15 February 2016, Science Daily, Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You may as well learn the expression “carbon-negative technology,” or Bio-CCS, right away, because it has become a talking point in technological circles. Gemini explains why. There exists a method, or technology, that is capable of reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “In practice, the methods consists of capturing carbon dioxide emitted by “climate-neutral” processes such as the combustion of organic waste, pellets or sawdust,” explains SINTEF research scientist Mario Ditaranto, a specialist in combustion technology. It is then stored safely underground for ever, thus reducing its concentration in the atmosphere, because it has been eliminated from the natural carbon dioxide cycle. This is the only method we have to lower the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is an important cause of our climate problems. The method is called Bio-CCS, and it is not new. Until now it has suffered from a rather mixed reputation as insignificant, expensive and limited in its range of applications. However, in the light of climate change and the recent COP21 summit in Paris, it is on the of everyone in the climatology field. In Norway, it has led to SINTEF, the environmental organisation Bellona and certain branches of Norwegian industry working together for a rapid breakthrough. “Superlight” geoengineering The reason for the growing popularity of Bio-CCS is that at the very least it can be regarded as an extremely mild and non-hazardous form of geo-engineering. The aim of geo-engineering is to counteract anthropogenic climaste changes by means of physical interventions. Launching huge sunshades into space and spraying >> millions of ?? tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere to filter sunlight are a couple of suggestions. These have naturally led to heated debates about both the ethics and safety of such solutions. After all, what might be the consequences if we fix things in ways that only make them worse? Unavoidable More than 1000 estimates brought together in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) show that even a significant but gradual brake on carbon dioxide emissions will not be sufficient if we are to avoid a serious climatic crisis. Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia. The South Australian Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has conceded that nuclear power is not a viable alternative for Australia, but has urged authorities to consider it anyway – in what could have serious implications for the roll out of renewable energy across the country. The commission delivered the results of its “tentative” findings on Monday, indicating that it supports the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the state, the storing of spent nuclear fuel and the expansion of uranium mining. On the subject of nuclear generation, the commission admitted that it wasn’t viable in South Australia in the foreseeable future (2030) – even with a significant carbon price and a sharp reduction in the cost of capital. It conceded that Australia should only adopt “proven” new nuclear technologies such as “small modular reactors” and next generation “fast reactors” , but that these were some way off, and likely to be very costly. But commission chairman Kevin Scarce wants the nuclear generation dream to continue. He admitted that while there were real risks in nuclear generation – and there are “no guarantees on its safety” – he doesn’t “think the positive side of nuclear power is being presented.” Despite the findings of the commission on the high costs of nuclear, and its unsuitability to the South Australian market in particular, he wants nuclear energy to be part of the national consideration because of the challenges Australia faces in meeting its emissions abatement task. In effect, he and the nuclear proponents are betting that Australia will fall short in its climate targets; and given the record of the Coalition government on climate policy – including the repeal of the carbon price, the slashing of the renewable energy target, the attack on key institutions and slow progress on energy efficiency – that is a fair bet. Read more here
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, Tasmania energy prices to soar as supply crisis forces switch to diesel gen-sets. Energy consumers in Tasmania – already facing a trebling in wholesale electricity prices since the state lost its grid connection to the mainland, now face yet another trebling in prices as the government turns to highly expensive diesel gen-sets to protect its rapidly depleting hydro resources. The Tasmania government late Friday announced it would turn to diesel gen-sets to ensure the lights would not go out and was ordering at least 200MW of containerised diesel generators to be installed as hydro levels continue to fall and the repair to the Basslink cable to the mainland is further delayed. Tasmania enjoys among the cheapest costs of wholesale energy in the country when it relies only on hydro and wind energy. But prices doubled to around $90/MWh when it decided to import 40 per cent of its needs from Victoria in the face of the driest spring on record which forced hydro levels to fall to near record levels. That cost rose further to more than $110/MWh when the Basslink cable failed in December, and the government had to accelerate its plan to bring back its Tamar Gas power station into production. That has brought back 280MW of gas capacity into production, and Hydro Tasmania is now planning to add another 75MW of gas and up to 200MW of diesel power in “containerised diesel generation.” The cost of diesel generation is expected to be at least $300/MWh and may be more. As some diesel was switched on at the weekend, the average price of electricity jumped to more than $160/MWh on Friday and Saturday. This compares to prices of around $40/MWh last summer. The situation is highlighting the fact that wind energy and solar energy would have provided much cheaper power, and obviously much cleaner power, except the state authorities have passed up opportunities to accelerate the deployment of those technologies, despite having a large hydro resource to act as a battery. Read more here
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, BP’s energy outlook barely changed after Paris climate agreement to achieve net zero emissions this century. Yet the 2016 BP energy outlook, published this week, shows the oil company’s views on the shape and direction of energy demand over the next 20 years have barely shifted. Carbon Brief explores why BP’s outlook appears impervious to the world’s first universal, global commitment to cut emissions. Models are wrong Before looking at the findings of BP’s outlook, it’s worth remembering that it is a modelling exercise. While models can be useful, they’re always wrong, particularly when it comes to energy. Forecasts often say more about the assumptions of the modellers than anything else. The most rigorous projections explore a range of plausible assumptions. Aware of these limitations, BP’s outlook starts with a hefty disclaimer that’s worth quoting from: “Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events, and depend on circumstances, that will or may occur in the future. Actual outcomes may differ depending on a variety of factors.” Likely outlook Now that we’ve got the small print out of the way, let’s turn to the main findings of the outlook. The report’s focus is a “base case”. This is the “most likely” future scenario, according to BP. Has that future shifted as a result of the Paris climate agreement? Has its expectations shifted after 189 countries pledged to tackle their emissions? The charts below compare the path of energy and CO2 emissions growth between 2015 and 2035, according to BP’s energy outlooks from 2014, 2015 and 2016. The most striking feature is how little has changed. It is almost as if Paris never happened. Where there are differences, economic factors seem to be at work rather than the climate treaty. Read More here