Emission reduction – Page 4

April 28, 2023April 27, 2023

UK government backsliding on environment? two clues and an how is Australia doing

The government of the UK has been talking the talk for a significant period of time. At times they have suggested some policies that should move in the right direction, unfortunately they have often reversed these relatively quickly.

An example of this is the governments green housing grants – advertised as intending to improve the UK housing to work more efficiency. Unfortunately, it was cut too soon, had perhaps 1% of the investment needed to get the whole job done, and proved to merely be a handout to building companies.

So what has caught my eye this time?

A suggestion that oil and gas can be part of the UK net zero strategy? No carbon capture scheme (CCS) has ever worked large scale, and furthermore, none have captured all of the pollution. Far from moving away to fossil fuels, the UK intends to create a new wave of oil and gas exploration – and trying to justify this by suggesting that all the carbon will be caught. Of 13 CCS projects carried out recently, a study found that – 1 was cancelled before start, 2 failed, 7 underperformed, which leaves only 3 to have succeeded. A success rate of 23%. Looking back, out of the 39 million tonnes of carbon dioxide caught worldwide through CCS, more than 70% was used for Enhanced Oil Recovery – in other words of the 3 projects that performed, less than 1 of them would have actually helped to reduce carbon emissions. SO ARE WE ACTUALLY TRYING TO CUT EMISSION IN THE UK?
The UK has just scrapped a top climate diplomatic role. As roles like this are one of the simple ways that a country shows what its priorities- countries who are paying attention will be saying this means that the UK is no longer concentrating on global warming. The FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) said the climate crisis remained of “utmost importance” – while this may be true ?!? it certainly sends the wrong signal.

How is Australia doing?

We need to start reducing emissions at some point – this seems self evident, if we are to meet any of our carbon reduction goals. In Australia the labour and Greens have done a deal that might actually improve policy covering Australia’s biggest polluters.

While the new ideas is complicated, it changes the safeguard mechanism to take the country closer to meeting the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

While Australia’s government has been talking the right talk recently, the Australian newspapers have published fear mongering by the fossil fuel companies – forcing up prices, put domestic gas supply at risk, destroy jobs and “kill foreign investment” in the coal industry, The Daily Telegraph published a story which claimed the changes to the safeguard mechanism would risk $96 billion of energy projects – and that should be seen as “coal hard facts”.

One coal boss told the Australian that the changes to the safeguard mechanism were built on a political objective to push a “base demonisation of fossil fuels” that would threaten Australias role as a “Reliable energy exporter” for the region. This is so completely illiterate of the science as to be laughable (if it was not for the fact that many people will listen).

A former editor of the Australian Chris Mitchel wrote that Environmental journalists and the “left media” were “in a frenzy” over the most recent release from the UNs climate panel – he claimed that they are missing the elephant in the room, that climate change has failed to arrive.

Despite what many in the fossil fuel industry wish to claim, it is not hard to see climate change, indeed it is all around us. Mitchell claimed that the world would not, and could not do without fossil fuels – though if you don’t believe that the climate has been effected, then this is an easier position to reach.

What is clear, is that while the voices against doing what i needed to leave a world we wish to for future generations, have not shut up, in most instances they are not winning.

April 21, 2023April 27, 2023

Another report stresses the importance of rewilding for climate change, and reintroductions

A report has calculated that the reintroduction of 9 species would do so much benefit to the ecosystems that they are found in, that these reintroductions would help us to keep global warming to 1.5° C.

While some of these would require human adaption, many would have benefits far beyond climate change.

These species are

April 13, 2023April 11, 2023

Can nuclear fusion replace fossil fuels?

So, one of the arguments from the fossil fuel lobby for the last 150 years is that their product is essential. The fossil fuels are the only people who can produce the base load of electricity for the grid.

There are loads of other things that can take parts of this (this is the arguments that the fossil fuel lobby put forth) such as wind turbines and solar panels – the problem is that both of these are only available some of the time. If electricity can be carried many thousands of miles, then tidal power might be able to help with this but not in the near future.

When Nuclear fission was first brought in, it was predicted that this would be the perfect base load. Unfortunately not, people don’t like living in places where a meltdown might occur, there is a large amount of nuclear material created, which needs storing for very long periods of times.

Nuclear fusion is different. It is incredibly hard to get it working, taking vast amounts of energy, and goes out if it goes out of control. As a result, a nuclear fusion plant cannot melt down, and you could not make a nuclear fusion bomb.

We are finally making some progress, though as it has always been, predictions as to when it will be ready lie 2 decades out. As if on schedule, late last year the UK government said that the world first nuclear fusion plant could generate carbon free energy by 2040 (18 years out). It is true that the government is putting hundreds of millions of pounds towards this goal, but it is still to far out – in other words, if it takes that long, the human race will need to have cut carbon emissions to near zero without the help of nuclear fusion. Indeed even the EU has referred to it as a possible way to save us from climate change – however, given there is still so much research to be done, we cannot rely on this.

This plant in Nottinghamshire could be replacing coal power plants in the future, though coal is being rapidly phased out anyway. In theory, it is calculated that nuclear fusion could create 4 million times as much energy with the same space, as coal oil or gas.

It is an exciting prospect, and the UK is one of the countries leading the way, never-the-less we are no where near that yet.

April 12, 2023April 11, 2023

Is the soft power of the fossil fuel industry slowing our move away?

The first papers linking carbon emissions and fossil fuel burning were released a long time ago. How long ago? Try John Henry of the Smithsonian Institution at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in 1856. Entitled, “Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays,” the paper was the first research linking increased carbon dioxide with warmer air.

That is 166 years ago!

We recognize that fossil fuels are the problem, yet their paid lobbyists continue to get access to politicians across the globe.

It is true that fossil fuel companies usually have little real power. Instead, they rely on the power they get through donating money to people of influence. How can we break this “soft power”?

What have they done?

Spent literally billions on controling the conversation about global warming, and changing the topic of the conversation. For instance what is your carbon footprint? Is something that they have pushed hard – by making everyone think about their own carbon footprint, they move who needs to act, from them to their customers. They also include creating so-called climate solutions, taking tiny percentages of their profits -in an effort to look like they are working for humanity.
They have also invested huge amounts into so-called education of the next generation (obviously in their way of thinking).
Funding of sports and other things that might influence young people, and in a similar way, arts and culture. Even allowing an oil companies logo to be put on a wall of a museum without explanation is likely to give them a subconscious boost, quite unfair – and something that the museum should never wish to do.

March 31, 2023March 23, 2023

Reducing gas reliance in the UK power sector from 40% down to 1% in 7 years, and saving money? Really?

A new analysis shows that Britain can cut gas use from the power sector by 2030 (5 years early compared to current targets) and that this would save large amounts of money.

A gas power plant: could these be a thing of the past in the next 7 years? photo credit David Price

How much do you say? it is thought to amount to £93 billion saved, by avoiding fossil gas consumption.

March 30, 2023March 23, 2023

Dairy without the animal?

In the west, for a large portion of the population a not insignificant proportion of their nutrients come from dairy. Unfortunately, though, this dairy requires various livestock to be kept, which are causing the methane emissions that are such a problem.

I have written before about milk without the cow, but this appears to be making some progress.

A company called Imagindairy is using a technique called precision fermentation. In a similar way to brewing beer, it uses microorganisms that have been genetically modified to produce casein and whey proteins, which is what makes up milk. A similar company called perfect day, is already creating similar products in the USA. However, with no lactose, hormones or cholesterol, which might one day make foods such as mozzarella or cream cheese a healthy option to eat. With the capacity to cut emissions on dairy products by as much as 97% it could also make it as good for the environment as vegetables.

March 26, 2023March 21, 2023

Subsidies are supposed to support what are good, and not what are bad, so why has the UK government spent 20 billion more on fossil fuels than renewables in the last 8 years?

The UK likes to be seen as a country pulling its weight when it comes to the climate change battle. Unfortunately, they give the game away though when they subsidize fossil fuels by 20 billion more than they do renewables.

What is worse, is that 1/5 of the money for fossil fuels went to directly support new extraction and mining.

In the last 8 years, 60 billion has been spent supporting renewable energy generation, however 80 billion has gone on fossil fuels. Indeed 2020 was the first year when renewables got more money than fossil fuels, but each year since fossil fuels are back ahead.

The government claimed that this analysis was misleading as we would still need some fossil fuels as part of our move towards our net zero target – while this might explain why we need some fossil fuel investment, it does not explain why this little need is greater than the money we need to put into renewables – which must eventually supply all our energy needs.

March 25, 2023March 21, 2023

UK: talking the talk, but not walking the walk on net zero, the ban on onshore wind turbines stays in place

58% of Conservative voters want more solar and onshore wind turbines. Despite this, the current Chancellor in the UK has just decided to leave this ban in place. They have to be called out on this. On shore wind turbines are the cheapest way to make electricity bar none.

This is completely in contradiction to what they are saying. Jeremy Hunt has just released his budget, which includes £20 billion, which will include small nuclear reactor. The energy security minister, Grant Shapps stated

“Already a leader in offshore wind power, we now want to do the same for the UK’s nuclear and carbon capture industries, which in turn will help cut the wholesale electricity prices to among the lowest in Europe”.

This is true, but how much further would we be, if the leading government stopped listening to a small minority of voters, and bought back onshore wind power. This would be good for our emissions, price of power as well as being fantastic for farmers, who can host wind turbines, and be paid for it

March 24, 2023March 23, 2023

Could English channel ferries be electric within 5 years?

COP26 called for 6 green shipping corridors, and Dover Calais is an obvious place for this. The crossing is just 22 miles, but with over 400 ships crossing a day, it could make a big difference. Thankfully rival operators have signed up – both covering freight and passenger travel. Of course, it is a big risk to be left out as should this work any company still having to buy fuel will quickly go out of business.

This is obviously small compared to the size of P&O channel crossing ferries, but they are coming in fast

Industrial sized electric charging would be required to be installed, so that while the ships unload and then reload, the batteries can be recharged. it would require a large battery, likely using several megawatt hours per trip. Of course, while this is a great deal, it is far less than the fuel that is currently used.

February 28, 2023February 28, 2023

Despite the promise to reverse their insane ban on on-shore wind turbines, there are fears that this what is going to happen

On-shore wind-turbines are far and away the cheapest (currently) and easiest form of renewable power to roll out. The UK is targeting net zero emissions by 2050 (as well as a 68% reduction on 1990 levels by 2030), so any rejection of the cheapest and one of the simplest means of power generation goes against all this. More urgent, the aim is to have a power grid that is 100% green by 2035 – just 12 years away.

Why should a very noisy minority be able to stop the countries efforts to cut our carbon footprint.

The simple fact is, that farmers up and down the country can make good extra money by hosting turbines. Whether crops or grazing is the primary use of the land, wind turbines take up a tiny proportion of the land, and have no discernible effect on output.