Global warming strikes again...

COP26: Fossil fuel industry has largest delegation at climate summit

There are more delegates at COP26 associated with the fossil fuel industry than from any single country, analysis shared with the BBC shows.
Campaigners led by Global Witness assessed the participant list published by the UN at the start of this meeting.
They found that 503 people with links to fossil fuel interests had been accredited for the climate summit.
These delegates are said to lobby for oil and gas industries, and campaigners say they should be banned.

"The fossil fuel industry has spent decades denying and delaying real action on the climate crisis, which is why this is such a huge problem," says Murray Worthy from Global Witness.
"Their influence is one of the biggest reasons why 25 years of UN climate talks have not led to real cuts in global emissions."​
 
Rolls-Royce (and BoJo apparently) think everyone should have little nukes and that will solve the problem

Rolls-Royce have developed a small modular nuclear reactor, and got a massive (50% of the project!!!) government grant build them. There is no talk of what technology they are using, apparently they could be using fast breeder tech, and therefore all the countries in the map below will be able to build nukes (squinting at the map, I guess that includes Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Indonesia). However I bet they are using the standard one shot then bury it thermal-neutron reactors, which gives us only a few years supply of uranium if this makes a significant impact on global electricity demand.

jQnKLR2.png

The size of the potential global SMR market, is approximately 65-85GW by 2035, valued at £250-£400bn.

Beeb, Rolls-Royce sales
 
COP26 report: 2.4°C temperature increase by the end of the century IF all targets met
  • With all target pledges, including those made in Glasgow, global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 will still be around twice as high as necessary for the 1.5°C limit.
  • Stalled momentum from leaders and governments on their short-term targets has narrowed the 2030 emissions gap by only 15-17% over the last year.
  • With 2030 pledges alone – without longer term targets – global temperature increase will be at 2.4°C in 2100.
  • The projected warming from current policies (not proposals) – what countries are actually doing – is even higher, at 2.7 ̊C with only a 0.2 ̊C improvement over the last year and nearly one degree above the net-zero announcements governments have made.
  • Since the April 2021 Biden Leaders’ Summit, the CAT’s standard “pledges and targets” scenario temperature estimate of all NDCs and binding long-term targets has dropped by 0.3°C to 2.1°C, primarily down to the inclusion of the US and China’s net zero targets, now formalised in their long-term strategies submitted to the UNFCCC.
  • While the projected warming from all net zero announcements, if fully implemented – the CAT’s “optimistic scenario” – is down to 1.8 ̊C by 2100, this estimate is far from positive news, given the quality of the net zero goals and the massive ambition and action gap in 2030.
  • This ‘optimistic’ pathway is a long way from the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 ̊C limit, with peak 21st century warming of 1.9 ̊C and about a 16% chance of exceeding a warming of 2.4 ̊C.
EGAhicK.png

CAT_2021-11_Briefing_2030EmissionsGaps-Change.width-1000.png

CAT_2021-11_Briefing_2030NDCtargets-ChangeFro.width-1110.png
 
Optimism About Nuclear Fusion Fuels Long-Shot Bets
Advocates say the timeline is changing, but others are dubious

BY GIULIA PETRONI

Recent technological breakthroughs and a surge in private funding have reignited interest in nuclear fusion, the atomic reaction that powers the sun and stars. Replication of the process on Earth has the potential to provide virtually unlimited clean energy to the world, according to researchers. But for decades that goal has eluded scientists, some of whom joke that nuclear fusion is 30 years away and always will be.

Now, some private companies are saying that the timeline to make fusion a viable, large-scale energy source is changing and that we could see fusion power on the grid as soon as the 2030s. While many others say that isn’t feasible until the second half of the century, optimism about a long shot that could pay off is powering investment around the world.

According to a report by the Fusion Industry Association and the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, at least 35 private fusion companies are operating world-wide, 18 of which have received a total of about $1.8 billion in private funding. Of the 23 companies the report surveyed, about half were founded in the past five years.

Nuclear fusion—the lesser known and opposite reaction to nuclear fission—occurs when two light atomic nuclei merge to form a single heavier one. That process releases huge amounts of energy, no carbon emissions and very limited radioactivity. Fusion reactions take place in a state of matter called plasma—a hot charged gas made of ions and free-moving electrons—and require temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius to enable the nuclei to overcome their mutual electric repulsion and collide.

“The thing with fusion is, it’s impossible to have an accident; there’s no long-term waste and you can’t weaponize it,” says Christopher Mowry, chief executive of General Fusion, a Canadian startup backed by Jeff Bezos. Still, no company or research project has been able to create fusion systems that can generate more energy than they consume in a self-sustaining reaction, mainly due to challenges associated with the high temperatures, density and pressure required to trigger the fusion process.

Today, the largest fusion program under development is ITER, a $22 billion multinational government- funded project in southern France. At the heart of the experiment is a massive, doughnut-shaped machine called a tokamak, where the fusion reaction is set to take place. The device is one of the most commonly used for a fusion approach known as magnetic confinement, which uses magnetic fields to squeeze the plasma.

Scientists say the project is on track to create superheated plasma by the end of 2025 and achieve full fusion a decade later. Tim Luce, head of science and operation at ITER, says he doesn’t expect fusion to contribute to the energy mix until around 2070.

Private companies, though, are more optimistic. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Commonwealth Fusion Systems, an MIT spinoff, are building a smaller tokamak device that they say is set to demonstrate net energy from fusion by 2025. They plan to have a fusion power plant that would produce electricity by the early 2030s.


ajax-request.php
zoom_in.png



Elsewhere, General Fusion plans to build a demonstration power plant at the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority’s site in Culham, U.K., with operations aiming to start around 2025. The plant will demonstrate magnetized target fusion— a concept that uses a series of powerful pistons to compress plasma to fusion conditions and incorporates some of the features of magnetic confinement fusion.

Mr. Mowry, the CEO, says it is possible that fusion power will be on the grid in the 2030s. Ms. Petroni is a Wall Street Journal reporter in Barcelona. Email giulia.petroni@wsj.com.

General Fusion is working on magnetized target fusion.

FROM TOP: ROBERT NEUBECKER (4); KRISTOPHER GRUNERT FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
 
Fusion would be most of the solution, but it is always a generation away.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Commonwealth Fusion Systems, an MIT spinoff, are building a smaller tokamak device that they say is set to demonstrate net energy from fusion by 2025. They plan to have a fusion power plant that would produce electricity by the early 2030s.
That sounds almost laughably optimistic.
 
Today's WSJ has a whole section on alternative energy. Here is the summary update portion of that very long section

Alternative Energy: An Update
How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy?

There’s a lot of hype and confusion about carbon-free energy sources. Here’s a look at five of them: how much they produce, what they cost, and what obstacles they face.
BY JENNIFER HILLER AND DAVID HODARI

We hear a lot about the need to move to cleaner forms of power from all sides—utilities, politicians, advocates and energy companies. There are all sorts of ideas on where we want to go, and how to get there. But let’s step back and ask a more fundamental question: Where exactly do we stand on alternative energy now?

There’s definitely big movement under way. Electricity generation from coal, oil and natural gas represented 60% of all power generated world-wide this year, down from 67% in 2010, according to data and consulting firm IHS Markit. That is likely to drop to 42% to 48% by 2030, depending on how aggressively countries move toward renewables. Those are just projections, of course. Each of the alternative fuels has its own potential, and its own obstacles. Here’s a closer look at the current status and outlook for five types of carbon-free energy that could play a bigger role in the future.

SOLAR The Status

Harnessing the power of the sun to generate electricity has a long record. While the basic technology hasn’t changed much in recent years, its costs have come way down, triggering a global boom in new solar installations. The photovoltaic cells used in solar panels convert sunlight directly into electricity. Government mandates for more renewable energy, incentives such as tax credits and corporate commitments to purchase renewables have helped drive the global market. Lower costs have boosted utility- scale projects and interest from consumers in rooftop installations. The technology is in a “rapid takeoff phase,” says Xizhou Zhou, vice president and managing director of global power and renewables at IHS Markit.

There is plenty of room for growth. The Energy Department says the U.S. now gets just 3% of its power from solar sources. Globally, just 4% percent of power generation this year is from solar, up from 1.4% five years ago, according to IHS Markit. Global installations will likely increase 20% this year to 175 gigawatts, according to IHS Markit. That’s about enough to power roughly 35 million U.S. households for a year.

The solar industry is beset by the same supply-chain and inflation challenges bedeviling much of the business world, though. Prices of materials such as steel, glass and aluminum have soared, and there is a global shortage of semiconductors, a key component for converting sunlight to electricity. Labor shortages and supply-chain issues could last two years, says George Bilicic, vice chairman of investment banking and global head of power, energy and infrastructure at investment bank Lazard. “But the long-term trend here is powerful and dramatic,” he says. The Cost

Solar has increasingly become one of the cheapest power sources, judged by the levelized cost of electricity—a way to compare potential investments that considers the present cost of building a power plant against the power generated over its expected lifetime. Levelized costs are usually in price per megawatt-hour, or one million watts of electricity for an hour.

The levelized cost of solar photovoltaic systems has fallen to about $45 per megawatt-hour this year from $381 in 2010, according to IHS Markit. That makes it the cheapest form of electricity on a global basis, and doesn’t take into account tax breaks or other subsidies that governments may provide, which would push costs down more. Coal-fired generation is around $55 per megawatt-hour, down from $62 in 2010.

The Obstacles

Solar’s downside is as obvious as its upside: While the sun is Earth’s primary energy source, it doesn’t shine all the time. That means solar power works only during daylight hours. For solar to provide continuous power, it must be paired with other generation such as natural-gas plants, or some form of energy storage such as batteries. The price of such batteries is dropping, making solar plus storage increasingly attractive to many customers. But most current batteries don’t have a high capacity— today’s cost-effective ones last around three to four hours. Solar faces other challenges. For one thing, the industry is heavily dependent on materials and panels from China.

The Biden administration has put new penalties on importing Chinese solar material and kept Trump-era tariffs on Chinese solar materials that have raised the U.S. industry’s costs and tempered its growth. Imports could face even more restrictions due to accusations that China is using forced labor in its solar supply chain—a claim its government strongly denies. As a result, American solar companies want to “reshore” more of the panels’ manufacturing and materials sourcing to the U.S., but that could be a long process.

The industry is also having growing pains, such as the need to hire and train workers quickly enough to keep pace with demand. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates global solar photovoltaic employment reached nearly four million in 2020, up from 2.8 million in 2015. By 2030, the group estimates solar jobs could grow to between 10 million to 17 million globally, depending on government climate policies. “There’s not only an equipment supply-chain issue, there’s also a trained-labor issue,” says Elizabeth Sanderson, executive director of Solar Energy International, a Colorado-based nonprofit that trains solar-industry workers internationally. “It’s hard to keep up with the new demand.”

Nuclear The Status

Creating energy by splitting atoms is also an established technology, but has fallen out of favor in recent years due to safety concerns and cost overruns at new plants. Now that countries are seeking to transition to cleaner energy, nuclear power is getting a second look in many parts of the globe. The reasons are clear: Nuclear fission can generate energy without greenhouse-gas emissions, and unlike other technologies such as solar, it can do so 24 hours a day.

“Having something operate 24/7 regardless as to whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing is really an important enabling technology to allow you to get to a carbon-free grid,” says Jeff Navin, director of external affairs at the Bill Gatesfounded company TerraPower , which plans to build a small reactor at the site of a retiring Wyoming coal plant. About 10% of global commercial electricity production came from nuclear power in 2020, well below the high point in the mid-1990s of 17.5%, according to the latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report, an annual update compiled by researchers around the globe. Adding renewables to the electric grid that produce power intermittently— like solar—is easier if “we just keep the nuclear plants operating,” says Brett Rampal, director of nuclear innovation at the environmental- policy group Clean Air Task Force. Once older reactors shut down, newer projects designed to more quickly adjust their electricity output in coordination with wind and solar “will be fundamental to the clean-energy economy of the future,” he says.

New traditional nuclear plants have recently started up in China, Russia and the United Arab Emirates. Dozens of developers such as TerraPower around the world also are testing designs for small modular reactors, or SMRs, which many see as the next generation of nuclear power. The idea is that SMRs would provide competitively priced electricity that could be used as a constant source of carbon-free energy anywhere, even in remote regions. They produce less than a third of the electricity of a traditional plant, but have a modular design that could be mass-produced. Eventually, proponents say, they should cost far less to build. Nine countries are looking at developing SMRs, including the U.K. and France, which each said last month they would pursue the smaller projects as a part of climate plans. The U.S. Department of Energy is funding two demonstration projects.

The Cost

Nuclear power’s costs have risen in recent years, and on average, it is expected to remain among the most expensive forms of power generation to build. The global levelized cost for new construction rose to around $74 per megawatt-hour this year from $66 five years ago, according to IHS. Nuclear power has higher required maintenance investments, and needs more workers and security than other kinds of plants. Many countries have enhanced safety regulations following triple meltdowns at Japanese nuclear reactors in Fukushima after a 2011 earthquake and tsunami. But costs can vary even within the same country, due to regulations and other factors. Nuclear power in Europe and North America is more expensive than solar, onshore wind, coal, natural-gas and geothermal electricity generation. In Asia-Pacific countries, it can be cheaper than other kinds of power generation.

The Obstacles

The downsides of nuclear power include long and complex construction timelines and regulatory hurdles that can result in runaway costs. Even if countries want to add more nuclear power, the process can be slow. Of 53 units under construction globally, 31 are behind schedule, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Advocates hope that SMRs can overcome the history of high costs and slow licensing and construction. “We’re not talking about a billion- dollar construction project. We’re talking about a building the size of a large house with a reactor that is about the size of a research reactor,” says Caroline Cochran, cofounder and chief operating officer of nuclear-fission startup Oklo Inc., which plans to build its first small-scale power plant at the Idaho National Laboratory. “You can do construction in a hopefully quick and relatively modular way, and what we want to do is make that easily repeatable.”

Nuclear energy also faces a wary public in some countries. Germany swore off the technology following Fukushima. Permanent waste storage remains an unsolved and politically difficult problem.

Wind The Status

Much like solar, wind power is a plentiful, renewable, carbon-free resource. Global demand has soared in the past decade as costs have come down, moving wind firmly into the mainstream. Wind electricity is produced when the force from moving air spins a turbine blade around a rotor, which spins a generator. Turbines are grouped together in large installations onshore as well as offshore. These turbines have grown ever larger in recent years, which has improved efficiency and brought down costs, spurring more projects. The blades for onshore projects span more than 100 feet apiece, while the largest offshore blades can each stretch as long as a football field.

Wind provides about 7% of the world’s electricity, a share projected to at least double by 2030, according to IHS Markit. Installations last year reached a record 93 gigawatts, up 53% from 2019, according to the Global Wind Energy Council industry group. Pandemic-related travel restrictions and longer shipping timelines have slowed some projects, but around 88 gigawatts of installation is still expected in 2021.

“We have quite a promising outlook, even though we have a relatively challenging time for next year” with logistics and supply-chain issues, says Feng Zhao, head of strategy and market intelligence at the wind-energy council. High demand for the steel, copper, aluminum and carbon fiber used in turbines has manufacturers and suppliers testing new materials to try to create the next generation of devices. There is also emerging potential to pair excess wind power during gusty weather with a hydrogen project— a setup that essentially stores the wind power in the form of hydrogen. So-called green hydrogen could create fuels to help decarbonize transportation, heating and heavy-industrial sectors.

While onshore wind projects have become common, Europe has the only well-established offshore wind industry. Countries including Korea, China and the U.S. are now moving into offshore wind more aggressively. The Biden administration is preparing to open up swaths of the U.S. coastline to wind projects as part of a plan to boost production of clean energy. The U.S. currently has two offshore wind farms off Rhode Island and Virginia.

The Cost

Wind projects have seen dramatic price drops in the past decade, helping spur development and creating a global industry of suppliers and manufacturers. Levelized onshore wind costs have fallen to a global average of $48 per megawatt-hour this year from $89 in 2010, according to IHS. Offshore wind costs during that period dropped to an average $90 per megawatt-hour, down from $162. But higher oil prices this year have boosted the cost of the fuels used to move supplies and equipment. The growing size of turbine blades makes them difficult to move and creates transportation challenges. “Since the beginning of this year, the logistics costs have quadrupled and in some cases quintupled,” says Shashi Barla, principal analyst for wind supply chain and technology at Wood Mackenzie.

The Obstacles

Put simply, the wind has to be blowing for wind power to work. Finding a spot with consistent wind can mean a bonanza of cheap power. But onshore projects can face opposition from rural communities, which may not like changed landscapes or the noise of turbines. And offshore, the commercial fishing industry has concerns about the impact to wildlife or potential disruptions to navigation systems. Meanwhile, the windiest sites are often far from the cities that consume most electricity, requiring long-distance transmission lines to move the power to market. Wind turbines have grown ever larger in recent years, which has improved efficiency and reduced costs.

That makes wind-farm siting and construction more complex than solar, which is more easily placed close to where it is used, says Mr. Bilicic at Lazard. Wind projects also face a daunting permitting labyrinth in most countries, which proponents say needs to be streamlined to meet net-zero goals. “It can take up to 10 years from project idea to project execution,” says Morten Dyrholm, a senior vice president at Vestas Wind Systems A/S. “We can’t wait that long.” Inflation is an increasing concern for manufacturers and developers. While there is much debate about whether inflation is a long-lasting or temporary feature of the global economy, cable manufacturer Nexans SA Chief Executive Christopher Guerin says he expects cost pressure in the wind industry for several years due to the demand outlook for materials like copper and aluminum.

“I think it’s only the beginning,” Mr. Guerin, who notes that copper recently hit historically low inventory levels. “I think that will be a hot topic for the next three to four years.”

Geothermal The Status

In the global race to add more renewable resources, geothermal checks many of the boxes that policy makers have on their wish lists. It can supply power to the grid around the clock, but avoids greenhouse-gas emissions. Geothermal energy relies on the heat from the Earth’s mantle— deep wells tap steam or hot water from rock—to generate electricity by using steam to turn a turbine. It has been an electricity source for more than a century in countries like Italy where hot springs bubble to the surface, but can also be used to heat buildings, or as the heat source for brewing beer and warming agricultural greenhouses.

“When we talk about saving the world with renewable energies, it seems to be focused on electricity, but that heat element is 50% of our energy consumption,” says Marit Brommer, a geologist who heads the International Geothermal Association. Geothermal plants provide less than 1% of the world’s electricity, but drilling has been on the rise for the past six years. The sector is set for a significant growth spurt, according to data and consulting firm Rystad Energy. An estimated 180 wells are being drilled each year for power generation, and that number is expected to rise to 500 by 2025.

“It’s a great baseload resource” to provide constant power with high reliability, says Henning Bjørvik, vice president of energy-service research at Rystad. “It’s also an energy resource that requires a minimal land footprint.” Several European countries are building district heating, which taps geothermal energy to heat commercial buildings and apartments, or neighborhoods. Austria will drill around 40 wells between 2020 and 2030, while the Netherlands is drilling around 20 wells each year, but will double that pace between 2026 and 2030.

Around 30 to 40 wells are drilled each year for district heating projects in Europe, likely to increase to more than 100 wells by 2025, according to Rystad. Canada, Japan, Turkey, Ethiopia and Indonesia are among the countries with geothermal power plants under construction. About 6% of California’s electricity comes from geothermal, and new projects are being planned that would pair geothermal power with lithium mining. An uptick in interest has led to recent technology advancements that aim to make geothermal more widespread beyond places where both porous hot rocks and water are available near the Earth’s surface. Water can be injected into deep formations to warm it, or closed-loop systems can circulate water.

Venture-capital deals for geothermal rose to $146.5 million globally by mid-October, nearly double the amount in both 2020 and 2019, according to data from Pitchbook. That is up from just $13.3 million in deals five years ago.

The Cost

Geothermal is one of the more expensive forms of energy, with global levelized costs around $69 per megawatt-hour in 2021, more than coal plants or natural-gas plants, according to IHS Markit. The industry is working to lower costs—the price per megawatt-hour was around $75 five years ago—but its relatively small size can make that difficult. However, oil-field-service companies, which helped cut costs for shale drilling to create an oil and gas boom in the U.S., are entering the geothermal industry. That could help drive costs lower, Mr. Bjørvik says.

The Obstacles

Geology is the biggest hurdle for geothermal: The best prospects for power generation are in places with volcanoes along tectonic-plate boundaries, such as the Pacific Ring of Fire. The best locations can be far from users and existing transmission lines, but also home to national parks or indigenous populations that may or may not want projects, says Mr. Zhou at IHS Markit. “You look at laws and regulations and realize you can’t build anything there,” Mr. Zhou says.

There can be other political hurdles. Though geothermal plants create local jobs and clean electricity or heat, some government officials and residents oppose drilling of any kind, says Ms. Brommer of the geothermal association, who nevertheless calls geothermal a “sleeping giant” of the power sector.


ajax-request.php
zoom_in.png

ILLUSTRATION BY HARRY CAMPBELL

ajax-request.php
zoom_in.png


The control room of Unit 2 at Exelon’s Braidwood nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Ill.

ajax-request.php
zoom_in.png



Hydrogen The Status

For years, hydrogen was seen as the great hope of the renewable-energy sector—but always another decade away. Issues around affordability and demand persist, but companies and governments are throwing billions of dollars at commercializing production of the world’s most abundant element because it can solve some of the unique challenges of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Hydrogen is increasingly seen as a viable clean-energy source for transportation—in trucks, planes and ships—all of which are currently hard to decarbonize because conventional batteries either weigh too much or hold a charge for too little time for long-haul voyages. Hydrogen, which is lighter, would solve that problem.

The explosive gas, which can be combined with oxygen atoms in fuel cells or burned to generate power, can also supplant fossil fuels in household heating and industrial processes like steelmaking that require sustained high temperatures. Meanwhile, companies are keen on using hydrogen as a way to effectively store power. This can be done by using excess electricity, often solar or wind power, to run machines known as electrolyzers that strip water molecules of their hydrogen— which is easier to store in tanks and caverns than electricity is to store in batteries.

“Hydrogen is targeting the sectors which are hard to electrify or where emissions are hard to abate,” says Christian Stuckmann, vice president of hydrogen- business development at German energy company Uniper. Companies can store these renewable- electricity molecules in hydrogen and transport the molecules through pipes at a much cheaper rate than through the high-voltage grid, he says. Some businesses, such as Uniper, which is owned by Finnish utility Fortum, plan to use hydrogen production to complement their wind and solar projects. The company is planning hydrogen projects in the U.K. and the Netherlands.

Still, the role the gas currently plays in the global energy mix is negligible. The International Energy Agency says it currently supplies less than 1% of the world’s energy, and adds that only 1% of that amount is low-carbon, or green, hydrogen. The rest is made by burning fossil fuels, with only part of the associated emissions sequestered using carbon-capture and storage. That said, with tens of billions of dollars set aside for hundreds of planned large-scale green hydrogen projects, the Hydrogen Council trade group forecasts that hydrogen could supply 20% of the world’s energy by 2050.

The Cost

Hydrogen is expensive compared with other energy sources—especially when it is made without fossil fuels. Analysts’ price estimates vary when it comes to pricing different types of hydrogen, but they agree that fossil-fuel-free “green” hydrogen is significantly more expensive than so-called gray hydrogen, made using natural gas, and blue hydrogen—made the same way but using cleaner carbon- capture methods. Investment bank Lazard says it currently costs between $28.55 and $48.30 to produce one million British thermal units of green hydrogen when accounting for development and other life-cycle costs. U.S. natural gas currently costs around $6 per mBtu. Even so, the cost of green hydrogen is expected to drop when it is produced at economies of scale. IHS Markit says the levelized cost of green hydrogen at a wind farm in Germany fell to $70 per megawatt-hour last year from $130 in 2015, while a utility- scale solar project in Saudi Arabia had more than halved costs in the same period to $32 from $70. The production costs of both projects are expected to roughly halve again by 2045. IHS Markit expects global hydrogen production to rise from around 300 million metric tons of oil equivalent this year to 740 million tons in 2050.

The Obstacles

The world’s hydrogen supply needs to both clean up and grow at a rapid rate, but green hydrogen faces a chicken-and-egg problem in doing so, says José Miguel Bermúdez Menéndez, a hydrogen expert at the IEA. Because green hydrogen is currently so rarely used and not made using economies of scale, it is expensive to produce in comparison to its gray and blue counterparts. High prices, in turn, mean that demand—which will partly dictate how quickly producers build new projects—remains lethargic. It will come down to governments to implement policies that stimulate that demand and to reassure companies of their ability to recoup spending on new projects, Mr. Bermúdez Menéndez says.

Both the U.S. and EU have announced hydrogen funds and incentives in recent months. Even if enough cheap, green hydrogen can be produced, transporting it may also prove tricky. The countries planning to become the market’s big players—ones with abundant solar power like Australia and Morocco—are often far from the ones in Northern Europe or East Asia that would use green hydrogen in heavy industry. Conventional natural-gas pipelines can in some cases be adapted to carry hydrogen, but thousands of miles of pipe will still need to be laid and billions of dollars spent on new infrastructure to safely transport and store the highly explosive fuel.

In addition, creating universal standards and certification processes presents a further challenge, Mr. Bermúdez Menéndez says. “If I am Germany or Japan, I want to make sure that the hydrogen I import to my country from Morocco or Chile or Australia is really going to be low-carbon,” he adds. Ms. Hiller is a Wall Street Journal reporter in Houston, and Mr. Hodari is a Journal reporter in London. They can be reached at jennifer.hiller@wsj.com and david.hodari@wsj.com.

Geothermal drilling has been on the rise for the past six years.

A wind turbine under construction at Duran Mesa wind farm in New Mexico.

MIKE RADIGAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
 
That reminds me of a 2012 post, where there was a lot of low-hanging fruit to slow warming that actually had immediate (and local) benefits. It's a function of local wealth, though, since those communities are the ones that will have to enact the policies that protect them. We're not helping by living profligate and unsustainable lifestyles, obviously, since we're making the clock run faster.


There was a recent article in the respected scientific press regarding air pollution and global warming: both soot and methane contribute to AGW, but they both locally contribute to human disease. This makes these specific problems much like leaded gasoline, in that the efforts to curb the pollution will have direct benefits.

Of course, this will not stop global warming, and it certainly won't slow oceanic acidification. However, it will slow the warming.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ime-to-combat-climate-change-cut-soot-methane

by analyzing some 400 potential soot- and methane-emission control measures, the international team of researchers found that just 14 deliver "nearly 90 percent" of the potential benefits. Bonus: the 14 steps also restrain global warming by roughly 0.5 degree Celsius by 2050, according to computer modeling.
...
cutting those 14 together could avoid between 700,000 and 4.7 million premature deaths (largely from smoky, unhealthy air) and increase crop yields by between 30 million and 135 million metric tons (due to concomitant reductions in ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog, which forms from fugitive methane and blights crops in Brazil, China, India, the U.S. and elsewhere). In addition, the economic analysis suggests that many of these measures provide more value in benefits than they cost to implement.
 
The opening to The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson starts with a mass-death event in India due to a heat wave and insufficient power for air conditioning. As a novel, it's terrible, but as a predictor of what's to come, it's... uncomfortable.

From a review:

I just want to point out the first chapter though, because it's powerful and brilliant. What it is, is the account of an aid worker in Northern India during the first heat wave in recorded human history to hit a heavily populated area with a wet bulb temperature that is incompatible with human life. It's powerful because it's only fiction in that it hasn't happened yet. The current trajectory of climate change says this is inevitable by the end of the 21st century.
 

Our health and life expectancy is quite sensitive to air quality.
6 years life expectancy improvement realised in NL in the last decades.
During the second half of my lifetime air quality improved strongly although if you would have asked me thirty years ago whether it was bad, I would have said it was fine except in city traffic bicycling behind public transport busses.
And India looks clearly much worse than the NL air of my youth.

In plain language based on a RIVM (national public health body) report:
We live on average six years longer because of the European Air Policy
From the Dutch Planning agency Living Environment (Public Health Ministry) from Dec 2019

Air quality in the Netherlands has improved significantly in recent decades. This is the result of reductions in emissions in the Netherlands and bordering countries as a result of policy agreed at a European level. This article describes the extent of the health gains achieved and which countries and sectors have contributed most to this.

Increase in average life expectancy
In recent decades, European policy has led to a significant reduction in emissions of air pollutants in European countries. Public health in the Netherlands has benefited from international cooperation to combat cross-border air pollution. Health in neighboring countries has also benefited from the measures taken in the Netherlands.

In 2015, the reduced concentrations of air pollutants correspond to an increase in average life expectancy in the Netherlands of approximately 6 years. Far-reaching emission reductions at home and abroad are necessary to further improve air quality and further limit the health loss caused by air pollution.

https://www.pbl.nl/publicaties/we-leven-gemiddeld-zes-jaar-langer-door-het-europese-luchtbeleid

In NL in 1980 the Fine Dust Particles concentration was 59 microgram per m3.
Without regulations from estimates this would have grown in 2015 to 102 microgram per m3 on the back of general population growth and production growth.
In 2019 it was reduced to 12 microgram.
Whereby noted that these regulations increased the cost of production and because the FDP in wind know no borders, regulations had to be imposed jointly by the EU countries.
 
At COP26, countries strike climate deal that falls short

The big point is that they are not commiting to phase out coal, but calls for “efforts to phase down unabated coal power, and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. Not what we wanted or hoped for, but possibly the best that could happen.
 
Bidens response to one of the best ways to control global warming, high fossil fuel prices? Sell the strategic reserve to reduce them:

President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced the release of emergency oil reserves to combat high energy prices ahead of the busy holiday travel season

The Department of Energy will release 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to the White House -- the largest release from the reserve in US history, Biden said.
Biden on Tuesday noted that the administration's actions "will not solve the problem of high gas prices overnight."
"It will take time, but before long, you should see the price of gas drop where you fill up your tank," he said during his remarks. "And in the longer term, we will reduce our reliance on oil as we shift to clean energy."​

Also, I was complaining in one of these threads about how pushing heat pumps as the solution to domestic heaters is likely to cause an increase in the release of refrigerant gases which are strong green house gases. Even before this push HFC smuggling is a thing:

A BBC investigation has uncovered a black market in highly polluting greenhouse gases being smuggled into the UK from Eastern Europe.
The gases - hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) - are advertised and sold illegally via social media and the BBC found a trader suggesting smuggling them on coaches.

Bottles made and filled with the gases for under £30 in China can sell in the UK for more than £200.

The BBC found them openly advertised for sale on Facebook marketplace across the country.
We contacted one seller in North London. He was not registered to handle the gases and offered them for sale in disposable canisters - which have been outlawed since 2006.
The illegal HFCs trade was estimated to make up between 20% and 30% of the whole European market, according to a July report by the EIA.
p0b5vzs9.jpg
 
COP26 report: 2.4°C temperature increase by the end of the century IF all targets met
And, more importantly, IF anybody is stupid enough to believe any of the claimed current emission levels
that are being used as a base line.

We're just little pink frogs in a pot, turning up the heat under ourselves.
pinkfrogs.png


Pedants who are worried about the last line can substitute:
pot, kettle, black. :)
 
Last edited:
Bidens response to one of the best ways to control global warming, high fossil fuel prices? Sell the strategic reserve to reduce them:

President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced the release of emergency oil reserves to combat high energy prices ahead of the busy holiday travel season

The Department of Energy will release 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to the White House -- the largest release from the reserve in US history, Biden said.
Biden on Tuesday noted that the administration's actions "will not solve the problem of high gas prices overnight."
"It will take time, but before long, you should see the price of gas drop where you fill up your tank," he said during his remarks. "And in the longer term, we will reduce our reliance on oil as we shift to clean energy."​

Don't worry, we won't leave the US to destroy the environment alone.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news...gic-reserves/ar-AAR2XPp?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
 
Fusion would be most of the solution, but it is always a generation away.
Just to be clear, whenever people talk about harnessing 'fusion energy', no matter how Spaceman-Spiffy that sounds, we're still only working on the 'kettle-principle' — of using the reactor as a source of thermal energy, to superheat steam to run through turbines; then converting that mechanical energy to electrical energy — right?
 
Just to be clear, whenever people talk about harnessing 'fusion energy', no matter how Spaceman-Spiffy that sounds, we're still only working on the 'kettle-principle' — of using the reactor as a source of thermal energy, to superheat steam to run through turbines; then converting that mechanical energy to electrical energy — right?
That is a really good point. I assume that is the case, I cannot imagine how else to make electricity. Nature had a big article on it the other day, and did not mention that side of it, and none of the designs they talked about had any obvious way for that heat to be turned into 'leccy.

d41586-021-03528-w_19866110.png


[EDIT] I had to google, and iter says:

In ITER, this heat will be captured by cooling water circulating in the vessel walls and eventually dispersed through cooling towers. In the type of fusion power plant envisaged for the second half of this century, the heat will be used to produce steam and—by way of turbines and alternators—electricity.​
 
Last edited:
Our health and life expectancy is quite sensitive to air quality.
6 years life expectancy improvement realised in NL in the last decades.
During the second half of my lifetime air quality improved strongly although if you would have asked me thirty years ago whether it was bad, I would have said it was fine except in city traffic bicycling behind public transport busses.
And India looks clearly much worse than the NL air of my youth.

In plain language based on a RIVM (national public health body) report:


In NL in 1980 the Fine Dust Particles concentration was 59 microgram per m3.
Without regulations from estimates this would have grown in 2015 to 102 microgram per m3 on the back of general population growth and production growth.
In 2019 it was reduced to 12 microgram.
Whereby noted that these regulations increased the cost of production and because the FDP in wind know no borders, regulations had to be imposed jointly by the EU countries.

I'm not sure what size particles that data uses.

A recentish British study showed that extremely dangerous "ultra-fine particles" are not routinely
measured. Those particles are not stopped by recommended filters and masks, and surgeons have found
them in most patients' blood vessels, lungs and other organs, now that they know of their existence.

People who collected those particles did so while walking around busy London streets. They said that
afterwards they instinctively started walking as far from the side of busy roads as they could.

The closer people are to the exhaust of motor vehicles, the greater the risk. Their most serious
warning was to people with kids in prams and pushers who wait at pedestrian crossings while buses
(in particular) pass by. Those kids are sitting lower to the ground and therefore much closer to the
exhaust than the adults. The particles coalesce quickly and adults are not anywhere as much in danger
as kids. They also found particles inside buses, and that there were significantly greater amounts the
closer passengers are to the exhaust systems.

(I thought I had posted the reference to the study in another thread a couple of years back. Shrug.)
 
Just to be clear, whenever people talk about harnessing 'fusion energy', no matter how Spaceman-Spiffy that sounds, we're still only working on the 'kettle-principle' — of using the reactor as a source of thermal energy, to superheat steam to run through turbines; then converting that mechanical energy to electrical energy — right?

One hurdle rarely mentioned by proponents of fusion or fission is that rare elements are required
in the structures housing the reactors to prevent embrittlement. There is a huge demand for those
elements in many other industries and they can't be recycled in any way because they have been
transmuted.

Therefore, anyone wanting to build reactors needs to show that they have a guaranteed supply of
those elements for the lifetime of the plant. That's a pretty tall order. There are also a lot of
difficulties in estimating the cost of disposing of the plant after its useful life.

I've probably attached this reference from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists before, but here it
is again.
 

Attachments

I'm not sure what size particles that data uses.

A recentish British study showed that extremely dangerous "ultra-fine particles" are not routinely
measured. Those particles are not stopped by recommended filters and masks, and surgeons have found
them in most patients' blood vessels, lungs and other organs, now that they know of their existence.

People who collected those particles did so while walking around busy London streets. They said that
afterwards they instinctively started walking as far from the side of busy roads as they could.

The closer people are to the exhaust of motor vehicles, the greater the risk. Their most serious
warning was to people with kids in prams and pushers who wait at pedestrian crossings while buses
(in particular) pass by. Those kids are sitting lower to the ground and therefore much closer to the
exhaust than the adults. The particles coalesce quickly and adults are not anywhere as much in danger
as kids. They also found particles inside buses, and that there were significantly greater amounts the
closer passengers are to the exhaust systems.

(I thought I had posted the reference to the study in another thread a couple of years back. Shrug.)

That such ultra-fine particles are important, also considering that they come everywhere in your body, sounds more than plausible to me.
I don't know what size the Dutch RIVM all measured and IDK the sizes defined by the EU regulation.

What I do know is that after a fresh rain shower breathing is great and "the smell" feels great as well.
I also have much questions on indoor air quality. At home I have windows and/or doors opened whenever possible.
I had for my job to travel too much by plane and the worst of that for me was not the boring waiting etc, but the indoor quality of the air. When possible I used the very small airports where you could sit outside until very short for final boarding and waiting for luggage when arriving a nightmare helped to almost lways travel lite and almost escape the airport when arriving.
 
One hurdle rarely mentioned by proponents of fusion or fission is that rare elements are required
in the structures housing the reactors to prevent embrittlement. There is a huge demand for those
elements in many other industries and they can't be recycled in any way because they have been
transmuted.

Therefore, anyone wanting to build reactors needs to show that they have a guaranteed supply of
those elements for the lifetime of the plant. That's a pretty tall order. There are also a lot of
difficulties in estimating the cost of disposing of the plant after its useful life.

I've probably attached this reference from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists before, but here it
is again.

Those scarce materials are an issue everywhere of a growing nature.
I was sideways for my job involved in the Beryllium cladding for neutron shields (the ITER project). But there is not that much Beryllium readily available on Earth.

But also Helium.
We have recently this thread here on the forum on using Helium for blimps (as green air transport).
But Helium is a real achilles-heel there. It is available but (from its inert nature) not bound to other elements and from its low molecular weight always leaking in outher space. Helium will leak through practical everything.
And considering its unique phyical properties an absolute shame that it is wasted as gig in parties (you get a Donal Duck voice) and imo also a shame to waste it in blimps.

And whereas you can still mine Uranium, Beryllium etc still with specific algae etc out of the big oceans (that big garbage heap) at some bio-engineering risks, you cannot recover Helium that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom