Sustainable development and much more » Coal

China could introduce a carbon tax in 2015

Edouard — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:36:33 +0000

China is facing a grim future because of climate change, massive pollutions and increasing prices of fossil fuels. To curb its booming energy consumption, it may soon introduce a carbon tax. As China Daily noted :

” China is considering levying a carbon tax within the next three years to tighten its regulations on polluting industries and put the economy on a greener path. (…) The main targets of the tax will be large users of coal, crude oil and natural gas.”

Even if some analysts have called this a hoax, Climate Spectator reminds us the many reasons why a carbon tax is actually the way to go for China, but also for ALL nations…

Air pollution costs billions to the European Union

Edouard — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:21:51 +0000

Here is my latest post on Cleantechies : “The European Environment Agency published in November a report on the cost, the toll, of air pollution due to industrial facilities to the European Union. “

” And the costs are staggering as the 10,000 facilities induced up to 102 and 169 billion euros in 2009 alone. However, a small number of these plants are responsible for the vast majority of this pollution. “

As usual to keep reading the article, please check it out there. I hope you will like it and look forward to reading your comments.

Climate change : China faces a grim future

Edouard — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:00:32 +0000

To Reuters quoting a local scientific report : ” Global warming threatens China’s march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods. “

“China faces extremely grim ecological and environmental conditions under the impact of continued global warming and changes to China’s regional environment,”

Given how the situation is dire already, one can wonder how it could be even worse… This sure explains why the People’s Republic is acting so massively on cleantech.

Indeed when I read Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse, the pollution was already more than alarming in China. The chapter on the nation’s problems was already truly horrifying. Since then, it has even worsened. How could it be in ten years ?

This can be explained by many factors, but here is the main one : albeit China’s effort on cleantech, it is resorting massively to coal.

As Climate Progress notes :

That country’s use of coal has increased 500% since 1980, made up almost three quarters of Asian consumption, and half of global consumption last year.

(…) Under a do-nothing, business-as-usual scenario, the agency predicts China’s continued use of coal will increase carbon emissions so dramatically, the country’s climate pollution levels will double the U.S. in the next 15 years.

China has been deploying renewables at an astonishing pace. But its use of coal has far outpaced any sort of clean technologies being installed.

This explains why China is going so fast and so big on cleantech : it is for them a question of life or death…

The triple crisis, two years on

Edouard — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:00:21 +0000

One of my very first post in 2010 was about what I was calling the triple crisis. As I noted back then ” our economies are crumbling, our climate is warming and our energy supplies are getting scarcer. “

You would think that after two years, we would have started to do something about them. Well, from what I see, we haven’t. Unemployment is still high, we are still as reliant on oil and coal and our climate is getting weirder.

This is the beginning of my latest article on Cleantechies. To read further, please go there. As always, comments and shares are more than welcome. Enjoy !

Too much uncertainty on CCS

Edouard — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:51:35 +0000

I blogged two years ago that CCS won’t solve the climate change problem as it is too risky, too expansive, too little and… too late. Joe Romm, the main contributor behind Climate Progress recently noted :

” There are simply too many unanswered questions for anyone to say today that we could rely on large-scale deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage in the 2030s as a major climate solution. “

Since we need to slash our emissions NOW – and certainly not by 2030 – we can see how useless CCS is. We should work on real solutions instead : energy efficiency, sobriety, renewables and nuclear.

China & the USA to ban incandescent light bulbs

Edouard — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:56:09 +0000

Incandescent light bulbs are a relic of the past, a vastly inefficient past. Modern alternatives like CFLs and LEDs consume five to ten times less energy. For these reasons, the European Union or Australia have already phased them out.

More countries will be doing the same, namingly the United States and China. The latter will start banning 100-watt bulbs in October 2012. Last year over a billion of these bulbs were sold in the People’s Republic.

To Grist : ” The ban will save China 48 billion kilowatt hours of power per year. Which, if I’m doing my math right, is the equivalent of almost 100 nuclear reactors or large coal-fired power plants. “

Coal is the enemy of the human race

Edouard — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:36:54 +0000

The Economist noted as early as 2002 that coal is the environmental enemy number one. Yet, it is still used a lot to generate electricity at cheap prices. But this doesn’t even make economic sense.

To Grist : ” Electricity from coal imposes more damages on the U.S. economy than the electricity is worth. That’s right: Coal-fired power is a net value-subtracting industry.”

As a matter of facts, coal costs the US economy $53 billion per year in gross external damages (GED). How much does it cost globally ? That would be interesting to know !

Why continuing the Kyoto Protocol is crucial

Edouard — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:30:30 +0000

To TreeHugger : ” If (the) Kyoto Protocol dies at COP17 climate talks, so does our climate “. This article reminds us that the next round of UNFCC climate talks will start in less than two months in Durban, South Africa.

It also reminds us that it is the only law we have on a global level on climate and that even if the United States are still not part of the process it is working (quite) well as developed nations decreased their emissions since 1990.

Due to end in 2012, the Kyoto Protocol might not be perfect but really got us moving on climate and energy issues.

This is why we really need to create a successor that will bring all nations to cut their emissions and truly embrace sustainable development.

Beyond pure climate, I believe the successor should also mention energy topics. We are uncertain whether we reached peak oil or not. But we know one thing : we are at the end of conventional oil.

Besides, coal is also nearing its end, albeit it will occur much more later. If China and the Appalachia have reached this point, it won’t occur on a global scale anytime soon. But this particular energy source is by far the dirtiest of them all.

In the meantime, solar energies and wind power are more and more cost-competitive. Other renewables and energy efficiency are also gaining traction.

Not only do we need to keep the ball rolling, we need it to accelerate many times over if we want to have a chance to keep living quite comfortably…

Renewables provide 20 % of German electricity

Edouard — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 04:55:47 +0000

This has made quite the headlines on environmental blogs and newspapers. As TreeHugger puts it : ” Germany now produces 20.8% of its electricity from renewable sources. That’s an increase of 15 percentage points since 2000 “

Now, let’s congratulate the main European economic powerhouse for that. The Germans truly deserve it and we got to give credit where credit is due. But, to me their decision to ditch nuclear – and doing it so fast – is a bad decision.

This is the case for two reasons : 1. the country will have to build new coal and gas fired plants ; 2. Its electricity is already much dirtier than the European average.

All this occurs as the IEA points to the fact that ” Chances to limit rising temps “bleaker ”. As I noted previously in front of the massive climate and energy scarcity problems, it is not about nuclear OR renewables as we need both of them.

I noted this week that natural gas isn’t a solution to curb our emissions…

Oddly enough, even if Germany has shut some of its reactors, it keeps on relying nuclear as it is importing some from neighboring countries like the Czech Republic or France. See this interesting article on Der Spiegel for more.

Where the United Kingdom embraced pragmatism and uses all possibilities – efficiency, renewables and nuclear – to stop climate change and slash its emissions, Germany has remained dogmatic because of the Greens and thus ditched nuclear. Schade !

Natural gas is a bridge fuel to nowhere

Edouard — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 04:50:00 +0000

This is the conclusion of a new study carried out by the US NCAR. In their conclusion, they note : ” substitution of gas for coal as an energy source results in increased rather than decreased global warming for many decades “

Climate Progress notes: ” The fact that natural gas is a bridge fuel to nowhere was first shown by the IEA in its big June report on gas. That study made clear that if we want to avoid catastrophic warming, we need to start getting off of all fossil fuels. “

I guess this should warn governments and companies worldwide that we have to seriously work on efficiency and renewables. And the faster, the better.

Here is another extract of the Climate Progress post :

BOTTOM LINE: If you want to have a serious chance at averting catastrophic global warming, then we need to start phasing out all fossil fuels as soon as possible.

Natural gas isn’t a bridge fuel from a climate perspective. Carbon-free power is the bridge fuel until we can figure out how to go carbon negative on a large scale in the second half of the century.

Would this carbon-free power include nuclear ? You have my opinion…

Replacing old coal plants with energy efficiency

Edouard — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 04:45:58 +0000

According to the ACEEE * : ” Changes in fossil fuel markets and updates to environmental regulations may result in the retirement of existing coal-fired plants, putting on the order of 40 GW of generation at risk of retirement.”

” The investments required for replacing or upgrading these plants would raise electricity rates for all customers. Customer-side investments in energy efficiency and combined heat and power can replace this capacity at a lower cost. “

This is by no mean really new as we have already discussed about such topics many times over. This just brings further evidence, which is always useful.

By keeping on hammering the message, hopefully it will get through. At least this study might bring the topic back to the surface. In any case, this is much welcome as it brings further evidence.

As The Energy Collective notes :

These customer-side investments will have the added benefit of enhancing communities by creating more efficient, modern infrastructure that can result in more jobs and a more robust economy. Achieving this level of energy efficiency investment will not be easy.

Enabling these investments will require significant changes in the utility regulatory business model to allow utilities to make customer-side investments and be allowed to earn a preferred rate of return. ACEEE will shortly release another white paper that explores the details of this changed business model.

It has often been observed that crisis and opportunity are inextricably linked, as a crisis encourages us to push the envelope of innovation and accomplish feats we didn’t think we were capable of.

The so-called “coal train wreck” may afford just such an opportunity to modernize our electric utility regulations to reflect a new century of different economic and energy markets, creating opportunities for the utility industry to define a new path to sustained profitability by selling efficiency services not just electricity, while ensuring reliable and affordable power to their customers.

If you want to learn out more, please do check out the study or the article.

* ACEEE stands for American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. A very nice name…

Down with coal ! 12 inspiring stories

Edouard — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:45:34 +0000

Coal is the environmental enemy #1. It releases huge amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere and pollutes our soil and water. So when Grist writes on how 12 communities around the world stopped the expansion of coal I had to share.

This happens as ” According to 2010 projections by the EIA, coal consumption in the non-OECD world will increase by 23 quadrillion BTUs between 2007 and 2020. That’s roughly the equivalent of (…) a thousand coal-fired generators. “

The 12 examples taken from the article are from Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Australia, Colombia and the Philippines.

Here is an extract of the introduction :

Local populations are resisting private and public-sector pressure to dramatically expand coal-fired power because these projects are not intended for their benefit. While local people face displacement and the destruction of their livelihoods, electricity is often exported to urban centers.

Communities are calling for a more sustainable model of energy development that prioritizes access to energy services for all, environmental sustainability, and human health. Their efforts to halt coal-plant construction have placed them front and center in the struggle over energy and development in the 21st century.

In the past, most communities struggling to take on ill-conceived projects have done so largely on their own, but that’s starting to change.

International coalitions are beginning to develop to bring publicity and support to front-line efforts. Here are a dozen places around the world where people are uniting to halt coal projects, increasingly with international support.

The article is pretty long and detailed, so take your time and enjoy !

Meanwhile, the consumption of the dirty stuff is stagnating or declining in the United States and the European Union and this shouldn’t change in the next decades.

Poland and Lithuania are thinking about nuclear

Edouard — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:13:42 +0000

While the decisions of both Germany and Switzerland to stop using nuclear made headlines, little has been written about Poland ‘s thinking about building two nuclear reactors, which would be build by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.

The reactors could go online in 2020 if an agreement was signed in 2014. The capacity would reach 3,000 MW. The country relies on highly polluting coal for 94 percent of its electricity to date. (source)

As its electricity consumption is due to increase over the next decades significantly, and as something has to be done on climate change, it is willing to diversify its energy sources.

Meanwhile, Lithuania is thinking about replacing an old soviet-era reactor with a new model from GE as well as Bloomberg noted earlier this month.

As Bloomberg notes :

The Lithuanian project, GE’s record of on-time delivery and its presence in Poland should give it a competitive edge against rivals that may include Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC and France’s Areva SA, according to Daniel L. Roderick, senior vice president of nuclear plant projects.

“We will be very aggressive about our bid,” Roderick said in an interview in Warsaw on July 28. “Running two projects at the same time close to each other could help us reduce costs. Also, a lot of the workforce and materials for the Lithuanian plant will come from Poland,” he said.

Peak coal to occur in 2027

Edouard — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 05:00:08 +0000

In a bit more than 15 little years, the entire world may face declining coal production. This was the subject of a post on The Oil Drum. This is a huge problem as to date it accounts for 41 percent of the world’s electricity (IEA 2010).

” World coal production is dominated by China. China’s coal production is projected to peak in 2027 with a peak production level of 5.1 billion tons. World (excluding China)’s coal production is projected to peak in 2027.“

This is not entirely new as I wrote a post two years ago stating that peak coal could occur as early as 2025. What are we waiting for to push efficiency and alternatives ? China is doing it already, but will it be enough ?

American Power, by Mitch Epstein

Edouard — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:43:18 +0000

Today I went to see the American Power photo exhibit at the Fondation Henri Cartier Bresson, in Paris. Pictures are the result of years – from 2003 to 2009 – of travel and photography by Mitch Epstein.

I believe these pictures clearly enable us to witness how energy, power, is shaping and altering the United States. Some pictures are oppressing – like the one on the left – while others are depressing. (A few however left me indifferent…)

All these pictures make us question our addiction to energy, or rather energies. It personnally increased my determination to push forward the best energy source of all : efficiency.

(the latter being rather invisible, this goes well into the purpose of the exhibit…)

Here is the story behind these great photographs :

It was the fall of 2003 and I had been hired to photograph a town in the process of being erased. The American Electric Power Company had paid residents of Cheshire a lump sum to leave, never come back, and never complain in the media or in court if they became sick from environmental contaminates spewed out of the AEP plant. The company was buying itself a lawsuit-free future. Back in New York, I could not get Cheshire out of my mind.

(…) Six months later, in the spring of 2004, I began to make pictures of the production and consumption of energy in the United States. I wanted to photograph the relationship between American society and the American landscape, and energy was the linchpin; this much I had gleaned from Cheshire.

Energy—how it was made, how it got used, and the ramifications of both—would therefore be my focus. For the next five years, I traveled the country making photographs at or near energy production sites: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, fuel cell, wind, and solar. It was a strange kind of tourism: energy tourism.

As it was the last day of the exhibit in Paris, you can always see it on the official website : whatisamericanpower.com. I look forward to reading your opinion. In any case, enjoy !

Australia to price CO2 emissions in 2012

Edouard — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:30:49 +0000

According to the BBC quoting Julia Gillard, the Australian Prime Minister : “As a nation, we need to put a price on carbon and create a clean energy future… Australians want to do the right thing by the environment.”

As they note : ” The Australian government has unveiled plans to impose a tax on carbon emissions for the worst polluters. Prime Minister Julia Gillard said carbon dioxide emissions would be taxed at A$23 ($25; £15, 17€) per tonne from 2012. “

These are good news as ” Australia is one of the world’s worst emitters of greenhouse gases per head of population. The country relies on coal for 80% of its electricity generation.”

Reuters give us additional information on the likely winners and losers of such a decision :

Australian retail and clean-energy stocks are expected to be among the winners, and airlines and miners among the losers, from a carbon-reduction plan unveiled on Sunday, but markets overall are tipped to take the policy in their stride.

(…) The clearest winners should be the Australian market’s small band of renewable-energy stocks, given that the government announced the creation of a A$10 billion ($10.8 billion) clean-energy fund to finance clean-energy projects or technologies.

This reminds me that at some point France was due to put a price on carbon and finally didn’t. I just hope it won’t be the case for Australia as well. The country really needs to slash its emissions.

Indeed, according to the data calculated by the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) quoted by Wikipedia, Australians emit nearly 18 tonnes of CO2 per inhabitant.

(In comparison, Germany is around 10 tonnes and France, six tonnes… )

Is liquefied coal really what we need ?

Edouard — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 04:00:23 +0000

An article from Cleantechies pointed out that according to a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) liquefied coal may become an economically viable fuel option by 2015. Further to this, I left a comment :

” Just as we are thinking about solving the climate/energy equation by ditching coal, some are willing to put it in our car tanks… Shouldn’t we concentrate on REAL alternatives instead ? Ones that actually cut our emissions and pollutions ? ”

” It’s not as if the climate was getting weirder and weirder and it is not as if coal cost half a trillion to the USA each year in externalities… What about peak coal ? “

” Seeing how some think about relying to some 1920’s dirty tech when we need 2020’s clean tech, that just gets me mad… ”

On a side note, while looking for an illustration for this article I came accross an interesting post :

Some alternative vehicle fuels such as liquid coal can cause more harmful greenhouse gas emissions than petrol or diesel, scientists warn.

“Liquid coal, for example, can produce 80% more global warming pollution than [petrol],” says the US non-profit environmental group, the Union of Concerned Scientists.

So no, liquefied coal is simply not a solution for our personal mobility needs (just like biofuels).

More walking, biking, public transportation are solutions. Electric cars won’t replace all current cars but are, to me, a good solution.

More efficiency, wind power and nuclear for China

Edouard — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 04:00:34 +0000

As the world’s first energy consumer and greenhouse gases emitter, the People’s Republic of China is under closed scrutiny from energy analysts. Last week, not one or two but three different news caught my attention on this country.

The climate situation there is dreadful as according to CNN massive floods forced 1.6 million people to evacuate their homes. It is indeed high time for all of us to act as forcefully as China is. It indeed seems the local government got it right.

Massive plans on energy efficiency, renewables and nuclear are planned in order to curb the increasing reliance of the country on coal and oil, two major pollution sources.

On energy efficiency. As the New York Times note :

The Chinese government is considering plans to subsidize the use of energy-efficient materials and renewable energy technologies in new buildings and is encouraging provincial and municipal governments to impose stricter efficiency standards than the national minimums, Chinese officials said Wednesday.

China’s heightened interest in saving energy — a response to electricity shortages and blackouts this year as well as longer-term security worries about dependence on energy imports — comes as the country’s construction industry continues to barrel ahead at a breathtaking pace.

(…) Chinese estimates show that the country’s commercial office buildings use 10 to 20 percent less electricity per square meter than comparable Western buildings. But the savings tend to come not from better designs but from thermostats set as high as 26 degrees Celsius (79 Fahrenheit) in summer and as low as 18 degrees (64 Fahrenheit) in winter.

Nota : On the last point, we should do the same here. This is what I call energy sobriety…

—

On wind energy. To People’s Daily Online :

In the next five years, China will boost its offshore wind power installed capacity to 5 gigawatts and form a complete technology and industrial chain. Afterward, China’s offshore wind power will enter into a phase of large-scale development and is estimated to reach 30 gigawatts in 2020, according to the energy plan and renewable energy plan during the 12th Five-Year Plan.

The National Energy Bureau (NEB) will launch preparation work for the second public bidding on offshore wind power concession projects in the second half year of 2011 and is scheduled to complete the bidding in the first half year of 2012. The total construction scale will be between 1.5 gigawatts and 2 gigawatts, according to news from a symposium on offshore wind power held in Nantong City of east China’s Jiangsu Province on June 22.

—

On nuclear energy. To Indian Express :

China, which suspended approvals for new nuclear plans following the radiation crisis in a Japanese plant, would soon begin the approval process. China could resume the approval process for new nuclear power projects by mid-2012, the state-run China Daily reported today.

“To restart the approval procedure in one year is the optimistic estimate, but the country will definitely lift the suspension in two years,” Director of the research centre of the China Nuclear Energy Association Zheng Yuhui was quoted as saying by the paper.

(…) The crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant might delay some new projects in China, but it will not stop the country from achieving its target of building 70 to 80 gigawatts (gW) of installed production capacity by the end of 2020, Shen Wenquan, a member of the expert committee of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corp Ltd said.

—

To conclude, I think China got it right.

The country is indeed working on the three parts of the low carbon energy : efficiency, renewables and nuclear. So, I still believe the People’s Republic will win the cleantech arms race…

IEA: Chances to limit rising temps “bleaker”

Edouard — Mon, 30 May 2011 13:22:05 +0000

To the IEA : ” CO2 emissions reach a record high in 2010; 80% of projected 2020 emissions from the power sector are already locked in. Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history. ”

” After a dip in 2009 caused by the global financial crisis, emissions are estimated to have climbed to a record 30.6 Gigatonnes (Gt), a 5% jump from the previous record year in 2008, when levels reached 29.3 Gt. ”

” In addition, (…) 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today. ”

The depressing news keep going :

“This significant increase in CO2 emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2ºC,” said Dr Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the IEA who oversees the annual World Energy Outlook, the Agency’s flagship publication.

Global leaders agreed a target of limiting temperature increase to 2°C at the UN climate change talks in Cancun in 2010. For this goal to be achieved, the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be limited to around 450 parts per million of CO2-equivalent…

(…) “Our latest estimates are another wake-up call,” said Dr Birol. “The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2ºC target is to be attained.

Given the shrinking room for manœuvre in 2020, unless bold and decisive decisions are made very soon, it will be extremely challenging to succeed in achieving this global goal agreed in Cancun.”

In terms of fuels, 44% of the estimated CO2 emissions in 2010 came from coal, 36% from oil, and 20% from natural gas.

The challenge of improving and maintaining quality of life for people in all countries while limiting CO2 emissions has never been greater. While the IEA estimates that 40% of global emissions came from OECD countries in 2010, these countries only accounted for 25% of emissions growth compared to 2009.

Non-OECD countries – led by China and India – saw much stronger increases in emissions as their economic growth accelerated.

Related posts:

IEA : Global CO2 emissions decreased

A look at the carbon emissions of electricity

A bad omen for the Cancun climate talks

The major threat of rising sea levels : the science

GHG emissions keep increasing: 2010 hottest year

India to add 17 GW of renewables by 2017

Edouard — Fri, 13 May 2011 08:37:19 +0000

According to Cleantechnica : ” India plans to invest $37 billion (26 billion euros) to create 17,000 MW of renewable energy generation by 2017, the ministry for new & renewable energy has said. ”

” The present installed renewable energy capacity in India is 20,000 MW which accounts for 11% of the total installed power capacity. The major share ofpower still comes from coal which accounts for 40% of the country’s energy usage. “

The country is currently the third largest energy consumer, behind China and the United States. However, its per capita consumption is well below Western standards.

The article goes on and brings further interesting details :

The Indian government had quadrupled its renewable energy targets earlier this year as part of its national plan to reduce carbon intensity which aimed at installing 74.4 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2022 and reduction in carbon emissions intensity by 20-25% of 2005 levels over the next decade.

(…) India is already one of the leading wind energy market, with over 14,000 MW installed. India’s leading wind energy company Suzlon is the third largest wind energy technology provider globally and holds almost 10 percent of the total global market share.

Here are some extracts from Wikipedia about the country’s energy policy :

About 70% of India’s energy generation capacity is from fossil fuels, with coal accounting for 40% of India’s total energy consumption followed by crude oil and natural gas at 24% and 6% respectively.

India is largely dependent on fossil fuel imports to meet its energy demands — by 2030, India’s dependence on energy imports is expected to exceed 53% of the country’s total energy consumption.

In 2009-10, the country imported 159.26 million tonnes of crude oil which amount to 80% of its domestic crude oil consumption and 31% of the country’s total imports are oil imports. The growth of electricity generation in India has been hindered by domestic coal shortage and as a consequence, India’s coal imports for electricity generation increased by 18% in 2010.

Due to rapid economic expansion, India has one of the world’s fastest growing energy markets and is expected to be the second-largest contributor to the increase in global energy demand by 2035, accounting for 18% of the rise in global energy consumption.

Related posts:

India will invest 2.3 trillion in low carbon tech

Renewables outpace other fuels in Europe and US

Indian renewable energy capacity grows rapidly

A 13 GW project of wind and solar for India

China wants 500 GW of renewables by 2020

Carbon Capture and Storage fails to deliver

Edouard — Mon, 09 May 2011 17:49:12 +0000

You may perhaps remember it, the International Energy Agency is banking a lot on carbon capture and storage (CCS). Indeed, the IEA believes that it could account for 15 % of greenhouse gases emissions reductions.

However, CleanTechnica got an interesting article on how this solution fails to deliver. One of the main reasons is that ” globally there are now fewer than half a dozen full-scale CCS projects in operation around the world. “

I believe we should stop banking on this technology. I previously wrote that it won’t solve the climate change problem as it is is too risky, too expansive, too little and… too late.

This technology would be used for coal and natural gas fired plants. But we have seen that improving efficiency of our economies and increasing energy sobriety would do wonders. I previously noted that the USA could be coal-free by 2030. Thus, they wouldn’t need CCS to cut their emissions.

If America can cut its emissions by saying bye-bye to coal by 2030, I believe the older members of the EU could too. (It would prove tricky in some Western European nations where coal is still behind the huge majority of electricity production. )

And you, do you believe in CCS ?

Related posts:

IEA believes carbon capture and storage is crucial

Carbon Capture and Storage works !

More and more tests of Carbon Capture and Storage

Can Australia become carbon neutral by 2020 ?

Coal costs the United States $500 billion each year

Is natural gas really worse than coal ?

Edouard — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:23:11 +0000

This week the New York Times ran another great article on energy, this time on why natural gas may be worse than coal, regarding climate change. Until now, this energy source was said to be emitting half less than coal.

The implications of such a fact could be huge as the world wouldn’t be able to count on natural gas to be a bridging energy source. Indeed, even environmentalists were until recently advocating natural gas…

But is it really the case about natural gas in general or just specific types ? It turns that, like for oil, unconventional gas is more polluting that the traditional one.

Indeed, shale gas is just like shale oil, dirtier. Fracking is thus a bad idea when it turns to clean energy.

Here is a short extract from the NYT article :

Even as natural gas production in the United States increases and Washington gives it a warm embrace as a crucial component of America’s energy future, two coming studies try to poke holes in the clean-and-green reputation of natural gas.

They suggest that the rush to develop the nation’s vast, unconventional sources of natural gas is logistically impractical and likely to do more to heat up the planet than mining and burning coal.

The problem, the studies suggest, is that planet-warming methane, the chief component of natural gas, is escaping into the atmosphere in far larger quantities than previously thought, with as much as 7.9 percent of it puffing out from shale gas wells, intentionally vented or flared, or seeping from loose pipe fittings along gas distribution lines.

This offsets natural gas’s most important advantage as an energy source: it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels and releases lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Meanwhile my home country, France, extended its ban on shale oil and gas exploration, and this despite the huge amounts of energy it could generate…

For more : check out the NYT green blog.

Related posts:

Can natural gas be an alternative to coal ?

Keeping natural gas in pipelines, not air

Are we making earthquakes worse ?

How coal-fired plants are causing cancers

The top 10 coal-burning countries

A look at deaths per TWh by energy source

Edouard — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:55:07 +0000

With all the agitation around the Fukushima catastrophe, I thought it would be interesting to put some facts and figures on the dangerosity of energy sources, including oil, coal, natural gas, some renewable energy sources and nuclear…

The global death rate for coal is 161 per TWh (15 in the United States), 36 for oil, and a staggering low 0.04 for nuclear. Of course, this doesn’t take into account the people who will die because of the Fukushima accident.

Nonetheless, nuclear will still kill much less people than fossil fuels – and will kill even less if we increase safety measures and transparency of the industry.

Here is the table found at Next Big Future :

An image being much more powerful than words, here is something I found on Seth Godin’s blog :

The table above refers to Banqiao. This name rang a bell as I read about it in a French weekly. This is a name of a Chinese dam, which failure in 1975 killed hundreds of thousands of people.

We haven’t stopped using hydropower afterwards, and nor should we abandon nuclear after Fukushima.

We should however seriously increase safety measures and transparency and of course, start replacing older reactors with new ones.

—

Meanwhile, Fareed Zakaria published an interesting article on CNN :

It’s difficult not to get spooked by terms like “meltdown,” “radiation clouds,” and “radioactive leakage.” But let’s remember that nuclear reactors have operated peacefully, quietly, and safely for decades in countries from Japan to France to the United States.

Over the last five decades, there has been just one nuclear accident that caused any deaths at all – at Chernobyl, and that was a poorly designed reactor, unlike any of the ones in the United States or Japan. It had almost no safety codes or procedures.

The accident at 3 Mile Island in the United States did not actually kill anyone. There was no significant radiation leakage because in the US – as in Japan – all reactors have steel or concrete containers to prevent such leakage. That’s why there were no illness resulting from radiation after the 3 Mile island accident.

And the new plants that have been built in the last decade are safer – the OECD says 1,600 times safer than the old ones. And the 3rd generation reactors being planned now, which will be built later, are safer even than those.

Now, all energy sources have their risks when being extracted.

Oil and coal have far worse safety records than even decades-old nuclear plants. The BP oil spill, for example, was triggered by an explosion that instantly killed 11 workers and then poured 4 millions barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

In a thoughtful article in Slate, Will Saletan does the math and finds that if you add up all the deaths caused by oil explosions and the like, the rate of death per unit of energy extracted is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear energy. With hundreds of people dying in mining accidents, coal is also much more likely to kill people working on it or around it than nuclear. And none of this counts the millions of people who get diseases and die a premature death thanks to pollution.

—

Another article, this time by George Monbiot in the Guardian :

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers.

This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I’m not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

This could actually become my 12th reason to support nuclear… What do you think ?

Related posts:

Vivace, another renewable energy source

There is no perfect energy generating solution

Two news on Chinese energy for the price of one

Can the world be powered by 100% renewables ?

Energy sprawl is another reason to mix sources

Generating electricity 40 to 50 % more efficiently

Edouard — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:00:29 +0000

It’s a well known fact, the production of electricity via traditional coal and natural gas burning plants and in a lesser way nuclear reactors is vastly inefficient. But this might change soon thanks to scientific research. To Ecogeek :

” Researchers (…) are developing a new gas turbine to increase the efficiency of conventional electrical power plants with a generation system that could increase the thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency by 40 to 50 percent.“

Imagine a world where these turbines would be the implemented everywhere : emissions would drop very quickly. For more, read the official press release from Sandia National Laboratories.

Related posts:

US electricity : more nuclear and less coal

There is no perfect energy generating solution

Californian electricity to be 33 % renewables

China will burn coal (a little) more efficiently

A look at the carbon emissions of electricity

Coal costs the United States $500 billion each year

Edouard — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:00:27 +0000

It made the headlights last week on practically all environmental websites. The hidden costs – the negative externalities if you prefer – of coal are of 500 billion Dollars per year for the United States alone.

Yes, you read it right : burning coal costs the country half a trillion dollar on health costs, premature deaths – we saw about this earlier - and of course environmental issues as it pollutes soil, air and water…

Luckily, the United States can cut by two thirds their consumption by 2020 and become completely coal-free by 2030 just by investing in energy efficiency. What are they waiting for ?

Here are some extracts of the research carried out by no less than Paul Epstein, from the Harvard Medical School :

Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion—generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered “externalities.”

We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative.

Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world.

—

Here are two factoids taken from the research :

Coal accounted for 25% of global energy consumption in 2005, but generated 41% of the CO₂ emissions that year.

In the United States, coal produces just over 50% of the electricity, but generates over 80% of the CO₂ emissions from the utility sector.

—

The paper contains an interesting part on carbon capture and storage (CCS), also known as clean coal. Well, it just isn’t :

Storing compressed and liquefied CO₂ underground can acidify saline aquifers (akin to ocean acidification) and leach heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead, into ground water.

Increased pressures could destabilize underground faults and lead to earthquakes.

Acidification of ground water increases fluid-rock interactions that enhance calcite dissolution and solubility, and can lead to fractures in limestone (CaCO₃) and subsequent releases of CO₂ in high concentrations.

Increased pressures may cause leaks and releases from previously drilled (often unmapped) pathways.

This isn’t entirely new as I wrote that CCS won’t solve the climate change problem, but this brings further data on the topic.

—

To conclude today’s article : I have a dream today, that the United States gets rid of coal by 2030. This is the only way for them to significantly cut their emissions.

Giving the subsidies to energy efficiency instead of coal as it is done nowadays would be the very first thing that should be done to enable the country to go towards sustainability for sure.

Imagine, a 80 percent cut of greenhouse gases emissions in a heavily polluting sector is at stake.

(I believe we in Europe too could do something about it… )

Related posts:

Destruction of Nature costs 2,000 billion euros per year

Coal will kill 13,200 people in the US this year

28 nuclear plants may be built in the United States

A real boom for solar PV in the United States

The United States is a food wasteland

Can the US stop subsidizing coal and oil ?

Edouard — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:02:07 +0000

Coal and oil are the two most polluting fossil fuels and energy sources to date. Despite this, both are receiving huge subsidies from the United States federal and local governments.

To Climate Progress, the coal industry received around $3 billion (2.2 billion euros) per year between 2002 and 2008 and to the New York Times, the oil industry gets even more, $4 billion (3 billion euros).

Giving around $7 billion each year to industries that pollute our air, our water and our soil so they just can keep polluting is just insane.

I believe the US Government should know better and found renewables and efficiency projects. This is what President Obama is willing to do. Let’s hope he will succeed, for the United States, but for the entire world as well…

We Europeans aren’t clean on these issues as well as we keep supporting coal…

Related posts:

We still are funding fossil fuels industries

US electricity : more nuclear and less coal

Explosion in a coal mine in Russia, at least 100 dead

Is peak coal already threatening China ?

Coal demand is increasing and due to keep on doing so

Can the world be powered by 100% renewables ?

Edouard — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:00:39 +0000

The WWF believes it can be done in four little decades. As they state on their website: ” All of the world’s energy needs could be provided cleanly, renewably and economically by 2050. “

They are right on one point : energy efficiency’s potential is gigantic. Indeed I am reading a book which thesis is that we can cut our energy consumption by 80 percent, hence the title Factor Five. (the review will come soon)

But I don’t think we can really stop using coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear in such a little time. But I would love to be proven wrong (except on nuclear for the reasons I outlined there)

Related posts:

Californian electricity to be 33 % renewables

Renewables outpace other fuels in Europe and US

IEA publishes its World Energy Outlook 2009

EU to use 20 percent of renewables for energy by 2020

European Union to exceed its renewables goals

Is peak coal already threatening China ?

Edouard — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:44:22 +0000

To the New York Times green blog : ” China’s ravenous appetite for energy puts the country at risk of reaching a point of “peak coal,” when demand for coal will outstrip domestic production capacity, a growing number of experts believe.”

” China now consumes approximately 47 percent of coal produced globally but by most estimates has just 14 percent of global coal reserves. Meanwhile, demand has risen by about 10 percent per year for the last decade “

China is already the world’s first energy consumer and greenhouse gases emitter. Reading these figures you wonder where it will stop.

Here are some details :

Coal might be abundant globally, but if China cannot substantially raise its domestic production, increasing imports enough to meet demand may be hard to accomplish in the short-term, putting the country in a potential supply bind.

“I think China is the vulnerable player here — they don’t really have a lot of options,” said David Fridley, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and deputy leader of the laboratory’s China Energy Group.

Evidence that China may be nearing an ultimate limit on production can be seen in rapidly growing imports and a recent proposal by a top energy official that the country cap coal production at around 3.6 billion tons per year beginning in 2011.

China is on pace to produce nearly 3.4 billion tons of coal domestically in 2010, according to a recent Reuters analysis, and will import about 150 million tons this year.

This is another reason for other nations to cut their coal consumption : it is about to get much more expensive…

Related posts:

Will peak coal really occur next year ?

Could peak coal occur as soon as 2025 ?

China will burn coal (a little) more efficiently

The top 10 coal-burning countries

Coal strikes back… globally

Californians voted NO on Prop 23

Edouard — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:15:45 +0000

To the Huffington Post : ” California progressives have demonstrated that we have the power to deliver a resounding defeat to the big oil companies, if we fight on our own terms and harness the power of the grassroots.”

” Proposition 23, had it passed, would have effectively repealed the state’s landmark global warming law. California is the world’s 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases”

” Its global warming law, passed in 2006, mandates the largest legislated reductions in greenhouse gases in the world. “

Still to the Huff Po :

What’s more, if implemented, California’s global warming law sets a new floor for national standards once the push for federal legislation is renewed. Our California law is stronger than the extremely compromised bill that was offered in the Senate and is much closer to what scientists say is necessary to begin to blunt the effects of climate change.

Valero and Tesoro, two Texas oil companies, provided the majority of funding for Proposition 23 and the effort to effectively repeal California’s climate change law. The measure appears to be going down in defeat tonight by a wide margin.

This is the first big victory of the people against Big Oil and Big Coal lobbies. Let’s hope there will be more as we need to pass many more laws promoting cleantech and climate change.

Related posts:

California : a climate change example

Why solar air conditioning is a fantastic idea

All you need to know about climate change in five minutes

Californian electricity to be 33 % renewables

More evidence on climate change acceleration

A single solution for three problems

Edouard — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:28:16 +0000

Yesterday took place around the world 7,700 gatherings in over 180 countries to urge governments to embrace 350 : lowering the amount of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm (today’s levels are at 388).

I already stated that we are facing a triple crisis with massive unemployment, climate change and decreasing energy supplies (peak oil and coal). I believe that embracing 350′s plan (one stone) would hit those three birds.

Seeing people meeting up and planting trees or installing solar water heaters is a good thing. I hope it will work and urge our representatives to act during the Cancun climate talks. (More at 350.org)

Related posts:

Could fusion be a solution to our problems ?

The Billion Tree Campaign is a huge success

Over three billion trees planted !

Biofuels aren’t a sustainable solution

Are biofuels a solution or a (huge) problem ?