17 March 2016, Renew Economy, What will shake Malcolm Turnbull from his climate coma? First, the good news. According to the International Energy Agency, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stayed flat for the second year in a row in 2015 – a clear sign that the nexus between economic growth and increasing energy emissions has been broken.The IEA says that the two biggest economies and energy consumers, the US and China, both achieved significant cuts in the last year (by 2 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively), as coal-fired generation was replaced by gas in the US, and by wind and solar and energy efficiency in both countries. And the world can do more, says the International Renewable Energy Agency. By doubling its capacity in renewable energy – principally wind and solar – by 2030, the world can keep on track to meet its Paris climate targets, save $4.2 trillion in fuel, boost its GDP by $1.3 trillion and generate some 9 million jobs. Too easy. But here’s the bad news. While the world’s two biggest emitters are managing to bring their energy emissions under control, those of Australia are continuing to soar – by around 4.5 per cent since the Coalition government dumped the carbon price nearly two years ago. Coal generation, declining in US and China, is rebounding in Australia. Large-scale renewable energy investment has come to a complete standstill under any policy over which the Coalition government has control. Indeed, it is nearly a year since a compromise deal was reached on the large-scale renewable energy target – cutting it from 42,000GWh to 33,000GWh, and more than six months since Malcolm Turnbull raised hopes of a turnaround when he became prime minister. Turnbull declares himself entirely satisfied with the status quo, possibly encouraged by the fact that while 47 per cent of people say that climate and clean energy policies might influence their vote, more than half say it won’t. “We have effective and responsible climate change policies that are working,” Turnbull told parliament on Wednesday. “We are on track to beat and meet our 2020 emission reduction target. Our 2030 target is responsible and in line with that of comparable countries.” Turnbull was speaking in response to a question from Greens MP Adam Bandt, who asked if Turnbull agreed with the assessment of chief scientist Alan Finkel, who on the same day that new data showed a stunning rise in average global temperatures, said that under current policies we are losing the battle against climate change? Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
11 March 2016, Washington Post, United Airlines is flying on biofuels. Here’s why that’s a really big deal. On Friday, United Airlines will launch a new initiative that uses biofuel to help power flights running between Los Angeles and San Francisco, with eventual plans to expand to all flights operating out of LAX. It’s the first time an American airline will begin using renewable fuel for regular commercial operations, and the occasion is part of a bigger movement when it comes to clean transportation in the U.S. The renewable fuel used to power United’s planes will be coming from a Los Angeles refinery operated by AltAir Fuels, which is using the facility to produce both renewable jet fuel and diesel fuel using a technology developed by Honeywell UOP, a major supplier and technology licenser in the petroleum industry. Back in 2013, AltAir and United announced their partnership, in which United will purchase up to 15 million gallons of biofuel over a three-year period. Friday’s launch will be the first application of that agreement. The flights will use a mixture of 30 percent biofuel and 70 percent traditional fuel, and United says that the biofuel will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 60 percent compared with regular fuel. In general, the idea behind renewable fuels is to use a biological source — for example, plant or animal matter — rather than a geological one, like oil. The Honeywell UOP technology that’s being applied at the AltAir refinery can utilize a range of difference sources, from used cooking oil to algae. The technology has been in the works since 2007, when the company was awarded a grant from DARPA to develop green jet fuel, according to Veronica May, vice president and general manager of renewable energy and chemicals at Honeywell UOP. Currently, its technology allows for the production of diesel fuel that can be used in any proportion with existing diesel engines — up to 100 percent. Its jet fuel can replace up to 50 percent of petroleum fuel in existing aircraft. Altogether, both fuels can offer up to about an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional fuel, the company says. Read More here
10 March 2016, Climate News Network, Antarctic techno-fix cannot slow rising seas. Pumping seawater onto the Antarctic landmass to form ice and stop sea levels rising stands little chance of success, scientists say. Sea level rise is likely to be a problem too big to handle. Geoengineers will not be able to magic away the rising tides, according to new research. In particular, they will not be able to pump water from the sea and store it as ice on the continent of Antarctica. That is because, unless they pump it enormous distances, that will only accelerate the flow of the glaciers and it will all end up back in the sea again, a study in the journal Earth System Dynamics says. Geoengineering is sometimes produced as the high-technology solution to the environmental problems of climate change: if humans don’t change their ways and start reducing greenhouse gas emissions, say the proponents of technofix, human ingenuity will no doubt devise a different answer. But, repeatedly, closer examination has made such solutions ever less plausible. Scientists have dismissed the idea that the melting of the Arctic can be reversed, have only tentatively conceded that technology could dampen the force of a hurricane, and have found that – instead of cooling the Earth – attempts to control climate change could either make things worse or seriously disrupt rainfall patterns. On balance, scientists believe that most of the big geo-engineering ideas won’t work. Deep freeze And now a team from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has poured cold water on the idea of pouring cold water onto the ice cap. The idea is a simple one. Are sea levels rising 3mm a year because the world is warming? Then pump the sea high onto the Antarctic landmass where it will freeze and stay frozen for a millennium. But to be sure of that, say the Potsdam team, at least 80% of the water would have to be pumped 700 km inland. That would take more than 7% of the annual global primary energy supply just to balance the current rate of sea level rise.But even in a world recently committed to a warming of less than 2°C, the seas are going to go on rising. Sea levels could rise at least 40cms by the end of the century – or possibly 130cms, with devastating consequences for low-lying coastlines: rich megacities might be able to build defences, but the poorest communities would be swept away. Read More here
4 March 2016, Energy Post, BP says not to worry, good times will return. Aside from minor adjustments, BP’s latest Energy Outlook is mostly business-as-usual, writes Fereidoon Sionshansi, president of Menlo Energy Economics and publisher of the newsletter EEnergy Informer.BP seems to have missed out entirely on the agreement reached in Paris in December 2015, as if it did not happen, notes Sionshansi: “The Outlook seems more of a wish list than a forecast.” BP‘s annual Energy Outlook is always worth a read even if you do not agree with BP’s oil-centric outlook. The 2016 edition, which looks out to 2030, is no exception. To its credit, BP is slowly and grudgingly acknowledging that the future may evolve rather differently than the past – e.g., lower global demand growth rates, changes in the mix of fuels that supply the demand, growth of renewables especially in the power generation sector – yet it seems reluctant or unable to abandon the status quo, the history with which it is familiar and comfortable. Call it organizational inertia, or bias, common among all oil majors. Few would fundamentally disagree that at $30 a barrel, oil is too cheap – certainly compared to highs of 100+ in 2014. But given the supply glut and fierce competition among many producers it is less clear how soon the rebalancing will take place, to what extent prices will rebound and for how long. US shale producers, for example, are likely to be back in business once prices rise above $50, dampening the price recovery. Read More here