed to a carbon-free future by 2050, the UK gas industry is to switch to green hydrogen and biogas.

LONDON, 20 April, 2020 − A mixture of green hydrogen produced by surplus solar and wind power and bio-methane coming from farms and waste food will ensure the British gas industry a carbon-free future in 30 years, according to the country’s gas network operators.

The ambitious plans for the first carbon-free gas grid in the world have been declared both technically possible and one of the less expensive options in solving the tricky problem of how to heat UK homes, office buildings and factories, said to be the most difficult task in decarbonising the energy system.

The programme, called Gas Goes Green, involves using the existing gas networks that supply 85% of Britain’s homes, as well as business and industry but converting boilers and other appliances to use hydrogen.

Although the plan is ambitious, its authors, the Energy Networks Association (ENA), which includes the transmission and distribution operators for gas and electricity in the UK and Ireland, point out that a similar programme was carried out in the 1970s to convert the entire British gas grid from supplying coal gas to natural gas.

The plan, which involves 23 million properties, will be closely watched across the rest of Europe and in many other developed countries that have extensive gas networks.

“Gas Goes Green will tackle some of the biggest challenges facing decarbonisation policy”

Currently Europe depends heavily on Russian natural gas, and there have been a number of disputes about pricing which have led to threats to cut off the supply.

This has led to political pressure to find alternatives, with compressed natural gas imported from the Middle East and the US a candidate to provide a possible alternative supply.

Now the pressure is on to decarbonise the sector entirely. The UK is well placed to do so because it has enormous potential for producing far more electricity than it needs from renewable sources: wind, solar and various tidal and wave schemes.

The aim of going carbon-neutral by 2050 is enshrined in UK law, but the country’s new Conservative government, elected last December, has yet to come up with a plan for achieving this. Clearly, though, the gas industry thinks it has found a solution.

The big argument so far has been that green hydrogen, produced by electrolysis from electricity, is too expensive to compete with hydrogen produced from natural gas. However, with electricity from renewable fuels falling in price and becoming ever more plentiful, the economics of green hydrogen are expected to compete with what gas can do, the industry argues.

Potential for transport

There is also increasing interest in using hydrogen for transport, including trains, to avoid the expense of electrifying lines. It has a distinct advantage over electricity: it can be stored for long periods.

ENA commissioned a report from the accountants KPMG which concluded that conversion from natural gas to hydrogen was both technically feasible and one of the cheapest options for the nation’s heating systems.

ENA, whose members pipe gas to 21.5 million UK customers, finally came up with its plan: to switch its networks entirely to hydrogen and biogas.

There are already a number of schemes that inject both fuels into the national network, and there are experiments with closed systems which provide heating and cooking on 100% hydrogen systems. The industry is confident these could be scaled up.

Matt Hindle, head of gas at ENA, told Business Green: “We’re delighted to not only be launching this exciting new programme, but also to be making clear our commitment to creating the world’s first zero-carbon gas grid.

Political impetus

“Gas Goes Green will deliver the greenprint needed to do that, and in doing so tackle some of the biggest challenges facing decarbonisation policy.”

The first step will be to work out a plan to switch UK boilers from burning natural gas to a mixture that is mostly hydrogen but contains some bio-methane.

This ambitious plan faces some competition from the advocates of ground-source heat pumps as an alternative for heating homes. The pumps have the advantage of running on green electricity, and cut out the need for gas entirely, but they need to be installed in large numbers.

The pumps’ supporters argue that scaling up green hydrogen production to fulfil the entire needs of the gas network is nearly impossible in the 30 years left until the UK should have reached carbon neutrality.

What is interesting, however, is that a number of competing technologies now exist to decarbonise heating, cooking and transport entirely. All that is still lacking is the political will to press ahead. − Climate News Network

This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

Committed to a carbon-free future by 2050, the UK gas industry is to switch to green hydrogen and biogas.

LONDON, 20 April, 2020 − A mixture of green hydrogen produced by surplus solar and wind power and bio-methane coming from farms and waste food will ensure the British gas industry a carbon-free future in 30 years, according to the country’s gas network operators.

The ambitious plans for the first carbon-free gas grid in the world have been declared both technically possible and one of the less expensive options in solving the tricky problem of how to heat UK homes, office buildings and factories, said to be the most difficult task in decarbonising the energy system.

The programme, called Gas Goes Green, involves using the existing gas networks that supply 85% of Britain’s homes, as well as business and industry but converting boilers and other appliances to use hydrogen.

Although the plan is ambitious, its authors, the Energy Networks Association (ENA), which includes the transmission and distribution operators for gas and electricity in the UK and Ireland, point out that a similar programme was carried out in the 1970s to convert the entire British gas grid from supplying coal gas to natural gas.

The plan, which involves 23 million properties, will be closely watched across the rest of Europe and in many other developed countries that have extensive gas networks.

“Gas Goes Green will tackle some of the biggest challenges facing decarbonisation policy”

Currently Europe depends heavily on Russian natural gas, and there have been a number of disputes about pricing which have led to threats to cut off the supply.

This has led to political pressure to find alternatives, with compressed natural gas imported from the Middle East and the US a candidate to provide a possible alternative supply.

Now the pressure is on to decarbonise the sector entirely. The UK is well placed to do so because it has enormous potential for producing far more electricity than it needs from renewable sources: wind, solar and various tidal and wave schemes.

The aim of going carbon-neutral by 2050 is enshrined in UK law, but the country’s new Conservative government, elected last December, has yet to come up with a plan for achieving this. Clearly, though, the gas industry thinks it has found a solution.

The big argument so far has been that green hydrogen, produced by electrolysis from electricity, is too expensive to compete with hydrogen produced from natural gas. However, with electricity from renewable fuels falling in price and becoming ever more plentiful, the economics of green hydrogen are expected to compete with what gas can do, the industry argues.

Potential for transport

There is also increasing interest in using hydrogen for transport, including trains, to avoid the expense of electrifying lines. It has a distinct advantage over electricity: it can be stored for long periods.

ENA commissioned a report from the accountants KPMG which concluded that conversion from natural gas to hydrogen was both technically feasible and one of the cheapest options for the nation’s heating systems.

ENA, whose members pipe gas to 21.5 million UK customers, finally came up with its plan: to switch its networks entirely to hydrogen and biogas.

There are already a number of schemes that inject both fuels into the national network, and there are experiments with closed systems which provide heating and cooking on 100% hydrogen systems. The industry is confident these could be scaled up.

Matt Hindle, head of gas at ENA, told Business Green: “We’re delighted to not only be launching this exciting new programme, but also to be making clear our commitment to creating the world’s first zero-carbon gas grid.

Political impetus

“Gas Goes Green will deliver the greenprint needed to do that, and in doing so tackle some of the biggest challenges facing decarbonisation policy.”

The first step will be to work out a plan to switch UK boilers from burning natural gas to a mixture that is mostly hydrogen but contains some bio-methane.

This ambitious plan faces some competition from the advocates of ground-source heat pumps as an alternative for heating homes. The pumps have the advantage of running on green electricity, and cut out the need for gas entirely, but they need to be installed in large numbers.

The pumps’ supporters argue that scaling up green hydrogen production to fulfil the entire needs of the gas network is nearly impossible in the 30 years left until the UK should have reached carbon neutrality.

What is interesting, however, is that a number of competing technologies now exist to decarbonise heating, cooking and transport entirely. All that is still lacking is the political will to press ahead. − Climate News Network

Offshore wind hopes for a livelier future

With more countries realising how offshore wind can help cut carbon emissions, a massive building boom looks likely.

LONDON, 15 April, 2020 − Generating electricity from offshore wind looks like an idea whose time has come, with the emerging technology set to grow at extraordinary speed in the next decade. But despite its great potential, deployment may still not be fast enough to avert the climate crisis.

The prospect that offshore wind energy will grow from 22 Gigawatts (GW) in 2018 to 177 GW by 2030 is based on predictions from the industry that makes and installs the turbines, with manufacturers taking orders from 12 major markets across the globe. The International Energy Agency has said it expects the sector to become a $1 trillion industry within 20 years.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) says there is a staggering compound annual growth rate of 19% in offshore wind faster than any other industry on the planet.

One GW is reckoned to be enough to provide electricity to 500,000 North American homes, so offshore wind will provide enough power for many a coastal city. New offshore turbines currently being developed in Europe are extremely large, generating as much as 10 MW each.

Because of their height and their marine locations, these giant turbines can tap winds that blow at constant speeds. There is almost always some breeze at sea, so their power supply is far more reliable and predictable than smaller installations can manage.

“Based upon the current forecasts, it would take around 100 years to build enough offshore wind to decarbonise Europe. We don’t have 100 years”

One reason for the renewed interest in offshore technology is that its cost has dropped dramatically. This is partly because of the increased size and improved design of the latest turbines, but also because of the growing experience in building them, both standing in shallow seas and as floating turbines anchored to the sea bottom by cables.

Until now, to encourage offshore wind, governments have guaranteed a price for the electricity produced, but the cost of generation has been falling fast. China expects to remove all subsidies by 2022, in the belief that offshore wind will by then be successfully competing with fossil fuels.

One significant feature of recent developments is that much of the installation expertise is the same as that used in the offshore oil industry. This has given Europe a head start because the North Sea oil industry is in decline and places like Aberdeen, the UK’s offshore oil capital, are repositioning themselves as offshore wind hubs instead.

The bullish predictions for offshore wind were compiled from information provided at a conference, Offshore and Floating Wind Europe 2019, where all the world’s major offshore wind contractors were represented, and are summarised in a conference report published by Reuters Events – New Energy Update.

The report predicts that while currently the UK has the most extensive offshore wind installations in the world, China, which is fast catching up, will overtake it before 2030. Currently the US, which so far has just one 5-turbine, 30-MW wind farm, off the coast of Rhode Island, is expected to install new turbines in 2021 and to be in third place by 2030. Six states on the US eastern seaboard have found potential sites and are pushing forward developments.

Eastern Europe’s enthusiasts

In western Europe Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark already have established industries and plan more turbines. Both France, which has an extensive windy coastline, and Ireland, with enormous potential, have impressive ambitions for offshore wind, along with several other European countries.

In eastern Europe Poland, currently heavily reliant on coal for its electricity, is expected to take advantage of its coastline on the shallow Baltic Sea to diversify into offshore wind.

But it is in Asia that the largest market is expected to develop. China is already investing heavily, but Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and India all have ambitious programmes too.

The US, despite President Trump’s reluctance to take any action on climate change, is seen as a very large potential market. While Texas and California have been taking advantage of cheap onshore wind and solar power, it is the wealthy states on the eastern seaboard that are going for offshore wind. Many have most of their population on the coast. Cities like New York have ambitious targets to reach zero emissions and see offshore wind as vital to achieving that.

These predictions of enormous growth, though, are still not enough to solve the problem of keeping the world temperature to below 1.5°C, which governments around the world have agreed is their ambition.

Pandemic slowdown

The executive chairman of Mainstream Renewable Power, a global wind and solar power developer, is Eddie O’Connor. He says: “As an industry, we are not nearly ambitious enough to deal with global warming.

“If we are going to decarbonise in Europe, for instance, we need to build 900,000 MW (900 GW) offshore. Based upon the current forecasts, it would take around 100 years to build enough offshore wind to decarbonise Europe. We don’t have 100 years.”

With the current Covid-19 pandemic, it is not clear how much even the predicted developments will be slowed down, let alone the 10-fold increase on current projections that Mr O’Connor thinks is necessary to reach climate targets.

Another European offshore wind conference, due to be held in London in November this year, should hear an update on industry developments, if it takes place. By then it may also be clearer how the pandemic has affected the oil industry (see WindEurope’s COVID-19 Wind Information Hub).

Possibly even more oil executives may think that offshore wind is a more attractive proposition than investing more capital in their own dying industry. It presents European oil companies with an opportunity to redeploy some experienced workers, particularly as in the last few months some oil majors have already spoken of their intention to take climate change seriously. − Climate News Network

With more countries realising how offshore wind can help cut carbon emissions, a massive building boom looks likely.

LONDON, 15 April, 2020 − Generating electricity from offshore wind looks like an idea whose time has come, with the emerging technology set to grow at extraordinary speed in the next decade. But despite its great potential, deployment may still not be fast enough to avert the climate crisis.

The prospect that offshore wind energy will grow from 22 Gigawatts (GW) in 2018 to 177 GW by 2030 is based on predictions from the industry that makes and installs the turbines, with manufacturers taking orders from 12 major markets across the globe. The International Energy Agency has said it expects the sector to become a $1 trillion industry within 20 years.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) says there is a staggering compound annual growth rate of 19% in offshore wind faster than any other industry on the planet.

One GW is reckoned to be enough to provide electricity to 500,000 North American homes, so offshore wind will provide enough power for many a coastal city. New offshore turbines currently being developed in Europe are extremely large, generating as much as 10 MW each.

Because of their height and their marine locations, these giant turbines can tap winds that blow at constant speeds. There is almost always some breeze at sea, so their power supply is far more reliable and predictable than smaller installations can manage.

“Based upon the current forecasts, it would take around 100 years to build enough offshore wind to decarbonise Europe. We don’t have 100 years”

One reason for the renewed interest in offshore technology is that its cost has dropped dramatically. This is partly because of the increased size and improved design of the latest turbines, but also because of the growing experience in building them, both standing in shallow seas and as floating turbines anchored to the sea bottom by cables.

Until now, to encourage offshore wind, governments have guaranteed a price for the electricity produced, but the cost of generation has been falling fast. China expects to remove all subsidies by 2022, in the belief that offshore wind will by then be successfully competing with fossil fuels.

One significant feature of recent developments is that much of the installation expertise is the same as that used in the offshore oil industry. This has given Europe a head start because the North Sea oil industry is in decline and places like Aberdeen, the UK’s offshore oil capital, are repositioning themselves as offshore wind hubs instead.

The bullish predictions for offshore wind were compiled from information provided at a conference, Offshore and Floating Wind Europe 2019, where all the world’s major offshore wind contractors were represented, and are summarised in a conference report published by Reuters Events – New Energy Update.

The report predicts that while currently the UK has the most extensive offshore wind installations in the world, China, which is fast catching up, will overtake it before 2030. Currently the US, which so far has just one 5-turbine, 30-MW wind farm, off the coast of Rhode Island, is expected to install new turbines in 2021 and to be in third place by 2030. Six states on the US eastern seaboard have found potential sites and are pushing forward developments.

Eastern Europe’s enthusiasts

In western Europe Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark already have established industries and plan more turbines. Both France, which has an extensive windy coastline, and Ireland, with enormous potential, have impressive ambitions for offshore wind, along with several other European countries.

In eastern Europe Poland, currently heavily reliant on coal for its electricity, is expected to take advantage of its coastline on the shallow Baltic Sea to diversify into offshore wind.

But it is in Asia that the largest market is expected to develop. China is already investing heavily, but Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and India all have ambitious programmes too.

The US, despite President Trump’s reluctance to take any action on climate change, is seen as a very large potential market. While Texas and California have been taking advantage of cheap onshore wind and solar power, it is the wealthy states on the eastern seaboard that are going for offshore wind. Many have most of their population on the coast. Cities like New York have ambitious targets to reach zero emissions and see offshore wind as vital to achieving that.

These predictions of enormous growth, though, are still not enough to solve the problem of keeping the world temperature to below 1.5°C, which governments around the world have agreed is their ambition.

Pandemic slowdown

The executive chairman of Mainstream Renewable Power, a global wind and solar power developer, is Eddie O’Connor. He says: “As an industry, we are not nearly ambitious enough to deal with global warming.

“If we are going to decarbonise in Europe, for instance, we need to build 900,000 MW (900 GW) offshore. Based upon the current forecasts, it would take around 100 years to build enough offshore wind to decarbonise Europe. We don’t have 100 years.”

With the current Covid-19 pandemic, it is not clear how much even the predicted developments will be slowed down, let alone the 10-fold increase on current projections that Mr O’Connor thinks is necessary to reach climate targets.

Another European offshore wind conference, due to be held in London in November this year, should hear an update on industry developments, if it takes place. By then it may also be clearer how the pandemic has affected the oil industry (see WindEurope’s COVID-19 Wind Information Hub).

Possibly even more oil executives may think that offshore wind is a more attractive proposition than investing more capital in their own dying industry. It presents European oil companies with an opportunity to redeploy some experienced workers, particularly as in the last few months some oil majors have already spoken of their intention to take climate change seriously. − Climate News Network

US coal economics make little sense

US coal economics? They’re odd. The dirtiest fossil fuel generates ever less American electricity, yet energy policy is unchanged.

LONDON, 13 April, 2020 – If you want a simple and satisfying job, you’d probably better avoid one which involves working in US coal economics. They’ve become fairly mystifying.

It was one of the key images in the run-up to the US 2016 election – Donald Trump in a hard hat telling miners that the coal industry would make a comeback under his leadership.

“We’re gonna put the miners back to work”, said Trump. “We’re gonna get those mines open.”

In practice, the opposite has happened.

Coal is the most polluting fossil fuel and the source of a large proportion of climate-changing greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Since Trump came to office in January 2017, US coal plants have been closing at a near-record pace.

Steep fall

Last year alone, coal-fired power plants in the US generating a total of more than 15,000 MWs of power – enough to feed the energy demand of 15 million American homes – were either closed or converted to burn other, less polluting power sources.

At the end of 2019 several of the US’s biggest coal plants – including the giant Navajo generating station in Arizona, the Bruce Mansfield plant in Pennsylvania and the Paradise facility in Kentucky – shut up shop.

In mid-March 2020, the last operating coal-fired power plant in New York state closed.

As a result, coal-fired electricity output in the US dropped 18% in 2019: according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal now generates 23% of the country’s electricity supply – its lowest level in the country’s total energy mix since the mid-1970s.

Coal’s US decline does not reflect any change of policy by the Trump administration. Since coming to office Trump – who at one time described climate change as a hoax – has sought to obstruct the battle against global warming.

His administration has rolled back several regulations aimed at improving the environment and cutting emissions. Internationally, Trump is in the process of withdrawing the US from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

Renewables gain

Coal’s decline in the US is about economics: the rise of the fracking industry means that prices for home-produced gas have been falling. The price of renewables – mainly wind and solar – has also been dropping significantly in recent years.

According to EIA figures, gas now accounts for 38% of electricity generation while the figure for renewables, near zero only 20 years ago, is 17.5%.

But the significant reduction in the use of coal has not been matched by an equivalent fall in US GHG emissions, which dropped last year by only a little over 2%. That’s because overall energy demand in the US has been growing rapidly, in line with a spurt in economic activity.

The outlook for this year is very different. In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and the likelihood of a global recession, there are predictions that US greenhouse gas emissions will fall by 7.5% or more in 2020.

Worldwide, the economic downturn related to the pandemic is causing similar drops in GHG emissions.

China is the world’s biggest producer and consumer of coal. Despite big investments in renewables, the country depends on coal for nearly 60% of its total energy consumption and is still building large numbers of coal-fired power plants.

“There are signs that as worries about the pandemic fade in China, coal use is on the rise again”

As economic activity has declined sharply in recent weeks, pollution levels over China and many other parts of the world have fallen dramatically.

Yet already there are signs that as worries about the pandemic fade in China, coal use is on the rise again.

India and other countries in South Asia also have plans for large-scale coal-fired power projects – at present on hold due to the fall-out from Covid-19.

Countries round the world have to break the coal habit if there is to be any hope of preventing runaway climate change and meeting the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Analysis after analysis has pointed out that coal-burning is not only catastrophic for the future of the planet but also makes no economic sense.

The most recent report by the Carbon Tracker group, an independent financial think tank which monitors energy transitions, says that investments in renewables are now cheaper than coal investments in all major energy markets. – Climate News Network

US coal economics? They’re odd. The dirtiest fossil fuel generates ever less American electricity, yet energy policy is unchanged.

LONDON, 13 April, 2020 – If you want a simple and satisfying job, you’d probably better avoid one which involves working in US coal economics. They’ve become fairly mystifying.

It was one of the key images in the run-up to the US 2016 election – Donald Trump in a hard hat telling miners that the coal industry would make a comeback under his leadership.

“We’re gonna put the miners back to work”, said Trump. “We’re gonna get those mines open.”

In practice, the opposite has happened.

Coal is the most polluting fossil fuel and the source of a large proportion of climate-changing greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Since Trump came to office in January 2017, US coal plants have been closing at a near-record pace.

Steep fall

Last year alone, coal-fired power plants in the US generating a total of more than 15,000 MWs of power – enough to feed the energy demand of 15 million American homes – were either closed or converted to burn other, less polluting power sources.

At the end of 2019 several of the US’s biggest coal plants – including the giant Navajo generating station in Arizona, the Bruce Mansfield plant in Pennsylvania and the Paradise facility in Kentucky – shut up shop.

In mid-March 2020, the last operating coal-fired power plant in New York state closed.

As a result, coal-fired electricity output in the US dropped 18% in 2019: according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal now generates 23% of the country’s electricity supply – its lowest level in the country’s total energy mix since the mid-1970s.

Coal’s US decline does not reflect any change of policy by the Trump administration. Since coming to office Trump – who at one time described climate change as a hoax – has sought to obstruct the battle against global warming.

His administration has rolled back several regulations aimed at improving the environment and cutting emissions. Internationally, Trump is in the process of withdrawing the US from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

Renewables gain

Coal’s decline in the US is about economics: the rise of the fracking industry means that prices for home-produced gas have been falling. The price of renewables – mainly wind and solar – has also been dropping significantly in recent years.

According to EIA figures, gas now accounts for 38% of electricity generation while the figure for renewables, near zero only 20 years ago, is 17.5%.

But the significant reduction in the use of coal has not been matched by an equivalent fall in US GHG emissions, which dropped last year by only a little over 2%. That’s because overall energy demand in the US has been growing rapidly, in line with a spurt in economic activity.

The outlook for this year is very different. In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and the likelihood of a global recession, there are predictions that US greenhouse gas emissions will fall by 7.5% or more in 2020.

Worldwide, the economic downturn related to the pandemic is causing similar drops in GHG emissions.

China is the world’s biggest producer and consumer of coal. Despite big investments in renewables, the country depends on coal for nearly 60% of its total energy consumption and is still building large numbers of coal-fired power plants.

“There are signs that as worries about the pandemic fade in China, coal use is on the rise again”

As economic activity has declined sharply in recent weeks, pollution levels over China and many other parts of the world have fallen dramatically.

Yet already there are signs that as worries about the pandemic fade in China, coal use is on the rise again.

India and other countries in South Asia also have plans for large-scale coal-fired power projects – at present on hold due to the fall-out from Covid-19.

Countries round the world have to break the coal habit if there is to be any hope of preventing runaway climate change and meeting the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Analysis after analysis has pointed out that coal-burning is not only catastrophic for the future of the planet but also makes no economic sense.

The most recent report by the Carbon Tracker group, an independent financial think tank which monitors energy transitions, says that investments in renewables are now cheaper than coal investments in all major energy markets. – Climate News Network

Blue energy revolution comes of age

With green energy from wind and solar out-competing fossil fuels, governments now hope for another boost − blue energy from the oceans.

LONDON, 31 March, 2020 − The amount of energy generated by tides and waves in the last decade has increased 10-fold. Now governments around the world are planning to scale up these ventures to tap into the oceans’ vast store of blue energy.

Although in 2019 the total amount of energy produced by “blue power” would have been enough to provide electricity to only one city the size of Paris, even that was a vast increase on the tiny experiments being carried out 10 years earlier.

Now countries across the world with access to the sea are beginning to exploit all sorts of new technologies and intending to scale them up to bolster their attempts to go carbon-neutral.

Blue energy takes many forms. One of the most difficult technically is harnessing the energy of waves with devices that produce electricity. After several false starts many successful prototypes are now being trialled for commercial use. Other experiments exploit the tidal range – using the power of rapidly rising and falling tidal streams to push water through turbines.

The most commercially successful strategies so far use underwater turbines, similar to wind turbines, to exploit the tidal currents in coastal regions.

More ambitious but along the same lines are attempts to capture the energy from the immense ocean currents that move vast quantities of water round the planet.

“Our latest report underlines the considerable international support for the marine renewable sector. The start of this new decade carries considerable promise for ocean energy”

Also included in blue energy is ocean thermal energy conversion, which exploits the temperature differences between solar energy stored as heat in the upper ocean layers and colder seawater, generally at a depth below 1000 metres.

A variation on this is to use salinity gradients, the difference between the salt content of the sea and fresh water entering from a large river system. Some of these schemes are being used to produce fresh drinking water for dry regions rather than electricity.

The potential from all these energy sources is so great that an organisation called Ocean Energy Systems (OES), an offshoot of the International Energy Agency, is pooling all the research in a bid to achieve large-scale deployment.

There are now 24 countries in the OES, including China, India, the US, most European nations with a coastline, Japan, Australia and South Africa. Most of them have already deployed some blue energy schemes and are hoping to scale them up to full commercial use in the next decade.

As with wind and solar when they were being widely developed ten years ago, energy from the oceans is currently more expensive than fossil fuels. But as the technologies are refined the costs are coming down.

Profiting already

Already China has encouraged tidal stream energy by offering a feed-in tariff three times the price of fossil fuels, similar to the rate used in many countries to launch solar and wind power. One Chinese company is already finding this incentive enough to feed power into the grid and make a profit.

Among the leading countries developing these technologies are Canada and the United Kingdom, the two countries with the highest tides in the world. Canada has a number of tidal energy schemes on its Atlantic coast in Nova Scotia, with several competing companies testing different prototypes.

Scotland, which has enormous potential because of its many islands and tidal currents, has the largest tidal array of underwater turbines in the world. The turbine output has exceeded expectations, and the MeyGen company is planning to vastly increase the number of installations.

But this is only one of more than 20 projects in the UK, some still in the research and development stage, but many already being scaled up for deployment at special testing grounds in Scotland’s Orkney islands and the West of England.

OES chairman Henry Jeffrey, from the University of Edinburgh, said the group’s new annual report communicates the sizeable global effort to identify commercialisation pathways for ocean energy technologies.

Both Canada and the US can now see big potential, and political leaders across Europe have identified ocean energy as an essential component in meeting decarbonisation targets, fostering economic growth and creating future employment opportunities.

Lower costs essential

“Our latest report underlines the considerable international support for the marine renewable sector as leading global powers attempt to rebalance energy usage and limit global warming. The start of this new decade carries considerable promise for ocean energy,” he said.

However, Jeffrey warned that while the sector continued to take huge strides forward, there were several challenges ahead “centred around affordability, reliability, installability, operability, funding availability, capacity building and standardisation.

“In particular, significant cost reductions are required for ocean energy technologies to compete with other low-carbon technologies.”

Currently the cost of wind power, taking into account construction costs over the turbines’ lifetime, is being quoted as around €0.8-10 (one eighth to one tenth of a Euro, about £0.07-9 or US$0.9-11) per kilowatt hour, but this is still going down.

The European target is to get tidal stream energy down to €0.10 by 2030 and wave power down to €0.15, which would also make them competitive with fossil fuels if gas and coal were obliged to pay for capturing and storing the carbon dioxide they produce. − Climate News Network

With green energy from wind and solar out-competing fossil fuels, governments now hope for another boost − blue energy from the oceans.

LONDON, 31 March, 2020 − The amount of energy generated by tides and waves in the last decade has increased 10-fold. Now governments around the world are planning to scale up these ventures to tap into the oceans’ vast store of blue energy.

Although in 2019 the total amount of energy produced by “blue power” would have been enough to provide electricity to only one city the size of Paris, even that was a vast increase on the tiny experiments being carried out 10 years earlier.

Now countries across the world with access to the sea are beginning to exploit all sorts of new technologies and intending to scale them up to bolster their attempts to go carbon-neutral.

Blue energy takes many forms. One of the most difficult technically is harnessing the energy of waves with devices that produce electricity. After several false starts many successful prototypes are now being trialled for commercial use. Other experiments exploit the tidal range – using the power of rapidly rising and falling tidal streams to push water through turbines.

The most commercially successful strategies so far use underwater turbines, similar to wind turbines, to exploit the tidal currents in coastal regions.

More ambitious but along the same lines are attempts to capture the energy from the immense ocean currents that move vast quantities of water round the planet.

“Our latest report underlines the considerable international support for the marine renewable sector. The start of this new decade carries considerable promise for ocean energy”

Also included in blue energy is ocean thermal energy conversion, which exploits the temperature differences between solar energy stored as heat in the upper ocean layers and colder seawater, generally at a depth below 1000 metres.

A variation on this is to use salinity gradients, the difference between the salt content of the sea and fresh water entering from a large river system. Some of these schemes are being used to produce fresh drinking water for dry regions rather than electricity.

The potential from all these energy sources is so great that an organisation called Ocean Energy Systems (OES), an offshoot of the International Energy Agency, is pooling all the research in a bid to achieve large-scale deployment.

There are now 24 countries in the OES, including China, India, the US, most European nations with a coastline, Japan, Australia and South Africa. Most of them have already deployed some blue energy schemes and are hoping to scale them up to full commercial use in the next decade.

As with wind and solar when they were being widely developed ten years ago, energy from the oceans is currently more expensive than fossil fuels. But as the technologies are refined the costs are coming down.

Profiting already

Already China has encouraged tidal stream energy by offering a feed-in tariff three times the price of fossil fuels, similar to the rate used in many countries to launch solar and wind power. One Chinese company is already finding this incentive enough to feed power into the grid and make a profit.

Among the leading countries developing these technologies are Canada and the United Kingdom, the two countries with the highest tides in the world. Canada has a number of tidal energy schemes on its Atlantic coast in Nova Scotia, with several competing companies testing different prototypes.

Scotland, which has enormous potential because of its many islands and tidal currents, has the largest tidal array of underwater turbines in the world. The turbine output has exceeded expectations, and the MeyGen company is planning to vastly increase the number of installations.

But this is only one of more than 20 projects in the UK, some still in the research and development stage, but many already being scaled up for deployment at special testing grounds in Scotland’s Orkney islands and the West of England.

OES chairman Henry Jeffrey, from the University of Edinburgh, said the group’s new annual report communicates the sizeable global effort to identify commercialisation pathways for ocean energy technologies.

Both Canada and the US can now see big potential, and political leaders across Europe have identified ocean energy as an essential component in meeting decarbonisation targets, fostering economic growth and creating future employment opportunities.

Lower costs essential

“Our latest report underlines the considerable international support for the marine renewable sector as leading global powers attempt to rebalance energy usage and limit global warming. The start of this new decade carries considerable promise for ocean energy,” he said.

However, Jeffrey warned that while the sector continued to take huge strides forward, there were several challenges ahead “centred around affordability, reliability, installability, operability, funding availability, capacity building and standardisation.

“In particular, significant cost reductions are required for ocean energy technologies to compete with other low-carbon technologies.”

Currently the cost of wind power, taking into account construction costs over the turbines’ lifetime, is being quoted as around €0.8-10 (one eighth to one tenth of a Euro, about £0.07-9 or US$0.9-11) per kilowatt hour, but this is still going down.

The European target is to get tidal stream energy down to €0.10 by 2030 and wave power down to €0.15, which would also make them competitive with fossil fuels if gas and coal were obliged to pay for capturing and storing the carbon dioxide they produce. − Climate News Network

Coal exit will benefit health, wealth and nature

Human economies still depend on hydrocarbon fuels. But there are ways to achieve a coal exit, cut emissions and protect health.

LONDON, 30 March, 2020 − A fast coal exit and a switch away from all fossil fuels will offer multiple global benefits. In almost all circumstances, electric cars will be more climate-friendly than petrol-driven machines, even when that electricity is generated by coal combustion.

And nations that so far rely on coal will save substantially on health costs and environmental damage if they close the pits and convert to renewable energy.

The making and use of concrete – a big source of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere – remains an obdurate source of global warming. But even so there are ways to cut the climate and health damage costs of cement and mortar by more than 40%.

Each of these three studies is a reminder that there is for the moment no way to stop all carbon emissions in human economies. But each also confirms that a switch away from fossil fuels continues to make economic sense.

Clear reduction

Almost one fourth of all the fossil fuel combustion emissions that threaten a climate crisis come from passenger road transport and household heating. It takes energy to manufacture an electric car, or a heat pump, and it takes energy to generate the electricity to make them function.

Dutch and British researchers report in the journal Nature Sustainability that they considered the challenge in 59 regions of the globe and found that in 53 of their studies the switch to electric meant a clear reduction in climate-damaging emissions.

By 2050, half of all cars on the road could be electric. This would cut global emissions by up to 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. This is about what Russia puts into the atmosphere now.

The switch from homes heated by gas, coal or oil to electric pumps could save 800 million tonnes. This is about the same as Germany’s current greenhouse gas emissions.

Mythical increase

Lifetime emissions from electric cars in Sweden and France − which already get most of their electricity from renewables or nuclear power − would be up to 70% lower than from petrol-driven cars, and 30% lower in the UK.

“The answer is clear: to reduce carbon emissions, we should choose electric cars and household heat pumps over fossil-fuel alternatives,” said Florian Knobloch, of Radboud University in the Netherlands and Cambridge in the UK.

“In other words, the idea that electric vehicles or electric heat pumps could increase emissions is a myth. We’ve seen a lot of discussion of this recently, with lots of disinformation going around. Here is a definitive study that can dispel those myths.”

The 53 regions in the study represent 95% of world transport and heating demand. The scientists took into account energy use from the production chain at the beginning of a car’s or a heating system’s life, and the waste processing at the end, to find that the only exceptions were in places like Poland, which is still heavily dependent on coal.

“We decided to comprehensively test the case for a global coal exit: does it add up, economically speaking? The short answer is: yes, by far”

In 2015, the world’s nations agreed at an historic Paris meeting to attempt to limit average planetary warming to “well below” 2°C by the century’s end. Right now, by 2100 global temperatures could rise by a catastrophic 3°C.

A new study in Nature Climate Change confirms that to get to the 2°C target it doesn’t just make climate sense to shut the mines and close down the coal-burning power stations: it would save money as well, just in terms of reducing the health hazards associated with pollution and the damage to ecosystems and the loss of wildlife.

“We’re well into the 21st century now and still rely heavily on burning coal, making it one of the biggest threats to our climate, our health and our environment.

“That’s why we decided to comprehensively test the case for a global coal exit: does it add up, economically speaking? The short answer is: yes, by far,” said Sebastian Rauner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who led the study.

Concrete burden

And his colleague Gunnar Luderer added: “Benefits from reduced health and ecosystem impacts clearly overcompensate the direct economic costs of a coal exit – they amount to a net saving of about 1.5% of global economic output by 2050. That is, $370 (£300) for every human on Earth in 2050.”

Around 8% of all greenhouse gases come from the concrete industry: it too is a source of air pollution and environmental destruction. Cement has to be baked from stone, and aggregate has to be gathered, hauled and brought to building sites, and the two have to be mixed.

US researchers report in Nature Climate Change that they quantified the costs in terms of climate, death and illness from the industry and arrived at damages of about $335bn a year.

They looked at ways of cleaner combustion in kiln fuel, the more efficient use of mineral additions that might replace cement, and the applications of clean energy: all of them available now.

Neglect of health

Methods to capture and store carbon emissions from the process are not yet ready: these could reduce climate damage costs by 50% to 65%.

If manufacturers used a fuel that burned more efficiently, they could reduce health damages by 14%. A mix of already available methods could, together, reduce climate and health damage by 44%.

“There is a high emissions burden associated with the production of concrete because there is so much demand for it,” said Sabbie Miller of the University of California Davis, who led the study.

“We clearly care a great deal about greenhouse gas emissions. But we haven’t paid as much attention to health burdens, which are also driven in large part by this demand.” − Climate News Network

Human economies still depend on hydrocarbon fuels. But there are ways to achieve a coal exit, cut emissions and protect health.

LONDON, 30 March, 2020 − A fast coal exit and a switch away from all fossil fuels will offer multiple global benefits. In almost all circumstances, electric cars will be more climate-friendly than petrol-driven machines, even when that electricity is generated by coal combustion.

And nations that so far rely on coal will save substantially on health costs and environmental damage if they close the pits and convert to renewable energy.

The making and use of concrete – a big source of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere – remains an obdurate source of global warming. But even so there are ways to cut the climate and health damage costs of cement and mortar by more than 40%.

Each of these three studies is a reminder that there is for the moment no way to stop all carbon emissions in human economies. But each also confirms that a switch away from fossil fuels continues to make economic sense.

Clear reduction

Almost one fourth of all the fossil fuel combustion emissions that threaten a climate crisis come from passenger road transport and household heating. It takes energy to manufacture an electric car, or a heat pump, and it takes energy to generate the electricity to make them function.

Dutch and British researchers report in the journal Nature Sustainability that they considered the challenge in 59 regions of the globe and found that in 53 of their studies the switch to electric meant a clear reduction in climate-damaging emissions.

By 2050, half of all cars on the road could be electric. This would cut global emissions by up to 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. This is about what Russia puts into the atmosphere now.

The switch from homes heated by gas, coal or oil to electric pumps could save 800 million tonnes. This is about the same as Germany’s current greenhouse gas emissions.

Mythical increase

Lifetime emissions from electric cars in Sweden and France − which already get most of their electricity from renewables or nuclear power − would be up to 70% lower than from petrol-driven cars, and 30% lower in the UK.

“The answer is clear: to reduce carbon emissions, we should choose electric cars and household heat pumps over fossil-fuel alternatives,” said Florian Knobloch, of Radboud University in the Netherlands and Cambridge in the UK.

“In other words, the idea that electric vehicles or electric heat pumps could increase emissions is a myth. We’ve seen a lot of discussion of this recently, with lots of disinformation going around. Here is a definitive study that can dispel those myths.”

The 53 regions in the study represent 95% of world transport and heating demand. The scientists took into account energy use from the production chain at the beginning of a car’s or a heating system’s life, and the waste processing at the end, to find that the only exceptions were in places like Poland, which is still heavily dependent on coal.

“We decided to comprehensively test the case for a global coal exit: does it add up, economically speaking? The short answer is: yes, by far”

In 2015, the world’s nations agreed at an historic Paris meeting to attempt to limit average planetary warming to “well below” 2°C by the century’s end. Right now, by 2100 global temperatures could rise by a catastrophic 3°C.

A new study in Nature Climate Change confirms that to get to the 2°C target it doesn’t just make climate sense to shut the mines and close down the coal-burning power stations: it would save money as well, just in terms of reducing the health hazards associated with pollution and the damage to ecosystems and the loss of wildlife.

“We’re well into the 21st century now and still rely heavily on burning coal, making it one of the biggest threats to our climate, our health and our environment.

“That’s why we decided to comprehensively test the case for a global coal exit: does it add up, economically speaking? The short answer is: yes, by far,” said Sebastian Rauner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who led the study.

Concrete burden

And his colleague Gunnar Luderer added: “Benefits from reduced health and ecosystem impacts clearly overcompensate the direct economic costs of a coal exit – they amount to a net saving of about 1.5% of global economic output by 2050. That is, $370 (£300) for every human on Earth in 2050.”

Around 8% of all greenhouse gases come from the concrete industry: it too is a source of air pollution and environmental destruction. Cement has to be baked from stone, and aggregate has to be gathered, hauled and brought to building sites, and the two have to be mixed.

US researchers report in Nature Climate Change that they quantified the costs in terms of climate, death and illness from the industry and arrived at damages of about $335bn a year.

They looked at ways of cleaner combustion in kiln fuel, the more efficient use of mineral additions that might replace cement, and the applications of clean energy: all of them available now.

Neglect of health

Methods to capture and store carbon emissions from the process are not yet ready: these could reduce climate damage costs by 50% to 65%.

If manufacturers used a fuel that burned more efficiently, they could reduce health damages by 14%. A mix of already available methods could, together, reduce climate and health damage by 44%.

“There is a high emissions burden associated with the production of concrete because there is so much demand for it,” said Sabbie Miller of the University of California Davis, who led the study.

“We clearly care a great deal about greenhouse gas emissions. But we haven’t paid as much attention to health burdens, which are also driven in large part by this demand.” − Climate News Network

Efficient energy cuts UK electricity’s carbon output

The United Kingdom leads the way in cutting carbon output from electricity production, to the surprise of its political leaders.

LONDON, 24 March, 2020 – Carbon output from the power sector has been falling faster in the UK than anywhere else in the world – despite the British government’s belief that electricity consumption would rise.

Part of the explanation is the closing of coal-fired power stations and their replacement by renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels.

But the main savings have been in energy efficiency from the wholesale introduction of LED lighting to improved industrial processes.

This remarkable transformation has been repeated across many advanced countries in Europe and beyond. Even with many economies growing, communities have managed to reduce electricity use.

Emissions exported

Environmentalists and some academics would argue that part of the reason for the reduction is that Europe has exported some of its dirty energy-intensive industries, like steel-making, to China – so that China’s emissions have gone up while Europe’s have gone down.

This is partly true, but the UK’s Department of Environment says that even taking into account imported goods the UK’s overall carbon footprint has shrunk, not simply the energy sector’s contribution. The total of the three main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, peaked in 2007 and had dropped 21% by 2017.

Andrew Warren, chairman of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, is highly critical of the way this energy revolution is being reported, saying the emphasis on the adoption of solar and wind technologies is misleading:

“The biggest decarbonising driver of the lot has not been the switching of supply sources (from coal to renewables). It has happened entirely as a result of investments in more energy-efficient technology.”

Constant drop

Writing on the Energyzine website, Warren says that from the beginning of this century energy consumption in the UK has been “falling. And falling. And falling. It is now over 20% lower than it was in 2000.

“In the case of the main heating fuel, natural gas, the impact has been even more pronounced. Sales have dropped by approaching one-third, largely due to better insulation and more efficient boilers and heating systems.”

He says this is totally contrary to British government predictions. As recently as 2010 the incoming Conservative government was officially planning on the doubling or even tripling of electricity consumption by 2050. But by 2010 sales were already falling, and they have continued to do so.

The 2005 White Paper, which set out the government’s proposals for future legislation, reckoned that by 2020 electricity consumption would have risen by 15%. In fact it has fallen by 16%; an error of more than 30% in forecasting.

“That old ‘Real Men Build Power Stations’ mentality still survives”

The same White Paper was used to justify the building of a series of nuclear power stations to satisfy the new demand – a policy that remains in place even though it is clear there is no need for the stations.

One station is under construction in the UK, but plans for up to five more are currently in limbo awaiting a government decision on whether to underwrite their cost with an electricity tax on consumers.

Despite figures showing that electricity consumption is continuing to fall, the government is still predicting that the demand for electricity will increase from 2025, particularly because of the switch to electric cars.

But Warren points out that many experts in the field, including the people who run the UK’s National Grid, doubt that this will happen.

Critical but neglected

Given how critical energy efficiency is in reducing demand when adopted across housing and industry, Warren says it is remarkable how little political attention is devoted to it. Very little is published about how and where critical savings are being made, and how much unfulfilled potential for improving efficiency there still is.

While some other western European nations have finally understood the importance of energy efficiency, sometimes called “the first fuel”, Warren says, many of the former Communist countries, even if they have now joined the European Union, still see building large new power stations as the way forward.

He told the Climate News Network: “The broad picture is that, over the past decade, most western European countries are seeing energy consumption stabilise, in many cases fall (even as GDP grows).

“But sadly too many of the old Comecon countries still can’t get their collective minds around demand-side management as a concept. That old ‘Real Men Build Power Stations’ mentality still survives.” – Climate News Network

The United Kingdom leads the way in cutting carbon output from electricity production, to the surprise of its political leaders.

LONDON, 24 March, 2020 – Carbon output from the power sector has been falling faster in the UK than anywhere else in the world – despite the British government’s belief that electricity consumption would rise.

Part of the explanation is the closing of coal-fired power stations and their replacement by renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels.

But the main savings have been in energy efficiency from the wholesale introduction of LED lighting to improved industrial processes.

This remarkable transformation has been repeated across many advanced countries in Europe and beyond. Even with many economies growing, communities have managed to reduce electricity use.

Emissions exported

Environmentalists and some academics would argue that part of the reason for the reduction is that Europe has exported some of its dirty energy-intensive industries, like steel-making, to China – so that China’s emissions have gone up while Europe’s have gone down.

This is partly true, but the UK’s Department of Environment says that even taking into account imported goods the UK’s overall carbon footprint has shrunk, not simply the energy sector’s contribution. The total of the three main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, peaked in 2007 and had dropped 21% by 2017.

Andrew Warren, chairman of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, is highly critical of the way this energy revolution is being reported, saying the emphasis on the adoption of solar and wind technologies is misleading:

“The biggest decarbonising driver of the lot has not been the switching of supply sources (from coal to renewables). It has happened entirely as a result of investments in more energy-efficient technology.”

Constant drop

Writing on the Energyzine website, Warren says that from the beginning of this century energy consumption in the UK has been “falling. And falling. And falling. It is now over 20% lower than it was in 2000.

“In the case of the main heating fuel, natural gas, the impact has been even more pronounced. Sales have dropped by approaching one-third, largely due to better insulation and more efficient boilers and heating systems.”

He says this is totally contrary to British government predictions. As recently as 2010 the incoming Conservative government was officially planning on the doubling or even tripling of electricity consumption by 2050. But by 2010 sales were already falling, and they have continued to do so.

The 2005 White Paper, which set out the government’s proposals for future legislation, reckoned that by 2020 electricity consumption would have risen by 15%. In fact it has fallen by 16%; an error of more than 30% in forecasting.

“That old ‘Real Men Build Power Stations’ mentality still survives”

The same White Paper was used to justify the building of a series of nuclear power stations to satisfy the new demand – a policy that remains in place even though it is clear there is no need for the stations.

One station is under construction in the UK, but plans for up to five more are currently in limbo awaiting a government decision on whether to underwrite their cost with an electricity tax on consumers.

Despite figures showing that electricity consumption is continuing to fall, the government is still predicting that the demand for electricity will increase from 2025, particularly because of the switch to electric cars.

But Warren points out that many experts in the field, including the people who run the UK’s National Grid, doubt that this will happen.

Critical but neglected

Given how critical energy efficiency is in reducing demand when adopted across housing and industry, Warren says it is remarkable how little political attention is devoted to it. Very little is published about how and where critical savings are being made, and how much unfulfilled potential for improving efficiency there still is.

While some other western European nations have finally understood the importance of energy efficiency, sometimes called “the first fuel”, Warren says, many of the former Communist countries, even if they have now joined the European Union, still see building large new power stations as the way forward.

He told the Climate News Network: “The broad picture is that, over the past decade, most western European countries are seeing energy consumption stabilise, in many cases fall (even as GDP grows).

“But sadly too many of the old Comecon countries still can’t get their collective minds around demand-side management as a concept. That old ‘Real Men Build Power Stations’ mentality still survives.” – Climate News Network