Categories
Author: Jo
Categories
Be Prepared Big Picture Burning Money Cool Poverty Demoticratica Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Fossilised Fuels Freemarketeering Fuel Poverty Growth Paradigm Hydrocarbon Hegemony Low Carbon Life Major Shift Money Sings Optimistic Generation Solution City The Data The Power of Intention
Energy Poll #2 : Prices
Categories
Advancing Africa Bad Science Bait & Switch Be Prepared Bee Prepared Big Picture Climate Change Climate Damages Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Dead End Disturbing Trends Divide & Rule Droughtbowl Eating & Drinking Environmental Howzat Feed the World Food Insecurity Foreign Interference Foreign Investment Freak Science Freshwater Stress Genetic Modification Genetic Muddyfixation Growth Paradigm Mass Propaganda Media Money Sings Non-Science Peak Energy Peak Oil Science Rules Scientific Fallacy Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow Technomess The Myth of Innovation The War on Error Toxic Hazard Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope Water Wars
Mark Lynas : Oxford Ragwort
Image Credit : Mark Holderness
Mark Lynas betrayed more of his intellectual influences this week, when he tweeted as @mark_lynas “Colony collapse disorder – honeybees – not quite the environmental story it seemed:
https://breakthroughjournal.org/content/authors/hannah-nordhaus/an-environmental-journalists-l.shtml”
Hmmm. That’s a piece from a new generation of Nordhaus-es, Hannah, writing for the Breakthrough Institute, founded by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, authors of “The Death of Environmentalism“, a document I truly regret wasting the paper to print. As I read it, I started scratching hot red comments in the margins, so many, that in the end the pages were more red than black-and-white.
Hannah’s piece, like her book, “The Beekeeper’s Lament“, is more delicate and considered, I think, but still shreds decades of environmental thought and much science, without any justification in my view.
She writes, “…very quickly, many journalists settled on neonicotinoids — pesticides that are applied to more than 140 different crops — as the likely culprit. It seemed a familiar story of human greed and
shortsightedness. With their callous disregard for nature, big chemical companies and big agriculture were killing the bees — and threatening our own survival. The honey bee’s recent problems have occasioned a similar rush to judgment. Before any studies had been conducted on the causes of CCD, three books and countless articles came out touting pesticides as the malady’s cause. Had I been able to turn a book around quickly, I might have leapt to the same conclusions. But I was late to the party, and as more studies came out and I came to better understand the science, I became less and less convinced that pesticides provided a convincing explanation for beekeepers’ losses…”
Her argument appears to be that pesticides are bad for other pollinators, not bees; but that this makes life harder for the bees, who then have to do all that pollination instead :-
https://naturebeebookclub.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/the-beekeepers-lament-nordhaus-hannah/
“In steps John Miller, a boundingly energetic and charismatic beekeeper, who tasks himself with the care and the sustainable keeping of honeybees. He is descended from America’s first migratory beekeeper, N.E. Miller, who, at the beginning of the 20th century, transported thousands of hives from one crop to another, working the Idahoan clover in summer and the Californian almonds in winter. Back then beekeepers used to pay farmers to keep a few dozen hives on their land. But now farmers pay beekeepers millions of dollars to have their crops pollinated by upwards of ten thousand hives. With the rise of the monocrop and increasingly efficient pesticides, there are simply not enough natural pollinators to complete the massive task of sexing-up millions of acres of almond groves.”
This kind of writing seems to me like a lot of anti-green writing, where a straw man is set up, only to bow down and worship it. The central framework of fallacy appears to be :-
a. Environmentalists are zealous, and therefore crazy.
b. They believe pesticides are dangerous to bees.
c. They must be wrong, and pesticides can’t be all that bad for bees.
Let’s just read a little around that idea, shall we ? Let’s start with Wikipedia, just to make it easy :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_toxicity_to_bees
“For the majority of pesticides that are registered in the United States, EPA only requires a short-term contact toxicity test on adult honeybees. In some cases, the agency also receives short-term oral toxicity tests, which are required in Europe. EPA’s testing requirements do not account for sub-lethal effects to bees or effects on brood or larvae. Their testing requirements are also not designed to determine effects in bees from exposure to systemic pesticides. With Colony Collapse Disorder, whole hive tests in the field are needed in order to determine the effects of a pesticide on bee colonies. To date, there are very few scientifically valid whole hive studies that can be used to determine the effects of pesticides on bee colonies.”
Actually, it’s not just “mad environmentalists” who are concerned about the effect of pesticides on honeybees. Here’s just one scholarly paper :-
https://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009754
“High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health”, Mullin et el., 2010.
What has this got to do with Climate Change. I can hear you asking ?
Well, it’s like this – in order to do intensive farming, agricultural chemicals are used on crops. Specialised herbicides, pesticides and fungicides are used on genetically modified crops, along with chemical fertilisers.
In order to convince people to accept Genetically Modified food, they’ve got to be encouraged to believe that pesticides, herbicides and fungicides are really alright.
Hence, pesticides cannot be fingered as a problem for bees, otherwise people might not accept GM crops…
Yes, it’s coming back round to tampering with our food genes. And it’s being sold to us as a cure for Climate Change.
At the bottom of this page there’s a transcript of a snippet from a television programme I was unlucky and incensed enough to have viewed yesterday. Called “The Wonder of Weeds”, it took us through the basic logic of modern-day plant breeding, including the role for genetic modification of plants – without once mentioning the words “life sciences”, “bioengineering”, “biotechnology” or even “genetic modification”.
The GM crops are presented as being the saviour of humanity, without once mentioning why conditions in the world may be damaging crops in new ways in the future, a lot of which will be due to climate change.
There was the usual category error – of confusing science with technology. Let’s repeat that one again. Technology is when you play with the genes of a crucial staple crop like wheat. Science is when you discover, maybe 25 years later, that it has had knock-on effects in the food chain. Oh dear. Too late for remorse – the genetically modified genome is now globally distributed.
The presenter of the programme, Chris Collins, didn’t even spot the cognitive dissonance of his own script. In the first part of the programme he talks about common weeds that are foreign invaders in the UK and cause untold trouble. In the second part of the programme he doesn’t even blink when he talks about modifying crops at the genetic level – not questioning that introducing foreign genes into vital crops might have detrimental, unforeseen impacts – rather like a microscopic version of the imported “plant pariahs”, Buddleia davidii, Rhododendron ponticum and Japanese knotweed. Oh yes, Oxford Ragwort, another introduction to the UK, is not such a hazard, but you can’t guarantee what happens when you get plant invaders.
I find it astonishing that such obvious propaganda on behalf of corporate plans to modify crops for their own private market profit is allowed into BBC television programming.
Climate Change is being used as the Trojan Horse rationale in which to bring GM crops to the UK, and elsewhere, as part of international agricultural development programmes. This is the ideological equivalent of a rogue gene inserted into the DNA of science. I find this an outrage.
I recommend you check the work of GM Freeze to counter this braintwisting manipulation.
And if you want a little bit more of an insider on what Dr Alison Smith, featured in the BBC show, is actually doing with her amazing knowledge of plants – it seems her work encompasses improving the production of alcoholic beverages, not feeding the world. I kid you not :-
https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/news-events/news/2011/110615-pr-improved-crops-food-security.html
“Glucosidase inhibitors: new approaches to malting efficiency : Alison Smith, John Innes Centre : Improving the efficiency with which barley grain is converted into beer and whisky would reduce waste and energy consumption in the brewing industry, as well as ensuring profitability. This project aims to improve the efficiency of malting, the first stage in beer and whisky production, by building on new discoveries about how barley grains convert starch to sugars when they germinate.”
What is the BBSRC ? This is a research programme that’s “infested” with corporate people – whose agenda is money-making, not philanthropy.
And what’s genetic modification of crops got to do with Mark Lynas ? Well, just read his new book, “The God Species“, and you’ll find out.
The plain fact in my view is that we do not need genetically modified crops in Europe. In Africa, they’re too poor to afford the chemicals to use with the GM seeds. And in the not-too-distant future, the price of the chemicals will shoot up because of Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas, making GM crops inaccessible to those North Americans who currently use it. So this particular technology takes us nowhere forward at all. We need to manage water and the root causes of poverty rather than tamper with genes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01224kv/hd/The_Wonder_of_Weeds/
BBC 4 TV
Saturday 25 June 2011
“The Wonder of Weeds”
“Travelling around the UK and meeting experts in botanical history, genetics, pharmaceuticals and wild food, Chris Collins tells the story behind the plants most people call weeds.”
45 minutes 20 seconds
…And the massive irony of all this is that the very crop that has become a monoculture at the expense of weeds, wheat, was once a weed itself…
Plant scientist Professor Nick Harberd of Oxford University has researched the moment a weed became wheat.
Nick : “About half a million years ago, there was spontaneously, in the wild, nothing to do with human beings, a cross-hybridisation, a cross-pollination if you like, between two wild grass species…”
“…So one can imagine that humans were cultivating this wheat [10,000 to 12,000 years ago] in a field and then by chance a weed was growing within that field. And there was again a spontaneous hydridisation event beteen the cultivated wheat and this wild grass that was growing in that imaginary field.”
“The whole process made a plant that was bigger and more vigorous. And as a result of this we ended up with the wheat crop we all grow and feed off today.”
Nick can exactly recreate exactly how wheat and weeds crossbred in a lab today…
47 minutes 40 seconds
Weeds helped us out millenia ago and now scientists in the 21st Century have turned to weeds once again for one of the most important discoveries in plant biology ever.
It could save lives by creating a super wheat.
It all took place here, at the John Innes Institute in Norwich.
Alison : “So come on in Chris. You need to sterilise your feet here…”
Chris : “So this means we’re not bringing in anything nasty from outside…”
Alison : “That’s right. No thrips or viruses or anything else that might come in.”
Dr Alison Smith is head of Metabolic Biology here.
Chris : “This is the first time I’ve ever dressed up to go and see a weed.”
Alison : “We look after our weeds very carefully here.”
Alison’s team have been studying a small common weed called Arabidopsis [thaliana] or Thale Cress, which is now used as the model to map the DNA of all plants on the planet.
Alison : “Well this weed is incredibly easy for us to work on. And all plant scientists almost in the world take information from this weed. And many plant scientists only work on this little weed.”
“The reason why it’s really useful is that like a lot of weeds it goes from seed to seed really quickly, so we can get through lots and lots of generations, and that makes it easy for us to do genetic studies to understand how the weed behaves and what all of its genes are doing.”
“But also, about 20 years ago, plant scientists got together. And at that time they were working on lots and lots of different plants. And they decided, let’s work on one plant together that can become the model from which we can develop our understanding of plants.”
“So about the same time as we were sequencing the human genome, we started to sequence the genome of this little weed. So in 2000 we got the entire gene sequence of this weed, all of the genes are known, the same time as we understood the human genome.”
Chris : “So really then, this small weed is a blueprint for all plants ?”
Alison : “This is the model for all plant life, that’s right.”
But the sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome is not just for the sake of it. Alison and her 600 colleagues are unlocking the secrets of the plant’s success, like its speedy growth rate and its hardiness, and are transfering those abilities to the crops that matter to us, like wheat.
This is one of the most important discoveries in plant biology ever, where one of the humblest weeds could save millions of lives around the world.
Chris : “Now we’ve seen our magic weed and you’ve got this genetic blueprint. How do you take that blueprint and apply it to arable crops like this wheat ?”
Alison : “Well we can start to tackle, using this blueprint, some of the real problems that we have with our crops like disease, for example. Our crops are quite susceptible to some diseases. We’ve been able to breed for that, but we haven’t known what genes we’re breeding for.”
“In Arabidopsis, Arabidopsis gets diseases as well, we can understand exactly how it’s resistant to those diseases. We know what genes it needs. And we can say right, where are those genes in wheat ? Can we make sure that our new wheats have the genes that make them resistant to disease ?”
“Another example would be how the wheat exactly makes its seeds. Obviously, this is the really important bit of wheat. This is what we eat. This is human food. We understand a bit about the process of about how these little seeds are formed, but in Arabidopsis we understand in absolute molecular detail how those seeds are made, and that helps us to understand how we make to make better seeds, bigger seeds, more nutritious seeds in wheat. We can apply that knowlege in wheat.”
Well, I know scientists don’t like to be too dramatic, but I’m going to be, because of simply what I’ve found out. Weeds can play a big role in arable crops like wheat, or even maybe the future of humanity.
Alison : “I think it was the starting point for what has to be a revolution in our crops, a revolution in understanding how they work and making them work better and doing that fast.”
“It’s taken our ancestors, you know, millenia, to get to this point. We can’t afford to take the next step in millenia. We have to take it in tens of years or less. And in order to do that, you’re absolutely right, the information from Arabidopsis has been the key to pushing us forward.”
It’s the resilience of weeds and the insights they give us into helping crops survive that makes them amongst the most useful plants on the planet…
Categories
Big Picture Biofools Burning Money Carbon Capture Carbon Commodities Climate Change Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Disturbing Trends Economic Implosion Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Insecurity Evil Opposition Financiers of the Apocalypse Foreign Interference Foreign Investment Fossilised Fuels Green Investment Green Power Growth Paradigm Hydrocarbon Hegemony Money Sings National Energy No Blood For Oil No Pressure Not In My Name Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Nudge & Budge Obamawatch Oil Change Peace not War Peak Emissions Peak Energy Peak Oil Petrolheads Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Pure Hollywood Resource Wards Stop War Western Hedge
Flashback 2008 : Who Pays for the Re-Powering ?
2nd November 2008
Browsing at a newsagent on a mainline railway station…
The question on the front cover of Fortune magazine, Europe edition Number 20, November 2008, already on the stands is “Who Pays for The Bailout ? You do, of course”. Of course, as this Credit Crunch means Bailout argument plays out, the issue of Energy and Climate Change is lost. But the question should be all about how to create a new green economy. Who pays for the re-powering ?
A sign of the greening times – another story teaser on the Fortune magazine advises “10 Green Stocks to Own Now”, and the front of the Independent on Sunday quotes Obama claiming that Energy is his “number one priority” in his bid for presidential election, with his “Apollo” project :-
“Obama’s green jobs revolution : Democrat will lead effort to curb world’s dependence on oil; Plans to create five million new posts in clean energy projects : By Geoffrey Lean in San Francisco and Leonard Doyle in Washington : Sunday, 2 November 2008 : Obama has pledged to create five million new ‘green collar jobs’ if elected : Barack Obama is promising a $150 billion “Apollo project” to bring jobs and energy security to the US through a new alternative energy economy, if his final push for votes brings victory in the presidential election on Tuesday. “That’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office,” Mr Obama has said of his “green recovery” plans. Making his arguments in a radio address yesterday, the Democratic favourite promised: “If you give me your vote on Tuesday, we won’t just win this election. Together, we will change this country and change the world.”…”
Meanwhile…Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband (and Peter Mandelson) get off the plane in Saudi and beg for investment into green energy in the UK :-
“Gulf petrodollars help UK go green : Brown calls for Saudis to give more cash to IMF : Gaby Hinsliff, political editor : The Observer, Sunday 2 November 2008 : The fight against climate change will get an unexpected boost today from oil-rich Gulf states which will pledge to invest some of their petrodollar profits in British green energy projects. The surging oil price over the past year has left parts of the Middle East awash with cash as the rest of the world is squeezed by the credit crunch, making Arab royals some of the few active investors worldwide. The Gulf states have enjoyed a $1.4 trillion windfall from higher oil prices since 2003. Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, arrived in Saudi Arabia yesterday with Gordon Brown at the start of a tour of the region. He said some of that cash would now ‘help our firms reap the rewards from going low carbon and providing green energy to thousands of families’ under a so-called ‘green Gulf deal’ to be announced today…”
But that’s not the real reason why they are there. Ostensibly, the delegation’s serious business is about asking Saudi and other Arab oil states to contribute more towards the International Monetary Fund :-
“Gordon Brown in the Middle East : Brown hopeful of Saudi cash for IMF : Allegra Stratton in Riyadh, guardian.co.uk, Sunday 2 November 2008 15.30 GMT : Gordon Brown said today he was hopeful of success in his attempts to persuade dollar-rich Gulf states to prop up ailing national economies through a massive injection of capital into the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The prime minister spent three hours in one-to-one talks with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, trying to persuade the monarch to invest in a revamped IMF. On the first leg of a four-day visit to the Middle East, and aiming to secure hundreds of billions of dollars for the fund, Brown called off a planned dinner with business leaders accompanying him so as to allow maximum negotiating time with the Saudi king. The IMF currently has around $250 billion in its emergency reserves but there are fears that, with Hungary, Iceland and Ukraine having already sought assistance and more nations expected to follow, the sum might not be sufficient. Brown hopes to persuade Gulf leaders to use some of the estimated $1 trillion they have made from high oil prices in the last few years to boost the reserves, indicating that he would like to see the current sum increased by “hundreds of billions” of dollars. The prime minister said following the talks that he was hopeful of having secured Saudi backing…”
But hang on, what’s this ? :-
“…Brown, who is accompanied by a high-level trade delegation seeking Gulf investment, including the CEOs of BP and Shell…”
What on earth are BP (formerly British Petroleum) and (Royal Dutch) Shell doing in a delegation to the Arab states begging for the IMF charity fund and green energy investment ? Is it that BP and Shell won’t pay for green energy and it’s too hard to ask the British people to pay extra tax, so they’re coming to the Arab countries for a green energy bail-in ? What is going on here ? If OPEC countries are all in the “Axis of Evil”, and no foreign oil and gas companies can get a toehold, why are BP and Shell in the government delegation to Saudi ?
Paying for new energy systems can be expensive. The European Union Emisssions Trading Scheme is saying they want 100% of carbon emissions auctioned by 2013 to pay for larger projects – Carbon Capture and Storage and new Nuclear Power. However, the costly deadweight “white elephant in the room” is not nuclear power, but dead wells.
Are they all talking about Peak Oil in the OPEC Gulf, and proposing business opportunities to the King of the House of Saud to offset the Middle East’s future total loss of business as the wells empty – offering them compensation in the form of green investment deals ? Asking the Saudis to join the green energy race now and get ahead ?
BP and Shell have benefited from the recent rise in the price of oil, profiting even as the oil price has hit millions and created impoverishment. But they’re going to have to spend a very large amount on exploration for new oil and gas from now on. So why is there still resistance to spending more on renewables ? Can BP and Shell ever be convinced to go green ? Would a barrel load of toxic news work ? No. BP and Shell can’t pay for green energy because they have to maintain the profits of their shareholders. Pensions are going to be bad enough without forcing major “British” oil companies to pay for such things as bioethanol, algae biodiesel, solar panels and wind farms.
Action to tackle climate change must be a “tight shadow” on Peak Oil and its fall – tighter than the 9.1% depletion of the largest wells projected by the International Energy Agency (IEA) To reverse the oil decline, and more so to take action on climate change, investment is required. Banks are becoming owned by oil-rich nations, but this is simply a natural outcome of poor financial regulation that led to the Credit Crunch. However, it doesn’t mean that the future will be oil and gas necessarily. This new layer of ownership of financial bodies is not significant, as it will not seriously impact the greening of energy, if people are serious about it.
What is of value here is not banking but energy itself, which underpins the entire economy. The scenario is this : Saudi Arabia will not admit in public that it’s going down because of “Peak Oil”. They would prefer to keep up the revenue, but they’re not “engineering” a reduction of supply. It’s reducing anyway.
From their perspective, allowing supplies to weaken, by not doing any new investment into raising production, would be protecting their reserves to sell in future. A good strategy – even more so as prices rise against losses of supply but strong demand (even despite the blooming recession).
I figure that what BP and Shell are doing in the Middle East is making the case to the major oil-producing states to keep on pumping.
I guess that what Gordon Brown is doing is making the Saudis an offer they can’t refuse – either the major western states will implement measures to control oil prices which would make OPEC lose revenue, or the Saudis can underwrite the global bailout.
This mission is not about green energy investment. It’s about keeping the oil flowing.
Categories
Bad Science Bait & Switch Big Picture Biofools Burning Money Carbon Capture China Syndrome Climate Change Conflict of Interest Dead End Delay and Deny Demoticratica Disturbing Trends Divide & Rule Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Freak Science Freemarketeering Gamechanger Green Investment Green Power Major Shift Mass Propaganda Military Invention Money Sings No Blood For Oil Not In My Name Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Oil Change Optimistic Generation Peace not War Peak Emissions Peak Energy Peak Oil Policy Warfare Public Relations Pure Hollywood Scientific Fallacy Stop War Sustainable Deferment Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow Technomess Toxic Hazard Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope
Selling Thorium to China
Kirk Sorensen, formerly of Teledyne Brown Engineering, now of Flibe Energy
To: Claverton Energy Research Group
From: Jo Abbess
Date: 24 June 2011
Subject: “Don’t believe the spin on thorium being a ‘greener’ nuclear option”
Hi Clavertonians,
As you are, I’m sure, aware, context is everything.
I was so sure we’d escaped the clutches of the “Thorium Activist Trolls” a few years ago, but no, here they are in resurgence again, and this time they’ve sucked in George Monbiot, Mark Lynas and Stephen Tinsdale, all apparently gullible enough to believe the newly resurrected Generation IV hype campaign.
They should have first done their research on the old Gen IV hype campaign that withered alongside the “Hemp will Save the World, No Really” campaign and the “Biodiesel will Save the World, AND You Can Make it at Home” brigade. Oh, and the Zero Point Energy people.
I was, I admit, quite encouraged by both the Hemp and Biodiesel drives, until I realised they were a deliberate distraction from the Big Picture – how to cope with the necessity of creating an integrated system of truly sustainable energy for the future.
Hemp and Biodiesel became Internet virally transmitted memes around the same time as the Thorium concept, but where did they come from ?
Where does the Thorium meme originate from this time round ? I found some people took to it at The Register, where they spin against Climate Change science a lot – watch the clipped video :-
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/
I would suggest that there are connections between the Thorium campaign and the anti-Climate Change science campaign, and I have some evidence, but I’m too busy to research more in-depth just now, so I’m not going to write it all up yet.
The key issues with all energy options is TIME TO DELIVERY and SCALEABILITY, and I think the option presented by the Thorium fuel cycle fails on both counts.
Yeah, sure, some rich people can devote their life savings to it, and some Departments of Defense (yes, Americans) and their corporate hangers-on can try selling ANOTHER dud technology to China (which is the basis of some Internet energy memes in my view).
Remember Carbon Capture and Storage ? The British Government were very keen on making a Big Thing about CCS – in order to sell it to the miscreant Chinese because (WARNING : CHINA MYTH) China builds 2 !! coal-fired !! power stations a week/day/month !!
THORIUM – A Brief Analysis
TIME TO DELIVERY – 20 to 50 years
SCALEABILITY – unknown
USEFULNESS ASSESSMENT – virtually zero, although it could keep some people on the gravy train, and suck in some Chinese dough
The Tyndall Centre say that global emissions of greenhouse gases have to peak AT THE LATEST by 2020. We should be thinking about rolling out the technology WE ALREADY HAVE to meet that end.
Don’t believe the hype,
jo.
PS What other evidence do we have that the Thorium meme is most likely just a propaganda campaign ? Nick Griffin of the British National Party backs it, and the BNP are widely alleged to promote divisiveness…
https://www.grinzo.com/energy/2011/06/22/fukushima-is-japanese-for-its-much-worse-than-you-thought/
“The evidence continues to accumulate that we’ve already reached our peak competence for managing technology that carries such staggering potential for human and environmental harm. I often refer to the hurdles for any new technology to go from “it worked once in the lab” to “time to mass produce and ship it”. With some technologies, like nuclear fission-powered electricity plants, a significant issue in that journey has very little to do with the technology itself, and is almost purely a function of how our institutions choose to use it. Make an assumption that there will always be enough cooling water in a given spot (and never a dangerous flood), so we can put a nuclear plant where it’s economical or convenient or politically viable? Sure. Sounds safe to me…What could possibly go wrong?”
Categories
Bait & Switch Behaviour Changeling Big Picture Breathe Easy Coal Hell Corporate Pressure Delay and Deny Demoticratica Divide & Rule Economic Implosion Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Socialism Engineering Marvel Fossilised Fuels Gamechanger Green Power Growth Paradigm Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Mass Propaganda Media Money Sings National Energy Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Nudge & Budge Obamawatch Oil Change Peak Oil Petrolheads Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Public Relations Pure Hollywood Regulatory Ultimatum Solar Sunrise Sustainable Deferment Tarred Sands Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow Technomess The Myth of Innovation The War on Error Toxic Hazard Unconventional Foul Unnatural Gas Voluntary Behaviour Change Vote Loser Wind of Fortune
Glenn Beck : “Dangerous and Evil”
https://www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/transcript/beck-americas-energy-under-attack
Thank you, Coal.
Thank you for the asthma, the mercury, the mountain top removal, the birth defects, the mine fatalities, the grossly inefficient electricity networks, the lack of investment in electricity networks, the smog, the heat, and above all, thank you for giving us Glenn Beck, on a platter – this is so much fun to watch !
CONTINUED FROM Part 1
The production and supply of electricity can be very wasteful. In industrialised countries, electricity generation is usually done on a “centralised” model, using large power plants, often remote from urban populations.
The inefficiencies in this kind of network are such that it matters where new power stations are sited. For example, in the UK, because of the unequal grid load between Scotland and England, it is more efficient to put a new power station on the South Coast, rather than North of the Border :-
https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/sys_09/dddownloaddisplay.asp?sp=sys_Table7_5
Making more, more locally
Developing new Renewable Energy technologies could actually increase the efficiency of the electricity grid – because they could be sited more locally to where electricity is used :-
https://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch08
“As [solar photovoltaics] PVs are installed predominantly locally, there is the possibility of reducing grid losses to the extent that the production coincides with demand (Wenger et al., 1994; Chowdhury and Sawab, 1996).”
Also, crucially, because they can bypass having to feed the main high voltage power grid, they can avoid losses from low-to-high and high-to-low voltage transformation. In which case, you don’t need heaps of new pylons ! Oh, let’s have a diagram :-
https://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch08
“In some locations, adding solar PV to the system near demand centres may avoid the need to expand the transmission network. Kahn et al. (2008) illustrates a case in California where adding PV near coastal load centres would negate the need for significant transmission investments when compared with other renewable sources, in particular the transmission built to access solar PV, CSP, and geothermal in the desert”
Not only can new local power plants reduce the loss of power from the grid and rationalise demand; because they are new, they are likely to be more efficient than the old, remote power plants we currently have.
It’s unlikely that people would accept new nuclear power stations close to home, nor traditional thermal coal combustion plants, but there are still a number of acceptable technologies for new local power stations. Besides the no-noise, no-waste solutions such as slowly rotating wind turbines and solar photovoltaics, there are also new efficient biomass solutions.
The golden rule about combustion technologies is – the cleaner the fuel going in, the safer the flue gases coming out – which is why gasification to pre-treat mixed wastes before combustion is likely to be a favourite for urban biomass plants. Too many people have rightly complained about plain vanilla “incineration” plants. With gasification, it is possible to trap contaminants and stop them from flying into the sky :-
https://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/site/FAQ/MostFrequentlyDiscussedIssues/CombustionvsGasification/tabid/163/Default.aspx
“…In doing all these, the emissions – (a) gaseous – NOx, CO, HC, and SOx can be shown to meet international norms, (b) liquid effluents – can be treated by water treatment processes that are standard and the disposal of the sludge meeting international norms and (c) solid residues – like ash and char used for landfill after further treatment that would be not be necessary in most cases [except when one uses old wood (altholz)]… it is Clean Biomass Technology.”
There has been a lot of discussion about Combined Heat and Power (CHP), which makes better use of the energy that’s input to the plant by using the heat that would normally have been sent up a cooling stack chimney. The heat is delivered locally, with District Heating pipe grids. The main problem with deploying CHP/DH is that nobody is quite clear where money would come from to fund this kind of development, especially since CHP would probably have to be managed, and possibly owned and invested in, by local authorities, such as town councils, whose budgets are not always bulging. And then there’s the cost of digging the ground to lay the district heating pipe network.
Micro Combined Heat and Power – basically CHP stations you can run in your kitchen – are currently still being trialled and developed, but they are likely to be too expensive for most household budgets :-
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/assets/_files/documents/jun_11/pnw__1307447761_CHP.pdf
https://www.microgen-engine.com/
https://www.microchap.info/
https://www.disenco.com/html/overview-2217.htm
https://www.delta-ee.com/downloads/Microgen.pdf
https://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2011/02/07/honda-launches-new-combined-heat-and-power-home-system/
https://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch08
“The commercialization of highly efficient, small-scale fuel-cell-based CHP systems (with 80 to 90% overall efficiency) could contribute to a more energy efficient and cost effective use of existing and new gas grids in the longer term (DeValve and Olsommer, 2006; Zabalza et al., 2007).”
More efficient “backbone” power plants
To improved the efficiency of the main spine of the centralised electricity supply grid, having more efficient power plants is a definite bonus. As the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) of the European Commission shuts down old coal-powered stations, companies see the economic sense in building new highly efficient technologies, some of the best advances coming from Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) technology, burning Natural Gas.
They can also be built quickly, relative to options like new coal or new nuclear power plants, and can be more flexible in operation, which can contribute towards grid energy efficiency.
As another benefit, burning Natural Gas, Biogas (from digestion of Biomass) and Bioyngas (from gasification of Biomass) produces much less carbon dioxide than burning coal in the full lifecycle analysis (although there are questions still hanging over the total greenhouse gas impact of some Biomass supply chains).
Creating Syngas from Biomass to be used for electricity generation means that a range of Biomass feedstocks can be drawn into the supply line. Plus, making Syngas from Biomass reduces the energy demand of tranporting the energy from the source of the Biomass to the power plant – it’s virtually fuel-free to feed gas down a pipe – but it takes convoys of trucks to transport wood.
Building new efficient central power stations will have a real impact. Here’s an example of why – power consumption, as part of overall energy consumption in the United States is projected to rise by small percentages between now and 2030 – so demand will remain firm, and not highly variable – so swapping out coal plants for gas plants will really change things :-
https://byrned.faculty.udmercy.edu/2007Vol/2007VolIssue1.htm
At the level of the major transmission network, High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cables have been proposed for parts of the new infrastructure being planned, which should improve efficiency, and there are plans for a better grid, with “smart” systems in play to load balance and manage demand, including having take-back contracts with large businesses running non-critical power applications.
Any Natural Gas that doesn’t need to be burned in power stations can be diverted to the gas grid, where it can be burned with 85% or higher efficiency to produce heat at home. The systems of electricity production and use would be made more efficient and for the UK this would also mean lower import levels of both Natural Gas and electricity.
Ending End User Waste
There is waste at the end user end of the electricity network too – partly due to poor infrastructure choices. The use of electricity as power for lighting, heating and cooling at public and business buildings, such as hospitals, schools, colleges, town halls, and offices is of concern, as there are often problems arising from architectural design and work space layout, and frequently not sufficient monitoring from facilities managers. Simple things can still change the situation – such as substituting lighting with low power LED options, and organising cooperatively in offices for the best ventilation and heating arrangements for all working there. Democracy can mean power savings. Democracy can mean power.
The problem is also partly due to the hyper-consumption of electrical and electronic goods – although in Europe, legislation in the form of a range of Directives are moving on this issue – regulating for greater efficiency and less waste in and from manufactured products.
The carbon dioxide content of the grid network – which represents the overall efficiency of the grid network – can be high, so it is useful to consider management options that take into account using power when demand is not so high :-
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/uk-grid-live
https://www.owningelectriccar.com/national-grid-electric.html
Heat pumps could also be a more efficient option than current electrical heating and cooling systems.
The Generation Gap
It is important to address electricity waste issues with a variety of low carbon means. In the UK, a “generation gap” is still a possibility :-
https://www.iea.org/papers/security/uk_2010.pdf
Economic interests
The drive for energy efficiency is not anti-growth. In the short term an efficiency drive stimulates the economy to new investment. In the longer term, it provides a greater energy resource at lower cost and with lower emissions.
Mark Lynas’ increasingly entangled, highly chained argument about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, is beginning to look like it could be one big prank to me. Either that or he’s hiding inside a very large turtleneck and hasn’t had much air lately.
https://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/the-ipcc-renewables-controversy-where-have-we-got-to/
“Some green-tinged commentators, in trying to protect the IPCC from any criticism – legitimate or illegitimate – are now seeking to deflect attention by putting blame elsewhere. Carbon Brief, a sort of PR rapid-response service which takes on climate sceptics (and which has former Greenpeace campaigner Christian Hunt as its main press contact), admitted that there were “legitimate issues with the organisation’s communications” – but tried to pin the blame on the media…”
So…let’s get this straight – according to Mark Lynas – Christian Hunt, who used to work with the Public Interest Research Centre, and helped edit the first Centre for Alternative Technology report “Zero Carbon Britain“, which PIRC published, is now a mere ideologue ? You mean he is incapable of reporting accurately on the work of thousands of British and international renewable energy engineers because he used to work for Greenpeace ?
Sorry. That argument doesn’t hold. Why does Christian Hunt now have to be in the “bad boy” box ?
Previously, Mark Lynas was confident of a renewable energy future for Britain, but was “agnostic” about Nuclear Power :-
https://www.heatmyhome.co.uk/solar-panels/is-a-zero-carbon-britain-possible/336
““Localism will become the buzzword,” says Mark Lynas, the environmentalist and author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. “It is technically possible to achieve a zero-carbon Britain by 2050 as we are blessed with abundant renewable resources, especially off-shore wind in the shallow North Sea – although it will be a harder task without nuclear, on which I am agnostic. This largely covers electricity generation, but weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for our transport needs is much harder to achieve.”
Now, it appears, he’s in love with the dreamlike future of Nuclear Power :-
https://www.scotsrenewables.com/blog/book-reviews/the-god-species-review/
“Lynas belives we can now claw our way back below the 350ppm CO2 boundary – and that we can do it without cutting consumption or radically changing our habits. Nuclear-charged electric cars, biofuelled jets and continuing economic growth mean it will be business as usual in the low carbon future he envisages.”
What changed ? Fukushima Daiichi happened, or rather, started happening and got progressively worse, halfway through writing his new book, but that didn’t put him off the atomic power trail. He’s on a very lonely island. Perhaps he’s there with David MacKay, the author of the book “Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air” which I think has some pretty unrealistic visioning about harvesting uranium from seawater. Have they both drunk the Kool Aid ? I can see no other reason for their unsuppressed belief in the March of Nuclear Progress, unless they’ve spent too long talking to Matt Ridley, who could probably even be optimistic about Fukushima Daiichi…Oh…wait… He has been ! But I digress.
Mark Lynas believes in the power of Renewable Energy, even though he’s been snared in the cult of Atomkraft :-
“Personally I think that 80% of the world’s energy probably could be met by renewables by mid-century – but the IPCC’s renewables report singularly fails to demonstrate that. (So I’m not a clean energy ‘unbeliever’ – denier? – even by [Greenpeace’s Sven] Teske’s standard above.) Instead, the figure comes from one of 167 [no, 164, actually] different energy scenarios, none of which are assessed in terms of their likelihood or feasibility. They are just ‘scenarios’, not plans, strategies or even projections.”
An international group of experts have put together a collection of 164 potential pathways, but how can Mark Lynas possibly know which is the most likely ? Which is the best ? Which the most optimal ? Who better than the people on the IPCC to assess the best options ?
A lot of our energy future rests on choice – the choices that governments, companies and people make – about the best energy technologies to invest in, about the regulations for environmental protection, and about how best to match and marry energy resources.
Without care and composure and strategic policy, these choices will probably be made on a step-by-step basis, with limited systems thinking. This has been the way throughout the development of the use of fossil fuels and uranium, and we have ended up with heinously wasteful power generation networks, and rapacious resource scavenging around the world.
It’s right that we give priority not to particular, favourite technologies, but to packages of options that fit well together and have synergistic effects on resource optimisation, environmental protection and climate safety.
Many groups are working on this very problem, and not just the non-governmental organisations. We now have government departments, engineering companies and energy systems analysts around the world looking at economy-wide responses to climate change, and how to effect the changes in the energy systems that can meet the challenge.
There are many experts out there. Many of them resist new Nuclear Power as costly, dangerous and defunct, and propose strategies similar to the Greenpeace [r]Evolution, which, as Sven Teske explains, was written by an alliance that spanned industry as well as Civil Society.
What gives Mark Lynas (and his New Best Friend, Steve McIntyre), the authority to say that Sven Teske’s judgement on the best way forward is wrong ? And why shouldn’t the IPCC prefer a scenario similar to the one proposed by Greenpeace ?
Nuclear Power is not a very pragmatic choice. It’s lumpy, costly, unreliable, risky and lots of the expenses are stacked up towards the end of a reactor’s life. It’s part of the dying paradigm of centrally-provided electricity generation. It’s proved it’s uselessness. Let’s move on from Nuclear Power.
When people talk about “energy efficiency”, they usually mean “end use energy efficiency” – how many miles to the gallon or watts to the lumen. They also sometimes mean “end use energy thrift”, meaning they pay more attention to their energy use, and keep it pared down.
However, the largest source of energy inefficiency is systemic, for example, the losses in the electricity generation sector. Let’s just dip into the figures to check. The sources of energy data about the United Kingdom that I make use of most frequently are the Energy Trends quarterly report from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), and the annual DECC Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES).
From the 2010 DUKES report, the “Electricity flow chart 2009 (TWh)” in Chapter 5 shows that Coal used in power stations was 288.6 Terawatt hours (TWh) for 2009, and Natural Gas fed into the electricity generation system was 356.2 TWh. The “Conversion, Transmission & Distribution Losses” amounted to 565.9 TWh.
From Chapter 2 of the 2010 DUKES report, the “Coal flow chart 2009 (millions of tonnes of coal)” showed that 40.1 million tonnes of coal were fed into the power stations in 2009, so that equates to the 288.6 TWh from Chapter 5. This chart also shows that imports of coal amounted to 38.2 million tonnes, by deduction therefore, equivalent to 274.9 TWh.
In Chapter 4, the “Natural gas flow chart 2009 (TWh)” shows that 355.7 TWh of Natural Gas went to the power stations, and that imports of Natural Gas were 455.8 TWh.
A simple calculation shows that the combined total of the imported Coal and Natural Gas in 2009 was 730.7 TWh, and the losses from the entire electricity generation system was 565.9 TWh, which was 77% of the imported amount.
So, let’s put that another way – over three quarters of the energy that we imported in the form of Coal and Natural Gas to keep our electricity generation system running was wasted. That’s right – wasted. That means that the efficiency of using imported Coal and Natural Gas to make electricity is only 23%.
Now, compare this to the efficiency of energy conversion in wind turbines, I beg you, and decide for yourself which offers the better deal. The free range wind, of course, is and will remain, free of charge.
With a coal- and Natural Gas-fired power generation system this inefficient, the UK is highly dependent on imports of primary energy. Yet asking domestic and corporate consumers to change their behaviour by conserving energy is not going to solve this root problem. I am of the view that asking people to change their energy habits just deflects attention away from the changes that are necessary in the basic power production system.
One of the reasons this state of affairs is accepted is because of the historical development of electricity generation – a long chain of decisions has led to a situation where the consistency of the supply and its quantity are more important than making its production more efficient. Inefficiency is accepted in order to guarantee delivery of a high quality, versatile energy – but it could be so much better.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Categories
Mark Lynas : Dam Right
On one thing, Mark Lynas is right – the world cannot cope with more large hydropower dam projects – just look at what Rainfall Change has meant for power blackouts in South America.
However, yet again, he blurs the value of one of the central principles guiding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – inclusivity :-
https://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-allegation-of-ipcc-renewables-report-bias/
Who are the experts on climate change and energy ? We need to make sense of the various voices, and for that, we need to hear them all. The IPCC is the best platform we have – it is as neutral as it is possible for a host organisation to be.
Mark Lynas has just joined the Delayers-and-Deniers club, whose agenda has moved on from trying to take down Climate Change science to taking down any organisation that could help the policy and industry situation improve.
His contributions, including this comment at JudithCurry.com, betray his unwitting complicity in a destructive agenda :-
https://judithcurry.com/2011/06/17/an-opening-mind-part-ii/#comment-76593
Mark, they’re Americans. Americans believe in Free Speech. Americans are legally permitted to say anything they like, even if it has no factual basis. I know, there are lots of Canadians, Britannians and Australians in the Delayers-and-Deniers club, too, but the central point stands – all this grunting and dismissiveness about the IPCC is their way of distracting the public mind from the real problems we must face in changing the energy systems while we still have time – before it becomes a genuine crisis situation, where we can no longer act.
Who is completely independent, neutral or unbiased about Climate Change ? Who is completely independent, neutral or unbiased about Energy ?
Solving Climate Change requires solving Energy, and that requires solving the problems in democratic dialogue. The so-called Climate Change “skeptics” do not engage in forthright, honest, transparent dialogue, not even about energy. Back away from the grumblers, Mark !
I have my criticisms of the “corporate steal” of the United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention – issues of economic development and industrial investment have dominated the international conferences, and unworkable economics theories have snuck into the Kyoto Protocol and any other initiative you think of – including the emergence of proposals for Carbon Taxation and Carbon Trading schemes.
I also have criticisms of the communications structure within and around the IPCC – I think the IPCC reports should be written in such a way as to make sure that everybody can take in the full seriousness, urgency and momentum of what they are discussing.
Why are executives of major energy companies bothering to take part in the IPCC process ? Because they perceive that things cannot go on like they are. This is the same perception as held by those in Greenpeace and other non-governmental organisations and charities.
Nominate for me a set of people who are entirely independent, who cannot have a biased opinion about the future of energy and the environment, and I will place my trust in their review of the literature on Climate Change and Renewable Energy.
Failing that, I stick with the collage produced by the multi-viewed expert panel, corporate and non-corporate, part of the IPCC. There is nothing better than a totally open forum. Maybe International Rivers want to take part in future IPCC work ? If important views are being ignored, they need to be included from now on.
Allowing the Delayers-and-Deniers to keep setting the agenda is dangerous and disabling. We’ve already seen the success they had in derailing public acceptance of Climate Change science. Their latest plans include telling us that wind power and solar power don’t work. It would be laughable, except that the mainstream media keep repeating the lies :-
https://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/20/248246/solar-beats-peak-gas-today-cnbc/
Mark, your allegiance to the failing nuclear industry demonstrates that you have not understood that its promotion is one of the tactics of the Delayers-and-Deniers club to keep us from effective, long-term energy change.
By attacking anything that has the possibility of succeeding, they have a stranglehold on progress. Don’t give in to their agenda. We shouldn’t be fighting each other.
Categories
Bait & Switch Big Picture Big Society Breathe Easy Carbon Army Demoticratica Direction of Travel Energy Change Energy Disenfranchisement Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Energy Socialism Evil Opposition Feed the World Feel Gooder Fossilised Fuels Fuel Poverty Green Investment Green Power Growth Paradigm Health Impacts Libertarian Liberalism Major Shift Money Sings National Energy Nudge & Budge Obamawatch Oil Change Optimistic Generation Peace not War Protest & Survive Renewable Resource Social Capital Social Change Solar Sunrise Solution City Stirring Stuff The Power of Intention Wind of Fortune
A Green Van for all the People
Categories
Bait & Switch Behaviour Changeling Big Picture Biofools Climate Change Coal Hell Demoticratica Divide & Rule Energy Change Energy Disenfranchisement Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Energy Socialism Financiers of the Apocalypse Fossilised Fuels Gamechanger Green Investment Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Mass Propaganda Media National Energy National Socialism Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Nudge & Budge Oil Change Optimistic Generation Peace not War Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Public Relations Regulatory Ultimatum Resource Curse Social Capital Social Change Social Chaos The Power of Intention Voluntary Behaviour Change Vote Loser
Energy for Democracy
 | Dropping The Campaign Wrecking Ball
Intelligent commentators, authors and policy people are often suspicious of campaign groups. At the back of their minds they are drawing on a cultural discourse, primarily conducted in the media, that equates campaigners with mini-Hitlers – spreading disinformation and cult behaviour. It is true that – as Mein Kampf reveals – the National Socialists in Germany used the latest communications tools to coerce and channel the energy of democracy towards their goals. Some of the Nazi ambition was for democratic engagement, involvement in the process of rebuilding the country. Yet some of the methods were perverse, and caused an inexorable descent into the abuse of power. |
When people like Mark Lynas accuse Greenpeace and other green campaign organisations of failings, there is any underlying theme – accusations of manipulation – both of facts and people. The sub-text harks back to the combat against fascism and Nazism in Europe.
We’re never going to make any progress on climate change if those advocating for energy change are equated to early 20th Century dictators and totalitarians.
Energy is a Social Good
I recently wrote an essay called “Energy for Democracy” making a first attempt at connecting the dots on grassroots democratic mobilisation and energy change. The subject set was in the field of “Environmental Communication”, and so I went back and looked at the development of mass media, advertising and public persuasion. I then went on to think about how propaganda and governance are interrelated. And I also looked at philosophy, and politics. I looked at the early 20th Century ideological splits in Europe, and the part that industrial development played. I looked at how democratic and other forms of socialism dealt with the problem of energy.
I posited that, since energy is produced for the Common Good, it should be subject to democratic management. I found myself “channelling” the spirit of Ramsay Macdonald, and going back to the questions of society and the integration of new industries that were pervasive before the two so-called “World Wars”.
Energy Of A Similar Wavelength
And today I find this very theme picked up by Ulrich Beck in The Guardian newspaper, along with the expression “energy change”, which is a term I am using increasingly to encapsulate the pivotal and essential response to climate change :-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/20/germany-nuclear-power-renewable-energy
“Germany is right to opt out of nuclear”, he headlines, “The rejection of nuclear power is a result not of German angst but of economic thinking. We must invest in renewable energy”.
I was gladdened when he stepped from economics to democratics :-
“…Ultimately, the rejection of nuclear is not a result of German angst but of economic thinking. In the long run, nuclear power will become more expensive, while renewable energy will become cheaper. But the key point is that those who continue to leave all options open will not invest…People everywhere are proclaiming and mourning the death of politics. Paradoxically, the cultural perception of the danger may well usher in the very opposite: the end of the end of politics…what is denounced by many as a hysterical over-reaction to the “risks” of nuclear energy is in fact a vital step towards ensuring that a turning point in energy generation becomes a step towards greater democracy…The novel coalition between the state and social movements of the kind we currently see at work in Germany now has a historic opportunity. Even in terms of power politics, this change of policy makes sense…”
The British are stumbling towards democracy, too, but they keep tripping over old divisiveness, and create new divisions too, just to complicate matters.
People Power – Not Potty Nor Puny
The Climate Camp has just been a baby step on the pathway to democratic movement on energy. Camping in coal trucks and dropping banners from power station cooling stacks has been a sign that democracy has been ailing – if there were genuine engagement between the governments, private enterprises and “campaign” groups over the future scenarios for energy, then people wouldn’t need to camp outside banks and coal-fired power plants.
As a consumer of mainstream media, all you see is the blockade of a Biofuel refinery, or people gluing themselves to the entrance of the Royal Bank of Scotland, or the occupation of a plant nursery at the site of a proposed runway. If you think “what a ramshackle bunch of unwashed hippies, straining the last of their voices, railing at the State, in a vain attempt to roll back the tide of industry, progress and Thorium reactors”, then you haven’t understood the bigger picture.
People want to be engaged in the decisions made about energy in this country – properly engaged. People want to use their knowledge to influence decisions. If the only means they have of expressing their democratic will and their opposition to hydraulic fracturing is to D-lock themselves to Shale Gas drilling equipment, then perhaps they might just do that. This might happen in Poland too. The alternative would be a proper discussion between the people groups and the governments. Where’s the European Union environmental legislature while all of this is happening ? Shale Gas could destroy Poland.
Energy Collectives – Expressing Collective Democratic Will
Groups like Fair Pensions are building momentum between people groups and investing institutions – raising the flag for clean energy. This isn’t about fighting – let’s drop the battlefield language, including that word “campaign”, which is so often used in a derogatory, dismissive, belittling way. This is about getting people working together on a new, sustainable future, and it requires all the righteous anger rising up to be channelled into a positive, productive movement, fully expressing the will of the people.
Consultations and placard-waving demonstration protests are not the way forward – we need energy change, and that’s going to require a whole lot more democratic energy. People don’t want dirty energy, and they don’t want nuclear power. Dirty energy should be asked to leave the building, nicely, politely. Firm but fair.
Group Thinking – Democratic Intelligence
Investment in renewable and sustainable energy is creating long-lasting assets for the UK and other countries. We don’t need and we don’t want dirty, radioactive energy any more. A thousand cheers for German democracy !
The design of the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change “Energy Infrastructure” website shows what appears to be an robotic, alien figure in a green and pleasant land under a wind turbine. It must be a trick of the light, but I’m sure you can see the join between its head and its body, and added to that, there’s an unearthly glow around its helmet :-
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/EIP/pages/recent.htm
But what intrigues me more than the choice of photographs to adorn this website, and the curious, 1940’s style graphic of an electricity pylon used as a logo, is the mention of the recent permission granted to an CCGT/OCGT power station planning proposal at RWE npower Willington C in Derbyshire :-
https://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/consents_planning/consents_planning.aspx
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/EIP/pages/onshore.htm
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/EIP/pages/recent.htm
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/EIP/pages/projects/willington_ccgt_decision_letter.pdf
Burning petroleum refinery residues ? Yes.
The decision letter lays out that :-
“On 24 September 2010 the Company formally requested if section 36 consent was granted that it could be on the basis of a phased development, that is the construction of the open cycle gas turbine generating station, followed by the combined cycle gas turbine generating station once development consent for the natural gas pipeline had been obtained. The Company has explained that the open cycle turbines can be operated on distillate oil and would be used only for periods to meet peak demand or in response to intermittency in renewable generation”
The gas pipeline has been requested :-
https://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects/east-midlands/willington-gas-pipeline/
But I’m asking myself, has no progress been made in energy policy ? Are we going to carry on burning oil refinery residue at times of peak demand ? The people and many of the Parliamentarians have shown their resistance to new coal-fired power stations, and there does appear to be a moratorium on new coal, kind of. But do people realise that some of the new “peaker plants” that are believed to be necessary will be burning fuel oil ? You see, Willington C is not alone :-
https://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/97626/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/power-generation/fawley/
“In June 2011 we announced that we are investigating the possibility of developing a new distillate oil-fired open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) plant at our Fawley site. For more information about the proposals…” :-
https://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/97626/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/power-generation/fawley/
https://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/657602/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/new-power-stations/fawley/
https://www.thisishampshire.net/news/9066256.Energy_giant_pledges_consultation_over_new___100m_power_plant/
https://www.internationalsustainableenergy.com/news/rwe-npower-investigates-new-ocgt-plant-at-fawley/
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9066256.Energy_giant_pledges_consultation_over_new___100m_power_plant/?action=complain&cid=9407217
Are people aware of what fuel oil is and what burning it can do ? :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s11.pdf
So you see, people, if you refuse wind farms, you get Civil Service non-engineers agreeing RWE npower can carry on burning toxic oil refinery waste to provide your electricity. Great choice, Britain !
Categories
Renewable Gas #4 : CBG
Terminology is important, which is why I use the term “Renewable Gas” to describe all sustainable resources of gas, rather than the clutch of acronyms that are being sprayed about at engineering conferences. I chose “Renewable Gas” as it is a parallel term to Natural Gas, which is in common use, and which most people are aware comes from mining operations, often from the same wells as petroleum crude oil. And by using the word “Renewable”, it is clear that I am talking about sustainable sources.
Since this is an emerging field of energy research and development, much of the engineering language could be opaque to the average Joe Blogger, particularly since people are using different terms and acronyms to describe the same things.
Over time, the descriptive language and the acronyms and categories are becoming consolidated – one such term being CBG, which stands for Compressed Biogas. It’s derived from the rather more well-known term CNG, which stands for Compressed Natural Gas.
CNG is used as a correlate to a very well-known term, LNG, which stands for refrigerated Liquid Natural Gas, of which the UK imports rather a lot by ship, so has entered common language. CNG, by comparison, is not liquid, just very compacted gas, and is becoming a solution for urban air quality around the world, used in large public service vehicles (buses), originally, but now in a range of transport options.
However, despite the fact that fuelling by CNG helps improve air quality, it’s still derived from Natural Gas, which is a fossil fuel, and therefore finite in supply. And this is where the many sources of Renewable Gas can be useful, in prolonging the use of remaining resources of Natural Gas, by mixing with or substituting for the fossil fuel.
There are varieties of Renewable Gas, depending on the source material and the chemical process used to collect or create the gas. One of the most well-known is Biogas, which is drawn from the composting of plant and animal waste, and is divided into categories, such as Landfill Gas and Sewage Gas, and where the process can be augmented and accelerated by various Anaerobic Digestion treatments.
But besides the microbiological breakdown of formerly living tissue, which creates Biogas, it is also possible to create what are called synthesis, synthetic or substitute gases, generally from plant waste, such as forestry residue. This is being referred to as BioSNG in places, where SNG refers to Synthetic, Synthesis or Substitute Natural Gas. However, it can also just be called Syngas, and it’s up to us, the audience, to work out whether this particular syngas has been renewably sourced.
Gassy fuels will become essential in the near future, as liquid petroleum fuel products are going to come under significant supply stress due to depletion and geopolitical factors.
The key point is that, as the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MAC) at the top of this post shows, the drive towards using gaseous rather than liquid fuels for Heavy Goods Vehicles (and other large vehicles such as buses), will probably cost more than any carbon price or tax that can be agreed at the political level. The chart seems to suggest that a carbon price of £ 150 GBP per tonne of Carbon Dioxide will be reached.
What is not considered is that the cost of petroleum-derived fuel products could cost around $ 300 USD a barrel in the not-too-distant future. If that becomes the reality, then it won’t matter if a carbon price is set or not, CNG, CBG and mixes of these gas fuels will quite possibly become the cheapest option for the world’s trade and transportation systems.
Hat tip : Peter Sinclair, Climate Crocks
https://www.alternet.org/world/151328/it_keeps_getting_worse_–_fukushima_called_’biggest_industrial_catastrophe_in_the_history_of_mankind’_
“16 June 2011 : Full Meltdown: Fukushima Called the ‘Biggest Industrial Catastrophe in the History of Mankind'”
https://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-much-worse-than-you-think-2011-6
“17 June 2011 : Japan Expands The Fukushima Evacuation Zone Even Further — After 98 Days Of Radiation Exposure”
Meanwhile, in the United States of America :-
https://www.businessinsider.com/second-nebraska-nuclear-plant-threatened-by-flooding-but-everything-should-be-fine-2011-6
“17 June 2011 : Second Nebraska Nuclear Plant Threatened By Flooding”
https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-closes-airspace-over-flooded-nebraska-nuclear-power-plant-2011-6
“15 June 2011 : Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed”
https://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/59552/spiking-conspiracy-theories-about-ft-calhoun-npp
“17 June 2011 : Spiking Conspiracy Theories About Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant”
Categories
Big Picture Coal Hell Direction of Travel Divide & Rule Emissions Impossible Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Foreign Interference Fossilised Fuels Green Investment Green Power Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Media National Energy Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Optimistic Generation Peak Emissions Policy Warfare Realistic Models Regulatory Ultimatum Renewable Resource Solar Sunrise Solution City Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow The War on Error Unqualified Opinion Western Hedge Wind of Fortune
Mark Lynas : Turn Turtle
from : Jo Abbess
to : Mark Lynas
cc : George Monbiot
date : Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:07 PM
subject : You may not have properly understood Germany’s energy plan
Dear Mark,
From where I’m sitting, you appear not to have understood Germany’s energy plan, which centres on ramping up and rolling out as much renewable energy as possible.
You are quoted, and write :-
https://us.arevablog.com/2011/06/16/quote-of-the-day-42/
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/15/italy-nuclear-referendum
“If the German greens really took climate change seriously, they would instead be pushing for a phase-out of coal – which generates by far the largest proportion of the country’s power and consequent carbon emissions – from Germany’s electricity grid. Instead, the new nuclear phase-out plan will see a hefty 11GW of new coal plants built in years to come, with an additional 5GW of new gas. The only way emissions from these plants could be controlled would be through “carbon capture and storage” (CCS) – yet Greenpeace in Germany has already mounted a successful scaremongering campaign against this new technology, helping to ensure that future fossil emissions will go into the atmosphere unabated.”
How does having strong renewable energy ambition sit with commissioning new coal power plants ?
Well, as you probably know, the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine – hence back up is required. Nuclear power cannot back up wind power or solar power because it is not very flexible.
Coal and gas are easily stored, and coal and gas power plants can be kept awaiting use as and when required by renewable lulls.
There is no point in fitting Carbon Capture (and eventually Storage) to coal fired power plants if they’re only going to be used for occasional wind back up – too expensive. And the tests are showing problems. And even though it’s claimed that CCS can take away 90% of the emissions, it’s more like 85% because CCS uses more coal fuel.
It would be better if Germany opted totally for new gas plant for their wind back up, but they appear to not want to be big importers of fossil fuels, so they’ve gone mostly for coal which they can mine, at a pinch, at home. In the UK we’re going for gas, because we believe in continued good relations with Qatar (via the House of Saud ?) and Russia (via BP ?)
The amount of time that coal and gas plants will be in use when renewable energy is fully developed in Gemany will be days per year in total. So in 20 years time when they’ve built all their wind and solar, they get to meet their carbon targets and still have operational coal and gas plant for when necessary.
How is it that you’ve missed this central plank of their policy ?
On the one hand, I could be asked to excuse this lapse of reasoning on your part – as far as I know you haven’t trained as an energy engineer, so how could you be expected to understand load balancing and load following in the real world ?
On the other hand, you’ve just written a book extolling the virtue of nuclear engineering, in effect dismissing the sensible decisions that Germany and other countries have taken, so I cannot let this pass by without commenting.
Sorry to report it, but you’ve just made it into my Little Book of The World’s Most Annoying Men because you appear to have no idea about the pitfalls of nuclear power, you do not seem to understand other approaches to the energy crisis; and in addition, you have built a generalist argument concocted from stereotypes to make the green movement the punch bag for your position. When I read a similar irrational rant in Anthony Giddens’ book “The Politics of Climate Change”, I became so angry, my reptile-inherited brain took over, and I threw the book across the room.
Why, I ask myself, are you following in Giddens’ footsteps and becoming so reactionary ? Are you adopting the position of George Monbiot, who seems to be evolving into a curmudgeon ?
I shall not be buying your new book, because your arguments are, to my mind, faulty.
Regards,
jo.
Categories
Bad Science Bait & Switch Climate Change Corporate Pressure Divide & Rule Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Fossilised Fuels Freak Science Genetic Modification Genetic Muddyfixation Green Investment Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Mass Propaganda Media Non-Science Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Oil Change Optimistic Generation Peak Emissions Peak Energy Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Realistic Models Renewable Resource Science Rules Scientific Fallacy Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow Technomess The Data The War on Error Unqualified Opinion
Mark Lynas : Mutant Ninja
Mark Lynas may call himself a “green”, and be a clean-shaven, respectable, politely-spoken Oxford academic type but he appears to be mutating into something very unappealing indeed. He’s written some good books on climate change – every schoolroom and university module should have one – but on energy, he is deep in the political woods, without even a wind-up flashlight.
His latest stunt is to join in with accusations from Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit that the IPCC’s report on Renewable Energy has been partly crafted by people without appropriate independence or expertise. Here, from Andrew Revkin :-
“The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work.”
And who is this nefarious untalented Non-Governmental Organisation ? Greenpeace, it appears, according to Mark Lynas, is not capable of writing about the future of energy (or even the current situation).
Daniel Kammen has weighed in and The Revkin has updated his post :-
“There is no Himalaya-gate here at all. While there are some issues with individual chapters, there is no ‘Greenpeace Scenario.’ The 77% carbon free by 2050 is actually more conservative than some cases. The European Climate Foundation, for example has a 100% carbon neutral scenario and Price Waterhouse has a very low carbon one for North Africa. Further, while the IPCC works from published cases, the scenarios are evaluated and assessed by a team.”
There have been a number of reports written in the last year that back the viability of Renewable Energy technologies in replacing the world’s fossil fuel and nuclear energy systems. Not all of them were crafted by Greenpeace researchers. In fact, virtually none of them. Nuclear…yes…maybe it’s that little word “nuclear” that’s the root cause of Mark Lynas’ problem with Greenpeace.
In the Guardian, he is quoted as saying :-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/15/italy-nuclear-referendum
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/13/greenpeace-foe-charles-secrett-criticism
“Many ‘green’ campaigns, like those against nuclear power and GM crops, are not actually scientifically defensible…”
And that’s where you are so wrong, Mark Lynas with the book coming out soon that you seem so desperate to publicise by saying things you know people will find annoying. Nuclear power is a TECHNOLOGY, not a SCIENCE. This is the same basic category error made by Dick Taverne and a number of other public commentators who don’t appear to have an engineering background.
TECHNOLOGY is where people decide that their designs to make something look like they’ll work, build them and don’t foresee flaws with them. SCIENCE is where people study the technology that they’ve built and research the flaws that appear and report on them. Science is what has shown the limitations with the original boasts about genetically modified crops. It turns out that GMOs are a ruse to sell chemicals. And on nuclear fission – the science is in and on the front of your daily newspaper : nuclear power plants pose a number of risks. The advice of the reputable scientists and engineers – old fission nuclear power plants should be withdrawn.
But returning to Renewable Energy, a number of organisations now believe that the demise of fossil fuels needn’t stop humanity from accessing abundant energy. Here is just a very short compilation :-
The Two Marks : Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson :-
https://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2011/2/5/mark_jacobson_and_mark_delucchi_wind_water_and_solar
PriceWaterhouseCooper :-
https://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/100_percent_renewable_electricity.html
CAT Zero Carbon Britain 2030 :-
https://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/
Roadmap 2050 :-
https://www.roadmap2050.eu/
European Renewable Energy Council R[e]volution :-
https://www.erec.org/media/publications/energy-revolution-2010.html
But oh, no, we can’t quote the last one because Greenpeace researchers were involved, and Mark Lynas wouldn’t approve of that. Mark Lynas appears to be living in a world where Greenpeace people can’t have engineering research skills because they have ideals, working for a world that uses safe, clean energy.
The IPCC report on Renewable Energy is here :-
https://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/
Much as I respect turtles, I have to say it – Mark Lynas, you’re a turtle – slow-moving and easy to catch out and turn into soup. You should know by now not to get sucked in by spurious non-arguments from Steve McIntyre. The “cleantech” industry that’s ramping up to provide the world with green energy is worth billions, soon to be trillions of dollars worldwide, and this fact appears to have completely passed you by. The only future for energy is sustainable, renewable, non-nuclear, clean, quiet and safe. There is no other viable, liveable, option.
[ UPDATE : In the Independent newspaper, Mark Lynas is quoted as remarking “Campaigners should not be employed as lead authors in IPCC reports”. So, Mark, it’s really fine for employees of the major oil, gas and mining companies to take a leading role on major IPCC reports; but it’s not fine, according to you, that somebody working for much less money and much higher principles than mere corporate profit should contribute ? Denigrating somebody for being a “campaigner” is a stereotypical insult. Everybody’s got an agenda, campaigners included. What’s your agenda, Mark ? Selling your new book ? Don’t be dismissive about Greenpeace researchers. They may have ideals, but they’re not naive – they also have brains – and with their declared position on getting at the truth they can be trusted to be direct, decent and honest. Where’s your ethical compass, Mark ? ]
Viva Italia !
Categories
Advancing Africa Animal Kingdoom Bad Science Bait & Switch Big Society Dead End Demoticratica Design Matters Divide & Rule Engineering Marvel Environmental Howzat Evil Opposition Foreign Interference Foreign Investment Freak Science Genetic Modification Human Nurture Libertarian Liberalism Mass Propaganda Media Non-Science Pure Hollywood Resource Curse Scientific Fallacy The War on Error Unqualified Opinion Unutterably Useless Utter Futility
Adam Curtis : Daft Punk
[ UPDATE : BRILLIANT DECONSTRUCTION OF ADAM CURTIS’ WORK FROM BEN WOODHAMS ]
The final part (I really hope it is the final part) of Adam Curtis’ trilogy on “Evil” Computers and “Devillish” Enviromentalists – “All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace” – a title drawn from a poem written by what would appear to be a madman – has now been uploaded to YouTube, allowing me to view it without taking part in the memory-eating public monitoring disappointment that is BBC iPlayer :-
Adam Curtis certainly reveals himself as a little monkeyish in this episode, throwing overarm and underhand javelins at “liberals” of all hues and cries, particularly environmental ones; and throwing in liberal references to primates wherever he can, seemingly to suggest that mankind has un- or de-evolved by adopting computing tools and studying the natural world.
Imagine a world, not far into the future, when Climate Change starts to make large areas of tropical and sub-tropical land uninhabitable. Imagine that the United Nations comes to an agreement that people’s access to settlement and agricultural land is a human right – and international law bans land grabs and corporate and military enclosure of farming land.
Then ask yourself, where will people migrate to ? The largest newly accessible lands will be in the north, Northern Canada and Siberia. And think it through – what will people find when they get there ? Former paper goods forests ravaged by pine beetle; tundra outgassing ancient methane; the toxic tailing ponds and polluted waterways of tar sands development; the remains of Arctic oil and gas ocean spills and onshore pipeline leaks.
In the realm of conspiracy theories, one branch is particularly difficult to unseat – suppositions of technological risks to health – or what I am naming “technocankery”, since a good number of them attribute cancer to the use of technology. Why, it is clear to see : cancer is caused by small, unseen mutations, and it’s hard to pinpoint causal effects. “Carcinogen” is therefore a useful accusation to hurl at any technology you don’t like, even if you have no proof or evidence.
But we’re doing science. How we know what we know is through a long chain of experimentation and monitoring, data gathering that can lead to reasonable claims that can then be subject to further testing and assessing. People rightly assert that we need to keep our minds open to possibilities unconceived, or mistakes unknowingly trodden. As the Dalai Lama Tweeted 25th May 2011 : “To arrive at certainty, you need to start from a skeptical posture. The best scientists are impartial, not swayed by their own beliefs.”
Categories
Behaviour Changeling Big Picture British Sea Power Climate Change Climate Chaos Climate Damages Delay and Deny Demoticratica Disturbing Trends Divide & Rule Droughtbowl Economic Implosion Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Nix Energy Revival Energy Socialism Engineering Marvel Environmental Howzat Fossilised Fuels Green Investment Green Power Heatwave Low Carbon Life Major Shift Marvellous Wonderful National Energy Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Optimistic Generation Peak Emissions Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Regulatory Ultimatum Renewable Resource Social Change Social Chaos Solution City The Power of Intention Voluntary Behaviour Change Western Hedge Wind of Fortune
James Delingpole : Going Underground
James Delingpole hardly ever sets his delicate foot in Wales, the country he archaically refers to as “the Principality”, apart from, ooh, about ten days a year when he holidays there, but nonetheless, feels he has some kind of inherited ex-colonial right to be affronted that large electricity generation and transmission infrastructure are going to be built there :-
He gets top marks for being rather offensive himself – achingly rude, in fact, about the Welsh Assembly, besides his getting untethered about the wind farms and pylons for the transmission cables :-
“…The wind farms are bad enough on their own. But to make matters far worse […], in order for these bird-crunching, bat-chomping, view-blighting, rent-seeking monstrosities to be connected to the grid a huge 400kv power line is going to be constructed all the way from Montgomeryshire through some of Britain’s most spectacular scenery to the equally beauteous Shropshire…”