dgpcolorado
high altitude member
It's per capita emissions and there are a lot more people in the UK (and everywhere else) nowadays. Nevertheless, it certainly is good news.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
There is not a ton to get excited about.
In 1850, the UK was likely the highest in the world by a long shot. At that time, they manufactured things.
Now, their standard of living is not great, they don't manufacture things anymore, and they are still above the world average. If you account properly for their consumption, their carbon emissions are probably close to double what they are.
Historically, they are the 5th largest carbon emitter despite being a tiny island (Hamilton reference) of 67 million people. There are 20 countries with more people. In 1850, the US was about one eighth the per capita emissions of the UK.
It is a bit like being excited about the US's 40% drop from our peak. Still almost the highest in the world ... but better than we were. And a lot of that is off shoring also.
In 1850, the UK was likely the highest in the world by a long shot. At that time, they manufactured things.
Now, their standard of living is not great, they don't manufacture things anymore, and they are still above the world average. If you account properly for their consumption, their carbon emissions are probably close to double what they are.
Historically, they are the 5th largest carbon emitter despite being a tiny island (Hamilton reference) of 67 million people. There are 20 countries with more people. In 1850, the US was about one eighth the per capita emissions of the UK.
It is a bit like being excited about the US's 40% drop from our peak. Still almost the highest in the world ... but better than we were. And a lot of that is off shoring also.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Biden urged not to approve oil terminals that could create ‘carbon bombs’ Biden’s administration has been urged not to sink its own climate goals by approving an unprecedented ramp-up of oil export infrastructure off the Texas coast that could result in planet-heating emissions equivalent to three years of the US’s entire emissions output. What do we know about the Ohio train derailment and toxic chemical leak? The federal government has already quietly approved the Sea Port oil terminal project, a proposed offshore oil platform located 35 miles off the Texas coast, south of Houston, and will decide whether to allow three other nearby oil terminal proposals. Combined, the four terminals would expand US oil exports by nearly 7m barrels every day, handling the capacity of half of all current national oil exports.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
US energy firms use Ukraine war to lock in long-term gas contracts
American oil and gas companies are pushing to solve the short-term problem of a tight European gas supply, driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with long-term liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracts, a new report shows.
LNG terminals are massively expensive, multi-decade investments,” said Lukas Ross, a co-author of the report and program manager for Friends of the Earth. “In order for a bank or other investor to feel comfortable writing a check for something like this, they need market certainty. And the way that certainty is delivered is through long-term contracts. But a short-term supply crunch should not be solved with long-term infrastructure.
American oil and gas companies are pushing to solve the short-term problem of a tight European gas supply, driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with long-term liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracts, a new report shows.
LNG terminals are massively expensive, multi-decade investments,” said Lukas Ross, a co-author of the report and program manager for Friends of the Earth. “In order for a bank or other investor to feel comfortable writing a check for something like this, they need market certainty. And the way that certainty is delivered is through long-term contracts. But a short-term supply crunch should not be solved with long-term infrastructure.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Costs Continue To Rise For Hinkley Point Nuclear Megaproject | OilPrice.com
In 2016, the project commenced with an estimated cost of £16-17 billion. Oilprice readers will not be surprised that these costs kept rising. In February 2023, EDF estimated that the final cost would be close to £33 billion ($40 billion), a 100% increase versus the initial estimated cost to completion. The Chinese partner may not agree to further investments beyond those initially agreed to so EDF could be exposed to even higher costs. With the completion date set for 2027, should we expect more increases?
In 2016, the project commenced with an estimated cost of £16-17 billion. Oilprice readers will not be surprised that these costs kept rising. In February 2023, EDF estimated that the final cost would be close to £33 billion ($40 billion), a 100% increase versus the initial estimated cost to completion. The Chinese partner may not agree to further investments beyond those initially agreed to so EDF could be exposed to even higher costs. With the completion date set for 2027, should we expect more increases?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
This ‘climate-friendly’ fuel comes with an astronomical cancer risk
The Environmental Protection Agency recently gave a Chevron refinery the green light to create fuel from discarded plastics as part of a climate-friendly initiative to boost alternatives to petroleum. But, according to agency records obtained by ProPublica and the Guardian, the production of one of the fuels could emit air pollution that is so toxic, one out of four people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer.
Aside from the chemical that carries a 25% lifetime risk of cancer from smoke-stack emissions, another of the Chevron fuels ushered in through the program is expected to cause 1.2 cancers in 10,000 people – also far higher than the agency allows for the general population. The EPA division that screens new chemicals typically limits cancer risk from a single air pollutant to one case of cancer in a million people. The agency also calculated that air pollution from one of the fuels is expected to cause 7.1 cancers in every 1,000 workers – more than 70 times the level EPA’s new chemicals division usually considers acceptable for workers.
Whatever you call it, the creation of fuel from plastic is in some ways worse for the climate than simply making it directly from fossil fuels. Over 99% of all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, including coal, oil and gas. To produce fuel from plastics, additional fossil fuels are used to generate the heat that converts them into petrochemicals that can be used as fuel.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently gave a Chevron refinery the green light to create fuel from discarded plastics as part of a climate-friendly initiative to boost alternatives to petroleum. But, according to agency records obtained by ProPublica and the Guardian, the production of one of the fuels could emit air pollution that is so toxic, one out of four people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer.
Aside from the chemical that carries a 25% lifetime risk of cancer from smoke-stack emissions, another of the Chevron fuels ushered in through the program is expected to cause 1.2 cancers in 10,000 people – also far higher than the agency allows for the general population. The EPA division that screens new chemicals typically limits cancer risk from a single air pollutant to one case of cancer in a million people. The agency also calculated that air pollution from one of the fuels is expected to cause 7.1 cancers in every 1,000 workers – more than 70 times the level EPA’s new chemicals division usually considers acceptable for workers.
Whatever you call it, the creation of fuel from plastic is in some ways worse for the climate than simply making it directly from fossil fuels. Over 99% of all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, including coal, oil and gas. To produce fuel from plastics, additional fossil fuels are used to generate the heat that converts them into petrochemicals that can be used as fuel.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Recapturing excess heat could power most of Europe, say experts
Excess heat produced across Europe could almost power the entire region but preventing this waste is largely being ignored as a solution to the energy crisis, say environmental experts. “The global energy crisis is a wakeup call to stop wasting energy,” said Toby Morgan, senior manager for the built environment at Climate Group, an environmental not-for-profit. “Now, more than ever, we need to make better use of the energy we already produce, we simply can’t afford to let it literally escape out the window. Energy efficiency improvements, like capturing and recycling excess heat, are absolutely critical to lower fossil fuel demand and lower bills.””
Excess heat produced across Europe could almost power the entire region but preventing this waste is largely being ignored as a solution to the energy crisis, say environmental experts. “The global energy crisis is a wakeup call to stop wasting energy,” said Toby Morgan, senior manager for the built environment at Climate Group, an environmental not-for-profit. “Now, more than ever, we need to make better use of the energy we already produce, we simply can’t afford to let it literally escape out the window. Energy efficiency improvements, like capturing and recycling excess heat, are absolutely critical to lower fossil fuel demand and lower bills.””
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Europe Has Weathered an Energy Crisis, for Now https://nyti.ms/3ZcFjTm
https://nyti.ms/3ZcFjTm
Within a year, Europe has totally made itself independent from its biggest fossil fuel supplier,” said Henning Gloystein, director for energy at Eurasia Group, a political risk firm.The worry is that next winter, colder temperatures combined with a resurgent, energy-hungry Chinese economy could put pressure on global gas supplies and cause prices to surge again.There are concerns that complacency has set in, and some leaders of the energy industry warn that Europe has been lucky this winter. They say the coming years, with a revived Chinese economy potentially sucking in more energy imports, may be more of a test.Experts like Mr. Alverà also say Europe has missed opportunities to lock up gas supplies from the United States with long-term contracts, largely because lawmakers don’t want to undermine climate goals aimed at reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. At the same time, Europe has so far failed to come up with a program like the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides businesses with large tax breaks for clean energy investments.
https://nyti.ms/3ZcFjTm
Within a year, Europe has totally made itself independent from its biggest fossil fuel supplier,” said Henning Gloystein, director for energy at Eurasia Group, a political risk firm.The worry is that next winter, colder temperatures combined with a resurgent, energy-hungry Chinese economy could put pressure on global gas supplies and cause prices to surge again.There are concerns that complacency has set in, and some leaders of the energy industry warn that Europe has been lucky this winter. They say the coming years, with a revived Chinese economy potentially sucking in more energy imports, may be more of a test.Experts like Mr. Alverà also say Europe has missed opportunities to lock up gas supplies from the United States with long-term contracts, largely because lawmakers don’t want to undermine climate goals aimed at reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. At the same time, Europe has so far failed to come up with a program like the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides businesses with large tax breaks for clean energy investments.
China has a deal with Russia for natural gas, which could help reduce competition.
Europe got lucky with a mild fall.
Good news is that by next winter there will also be another year of efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations.
Also, France has another 5GW of nuclear generation that should be back online by summer.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
The U.S. Has Billions for Wind and Solar Projects. Good Luck Plugging Them In.
The Interconnect system needs a major overhaul but how, and who is going to pay for it?
The Interconnect system needs a major overhaul but how, and who is going to pay for it?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The problem is the utility monopolies don't want competition. They want to control and profit from all energy.
They also want other people to pay for the long distance infrastructure which would let them keep overcharging for energy.
Lots of good studies show that local distributed energy systems are cheaper, more reliable and more efficient but utilities oppose these because they can't easily monopolize them.
No doubt a lot of the issues result from artificial foot-dragging with the intent to maintain the status quo. Ultimately, it is a national security issue however, and, given the known vulnerabilities (due to the present state of things) and the Russian and Chines threats, someone could just declare a state of emergency and use national defense dollars to help fix the problem. And yes, independent LDE systems improve security.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Here's a good discussion of the battle over long distance transmission.
State bills spur debate over who should build transmission: incumbent utilities or independent companies
Companies such as LS Power, NextEra, Evergy and ITC Great Plains are pressing lawmakers on bills that may determine who can build transmission projects, costing in the billions of dollars, across the central United States.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
Local systems might be appropriate for solar in sunny areas of the country but wind farms need to be located in places that have reliable wind and the space for efficient large turbines. Those large scale installations require significant transmission infrastructure.
Most population are on the coasts, offshore wind is near the coast. Problem solved.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
As many here know, some of the best onshore wind is in places like Wyoming and North Dakota. Offshore wind is much more difficult along the West Coast because the water is MUCH deeper there; floating wind turbine farms are more expensive due to technical challenges. The shallow water along the East Coast is due to the continental shelf and works better for wind farms, although they are more difficult to build and service than onshore.
Even offshore wind requires significant infrastructure to handle the power generated. I'm not persuaded by hand waving arguments about how simple it all is if we would only think about local micro grids. Wind can be quite complementary to solar, because of different timing of peak production, but there is nothing small scale about it. And that especially includes offshore.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Fossil fuels kill more people than Covid. Why are we so blind to the harms of oil and gas? | Rebecca Solnit
If fossil fuel use and impact had suddenly appeared overnight, their catastrophic poisonousness and destructiveness would be obvious. But they have so incrementally become part of everyday life nearly everywhere on Earth that those impacts are largely accepted or ignored (that they’ve also corroded our politics helps this lack of alarm). This has real consequences for the climate crisis. Were we able to perceive afresh the sheer scale of fossil fuel impact we might be horrified. But because this is an old problem too many don’t see it as a problem.
The fossil fuel industry through airborne particulate matter alone annually kills far more people every year than Covid-19 has in three years. Recent studies conclude that nearly 9 million people a year die from inhaling these particulates produced by burning fossil fuel. It’s only one of the many ways fossil fuel is deadly, from black lung among coal miners and cancer and respiratory problems among those near refineries to fatalities from climate-driven catastrophes such as wildfire, extreme heat and floods.
Astroturf organizations backed by conservatives and fossil-fuel interests have pushed false claims about health threats and organized locals against both wind turbines and solar installations. But the space they take up can be far less than that occupied by fossil fuel, and many turbines and solar panels coexist with agriculture. (Studies shows that sheep and solar panels can be mutually beneficial; elsewhere farmers adding turbines to their farms reap good income.)
If fossil fuel use and impact had suddenly appeared overnight, their catastrophic poisonousness and destructiveness would be obvious. But they have so incrementally become part of everyday life nearly everywhere on Earth that those impacts are largely accepted or ignored (that they’ve also corroded our politics helps this lack of alarm). This has real consequences for the climate crisis. Were we able to perceive afresh the sheer scale of fossil fuel impact we might be horrified. But because this is an old problem too many don’t see it as a problem.
The fossil fuel industry through airborne particulate matter alone annually kills far more people every year than Covid-19 has in three years. Recent studies conclude that nearly 9 million people a year die from inhaling these particulates produced by burning fossil fuel. It’s only one of the many ways fossil fuel is deadly, from black lung among coal miners and cancer and respiratory problems among those near refineries to fatalities from climate-driven catastrophes such as wildfire, extreme heat and floods.
Astroturf organizations backed by conservatives and fossil-fuel interests have pushed false claims about health threats and organized locals against both wind turbines and solar installations. But the space they take up can be far less than that occupied by fossil fuel, and many turbines and solar panels coexist with agriculture. (Studies shows that sheep and solar panels can be mutually beneficial; elsewhere farmers adding turbines to their farms reap good income.)
The EU is now on track to beat its 2030 renewables target
The pace of clean technology rollout is set to put the EU at 45% renewable energy by 2030, according to new analysis from Ember.
electrek.co
All thanks to Putin. LOL
We "should", but who's paying for it? Right now, the fields are being built where buyers are willing to pay a little more for it.
Similar threads
