The clean energy industry lost 27,000 jobs in May, according to a new analysis of U.S. unemployment data conducted by BW Research Partnership. Prakasit Khuansuwan / EyeEm / Getty Images
The clean energy industry lost 27,000 jobs in May, according to a new analysis of U.S. unemployment data conducted by BW Research Partnership.
<p>The analysis found that while the rate of job losses slowed in May, relative to March and April, the looming end of the Paycheck Protection Program, a federal program to help small businesses retain employees, could cause new rounds of layoffs without further intervention. Nearly one-in-five clean energy workers have lost their job since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. </p>
<p>Though just a small portion of total nationwide job losses, the result has been devastating to an industry that had been growing rapidly. Some of the states hit hardest in May include Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Michigan. The May job losses and PPP expiration "indicates it will be very tough for the clean energy sector to return to its economy-leading jobs growth" without help from Congress or state governments, the analysis said.</p>
<p class=""><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VXgF4X6Q5FH6W3Pw_Vy8fNvHRW3Bmyl94bn-_SN2jjSw75nxG7V3Zsc37CgFl7W7MT0jv70PYzbW6SpF8v3WDWctW2tyc8P6rgZ14W5HS7m344GJcXW3Dt-BQ2q8hNYW4QWfxg2H667bW63MR_r7TCY0pW88mVxl7XJXg8N7yfGhYl8xQyW4pxbBK9bv6gtVyR-L06d7VsKW1ftgvK2WmY7cW2m5ym81Tp_MCW3Qt2C98bGHdPVyxZYz4BVBsKW21Lrsm3q6KpyW11Zh3X8zY0qdW3Mc4Bj2Lp10cW7m786T3jzd0LW5YXKWw6hCwzjVKdxRn4yTX2gW6f_dCp1nq8vmVjWFNv5m705tW3Hy7Rf6PGG_2W160KFf852kytW3fM93h4Slf4_W3d4HzS1BRR20W66G2YW5kXYv6W95BLRP72Fnh1W3KygBm6ryL2nW6q-3VG8DQRqwW2X37ND5h89wr38n01" target="_blank">Politico Pro</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-clean-energy-jobs/u-s-clean-energy-sector-loses-18-of-jobs-during-pandemic-report-idUSL1N2DS18M?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=89611386&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--t8AcJ8eWP-XsiPqaEbdbetjljmkXxTmozcBuf7iG_2PxydLj8ztI2qqLMiz0VR9ttQUlfKKzgNdRWpuQNNxhGWROc3rxMnOLvBvLS3I_7dzm7Y8E&utm_content=89611386&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/1-5-clean-energy-jobs-wiped-pandemic-report-200615193417470.html?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=89611386&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9FqOw0WEIN62xIE87uZzfYNfjIzmweUiINRoUCB_-sqAM4q_tIARAWXixgeRVYFRttUCZt6hmRqvTUHsmZoN45Jmp2BA8-hb9vMCOFcjKbQNkVh5c&utm_content=89611386&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Al Jazeera</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/clean-energy-needs-help-from-congress-to-reverse-job-losses-industry-advocates-warn?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=89611386&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9fdGvgvXisKL77bmDR7578hMiz3OYtjMs3HXlQcZGP_ywvrdQhmOwkVU3bejLRywibGUSkhz7EKRXRxgJzpiu7hiVGw8Mp99xoWMTkW75yFmpNTyY&utm_content=89611386&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Washington Examiner</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Renewable Energy 'Creates More Jobs Than Fossil Fuels' - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin Sits on $43 Billion Intended for Clean Energy Loans ... ›
- 10 States Leading the Pack in Clean Energy Jobs - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An aerial view of a large solar thermal power plant station in the Nevada desert. Mlenny / Getty Images
By Jeremy Deaton
Experts disagree about how fast the United States can replace coal and gas-fired power plants with zero-carbon electricity. Some say we can shift to 100 percent clean power by 2050 with little friction and minimal cost. Others say that's unrealistically optimistic. Scientists on both sides of the argument agree that it's possible to get to 80 or 90 percent clean power. The debate centers on that last 10 or 20 percent.
<p>Researchers tried to get around this sticking point in a <a href="https://www.2035report.com/" target="_blank">new analysis</a> from UC Berkeley. Instead of asking, "how much?" they asked "how fast?" — specifically, how fast we could get to 90 percent zero-carbon power — meaning wind, solar, hydropower and nuclear power — at no extra cost to consumers. Thanks to rapidly falling costs for wind turbines, solar panels and batteries, the answer is 2035.</p><p>"We're spending too much time stressing about the last 10 percent and not enough time thinking about the first 90 percent," said Ric O'Connell, executive director of GridLab, a clean energy consulting firm, and co-author of the report. "So let's focus on the first 90 percent."</p><p>When utilities build a new power plant, they pass the cost on to ratepayers. By 2035, ratepayers will have paid off most gas- or coal-fired power plants running today, meaning consumers won't lose money if utilities shut those plants down early. That's what researchers mean by "no extra cost." Ratepayers will be funding new, exclusively carbon-free power plants after they have paid off the old ones. Cutting pollution will help people breathe easier, reducing health care costs, making it cheaper overall to move to shift away from fossil fuels.</p>
<p>By building out wind, solar and battery storage, the authors say, we can take every coal-fired plant offline, as well as a number of gas-fired power plants. We would use the remaining gas-fired power plants to supply electricity when needed. Fossil fuels would only account for 10 percent of the power supply, while nuclear power and hydropower — which generate no carbon pollution— would account for around 20 percent. The remaining 70 percent will come from wind and solar paired with battery storage — meaning 90 percent of our electricity would come from zero-carbon sources.</p><p>The cost of renewable energy has fallen precipitously over the past decade, consistently outpacing expert projections. From 2009 to 2019, the cost of wind power fell 70 percent, while the cost of large-scale solar fell close to 90 percent, according to <a href="https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019" target="_blank">Lazard</a>. From 2010 to 2019, the cost of batteries also dropped close to 90 percent, according to <a href="https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-market-ramps-up-with-market-average-at-156-kwh-in-2019/" target="_blank">Bloomberg New Energy Finance</a>. The falling costs of batteries is a game changer, because batteries can store power for when the sky is dark and the wind is idle.</p><p>"The pace of technology development has typically been underestimated," said Amol Phadke, an energy research scientist at UC Berkeley and lead author of the report. "In my career, all my projections have been conservative." He said that experts have grown more and more optimistic about how fast costs will drop in the years to come.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4OTMxMi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNzgyMDI0OX0.SKg1-ecirYBB2Q2lY4vhOzDGRr-RgC0j4OYCyBZ32Xc/img.png?width=980" id="75496" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="43218ba1671a8c31ebe9be246ed80086" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Every year, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) projects the future cost of wind and solar energy. The graphs above show the projected cost of wind and solar in the best-case scenario. Every year since 2015 the projections have grown more optimistic. Source: UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy
<p>Authors considered the fact that Americans are embracing battery-powered cars and buses, which will put added strain on the power grid. They say that utilities can meet the rising demand at the same cost with wind and solar as they would with coal or gas.</p><p>None of this is likely to happen, however, without the help of lawmakers. The cost of fossil fuels by and large does not account for the toll they take on human health. To account for this fact, and to help overcome inertia in the energy system, experts call for several measures in an accompanying <a href="https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/90-Clean-By-2035-Policy-Memo_June-2020.pdf" target="_blank">policy paper</a>, such as a national clean power standard and tax credits for renewable energy.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4OTMxNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTI1MzE3N30.9Z9C-L9RjW4v_TeVY74d0owEF5fzEFc0XQT_Z5zLiTo/img.png?width=980" id="0fbc7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7cfc1c8f4bd17250cfd39ba52f6319a4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The graphs above show the power mix in two different scenarios — one, where the lawmakers enact policies, such as a national clean power standard, to push utilities to shift to wind and solar (left), and one where utilities continue to operate as normal (right). Source: UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy
<p>The study makes use of the latest models from the <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/" target="_blank">National Renewable Energy Laboratory</a> and software developer <a href="https://energyexemplar.com/solutions/plexos/" target="_blank">Energy Exemplar</a>. It finds that moving to 90 percent zero-carbon power, a labor-intensive endeavor, could generate upwards of half a million jobs a year, which authors say could help the United States overcome the current economic slump.</p><p>The shift to clean power would also be a boon to public health at a time when the country is battling a deadly respiratory disease. The report finds that a shift to 90 percent clean power could save as many as 85,000 lives by 2050 by sparing Americans from toxic pollution. Experts unaffiliated with the study commended the report, including its focus on public health.</p><p>"Climate and environmental impacts fall disproportionately on communities of color and low-income communities," Patrick Brown, a researcher at the MIT Energy Initiative, said in an email. "It's always important to be clear about the human cost of fossil energy when it's included in such models, so I was glad to see these costs included."</p><p>Mark Jacobson, a professor of environmental engineering at Stanford University, believes the report wasn't ambitious enough, saying, "I am confident their goal can be met, but I think we can go even further." His <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf" target="_blank">own research</a>, which has been the subject of vigorous debate, found it would be possible to power the country entirely with wind, solar and hydropower by mid-century.</p><p>O'Connell believes that researchers should focus on getting to 90 percent zero-carbon power rather than arguing about the feasibility of reaching 100 percent. Just as scientists 20 years ago couldn't have predicted how cheap wind and solar would be today, scientists today can't predict how much new technologies will cost 15 years from now. He listed several that could get the United States to 100 percent zero-carbon electricity, such as <a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/has-green-hydrogens-time-finally-come" target="_blank">green hydrogen</a>, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/" target="_blank">next-generation nuclear power</a> and <a href="https://www.popsci.com/need-high-power-home-battery-use-your-water-heater/" target="_blank">home appliances</a> that interact with the electric grid. But, he said, technology has already advanced to the point where the United States can overhaul the power grid right now.</p><p>"A lot of the focus has been on 2050," O'Connell said. "We said, 'Let's look at the near-term runway and what we can do in the next 15 years."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/the-united-states-could-achieve-90-percent-clean-power-by-2035-at-no-extra-cost-9ba47f40cd42" target="_blank">Nexus Media</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Cars stuck in city traffic in Denmark, Copenhagen. plus49 / Construction Photography / Avalon / Getty Images
By Johnny Wood
A group of Danish companies are joining forces to build one of the world's largest facilities producing synthetic fuels. The unique partnership aims to help decarbonize the country's transport sector by manufacturing sustainable alternatives to fossil-based fuels like gas and diesel.
<p>Participating companies include many of Denmark's key transport and logistics players: Copenhagen Airports, A.P. Moller – Maersk, DSV Panalpina, DFDS, SAS and Ørsted. The vision includes generating hydrogen, an emissions-free alternative fuel, using electrolysis powered by renewable energy, as well as synthetic fuels for sectors <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen" target="_blank">which currently have limited low-carbon fuel options</a> (producing methanol for the shipping or e-kerosene for aviation).</p><p><br>Fully scaled up, the finished facility in 2030 would have capacity to deliver 250,000 tonnes of synthetic fuel each year, to power buses, trucks, maritime vessels and aircraft, reducing annual carbon emissions by 850,000 tonnes.</p><p>As well as positioning Denmark at the vanguard of sustainable-fuel technology, the project could create numerous jobs and establish a mass-scale clean fuel model for others to follow.</p>
Generating Hydrogen
<p>In the project, <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis#:~:text=Electrolysis%20is%20a%20promising%20option,a%20unit%20called%20an%20electrolyzer." target="_blank">hydrogen will be produced using electrolysis</a>, a process that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM3ODQyNS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTg5ODM3OH0.9SF_kA9yTBTm-echo-ENi3e6ZwrfdvrUmsUbcNk0ZMU/img.png?width=980" id="cf0d1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="16d97a3f5edc7c415388258d9e87dc86" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
What electrolysis looks like. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
<p>When an electrolyzer is powered by renewable energy sources like offshore wind, <a href="https://oilandgas.mhi.com/stories/hydrogen-powering-a-net-zero-future/?_ga=2.38535141.775327741.1591182039-1110157552.1562745288" target="_blank">the hydrogen produced is emissions-free</a>. Unlike fossil-based fuels like gas or diesel, when hydrogen combusts it doesn't produce carbon dioxide emissions.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM3ODQ1Ni9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5ODMzMjk2Mn0.vmJoYYgJwqbTiKI4DhPOMqsQ0pd0rR7UpvKVuf8CnY4/img.png?width=980" id="586c4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a73d9d0956dd186ef004addffd36ecab" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Global demand for pure hydrogen, 1975-2018. IEA, Paris
<p>Although still at the planning stage, the entire Danish project will be powered by renewable energy sources, like offshore wind, and comprises three phases.</p><p>The first phase involves constructing a 10MW electrolyzer producing clean hydrogen to fuel buses and trucks, which could be operational by 2023. By phase two, the electrolyzer facility will increase to 250MW, and hydrogen will be used to produce renewable methanol to power maritime vessels and renewable jet-fuel for aviation. This is done by reacting the hydrogen with carbon dioxide captured from sources in Copenhagen.</p><p>The final phase will upgrade electrolyzer capacity to 1.3GW – making the facility one of the largest of its kind in the world. Given the current plans, this could be fully operational by 2030.</p>
Cutting Costs
<p>This sort of industrial scale is key to bringing down the cost of sustainable fuels – and meeting climate targets, like Denmark's moves to cut <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-denmark/denmark-should-sharply-increase-carbon-tax-to-meet-emissions-target-government-adviser-idUKKBN20W1M6" target="_blank">carbon emissions to 70% of 1990 levels</a> by the end of the decade.</p><p>The group behind the project believe that to be competitive the production of these fuels will need to see similar cost reductions as offshore and onshore wind and solar.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM3ODQ3MC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjU2OTkwMX0.XY38yV6-xQIrN8UKrgj7QC8O4udmpm0uz-c9-2lQqec/img.gif?width=980" id="ece6e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="55ed56c3381b3e9b51271b500a65a7b1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/danish-companies-hydrogen-fuel-facility-electrolysis/" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</em></p>Falling cost of renewables. IRENA
<p>But challenges remain. The COVID-19 crisis has paused some countries' efforts toward renewable energy. Resulting economic downturns could create barriers to the types of investments needed to make these shifts a reality. Additionally, as the IEA explains, a broad portfolio of clean energy technologies will be needed to truly decarbonize all parts of a country's economy.</p><p>As part of its Shaping the Future of Energy and Materials platform, the World Economic Forum has set up the<a href="https://www.weforum.org/projects/accelerating-clean-hydrogen" target="_blank"> Accelerating Clean Hydrogen</a> initiative to help overcome these challenges by helping forge new collaborations to scale clean hydrogen.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Denmark Outdoes Rest of Europe With Ambitious Emissions ... ›
- 5 Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy ... ›
- Samso: World's First 100% Renewable Energy-Powered Island Is a ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Meadow Lake wind farm in Indiana. Anthony / CC BY-ND 2.0
By Tara Lohan
The first official tallies are in: Coronavirus-related shutdowns helped slash daily global emissions of carbon dioxide by 14 percent in April. But the drop won't last, and experts estimate that annual emissions of the greenhouse gas are likely to fall only about 7 percent this year.
<p>After that, unless we make substantial changes to global economies, it will be back to business as usual — and a path that leads directly to runaway climate change. If we want to reverse course, say the world's leading scientists, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/" target="_blank">we have about a decade</a> to right the ship.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/stokes-clean-energy/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em><em></em></p>
<p>That's because we've squandered a lot of time. "The 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s were lost decades for preventing global climate disaster," political scientist <a href="https://www.leahstokes.com/" target="_blank">Leah Stokes</a> writes in her new book <em><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/short-circuiting-policy-9780190074265?cc=us&lang=en" target="_blank">Short Circuiting Policy</a></em><em>, </em>which looks at the history of clean energy policy in the U.S.</p><p>But we don't all bear equal responsibility for the tragic delay.</p><p>"Some actors in society have more power than others to shape how our economy is fueled," writes Stokes, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "We are not all equally to blame."</p><p><em>Short Circuiting</em> <em>Policy</em> focuses on the role of one particularly bad actor: electric utilities. Their history of obstructing a clean-energy transition in the U.S. has been largely overlooked, with most of the finger-pointing aimed at fossil fuel companies (and for good reason).</p><p>We spoke with Stokes about this history of delay and denial from the utility industry, how to accelerate the speed and scale of clean-energy growth, and whether we can get past the polarizing rhetoric and politics around clean energy.</p>
What lessons can we learn from your research to guide us right now, in what seems like a really critical time in the fight to halt climate change?
<p>What a lot of people don't understand is that to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we actually have to reduce emissions by around 7-8 percent <em>every single year</em> from now until 2030, which is what the emissions drop is likely to be this year because of the COVID-19 crisis.</p><p>So think about what it took to reduce emissions by that much and think about how we have to do that <em>every single year</em>.</p><p>It doesn't mean that it's going to be some big sacrifice, but it does mean that we need government policy, particularly at the federal level, because state policy can only go so far. We've been living off state policy for more than three decades now and we need our federal government to act.</p>Where are we now, in terms of our progress on renewable energy and how far we need to go?
<p>A lot of people think renewable energy is growing "so fast" and it's "so amazing." But first of all, during the coronavirus pandemic, the renewable energy industry is actually doing very poorly. It's losing a lot of jobs. And secondly, we were not moving fast enough even before the coronavirus crisis, because renewable energy in the<em> best </em>year grew by only 1.3 percent.</p><p>Right now we're at around 36-37 percent clean energy. That includes nuclear, hydropower and new renewables like wind, solar and geothermal. But hydropower and nuclear aren't growing. Nuclear supplies about 20 percent of the grid and hydro about 5 percent depending on the year. And then the rest is renewable. So we're at about 10 percent renewables, and in the best year, we're only adding 1 percent to that.</p><p>Generally, we need to be moving about eight times faster than we've been moving in our best years. (To visualize this idea, I came up with the <a href="https://grist.org/fix/how-quickly-do-we-need-to-ramp-up-renewables-look-to-the-narwhal/" target="_blank">narwhal curve</a>.)</p>How do we overcome these fundamental issues of speed and scale?
<p>We need actual government policy that supports it. We have never had a clean electricity standard or renewable portfolio standard at the federal level. That's the main law that I write all about at the state level. Where those policies are in place, a lot of progress has been made — places like California and even, to a limited extent, Texas.</p><p>We need our federal government to be focusing on this crisis. Even the really small, piecemeal clean-energy policies we have at the federal level are going away. In December Congress didn't extend the investment tax credit and the production tax credit, just like they didn't extend or improve the electric vehicle tax credit.</p><p>And now during the COVID-19 crisis, a lot of the money going toward the energy sector in the CARES Act is going toward propping up <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-15/-stealth-bailout-shovels-millions-of-dollars-to-oil-companies" target="_blank">dying fossil fuel companies</a> and not toward supporting the renewable energy industry.</p><p>So we are moving in the wrong direction.</p>Clean energy hasn’t always been such a partisan issue. Why did it become so polarizing?
<p>What I argue in my book, with evidence, is that electric utilities and fossil fuel companies have been intentionally driving polarization. And they've done this in part by running challengers in primary elections against Republicans who don't agree with them.</p><p>Basically, fossil fuel companies and electric utilities are telling Republicans that you can't hold office and support climate action. That has really shifted the incentives within the party in a very short time period.</p><p>It's not like the Democrats have moved so far left on climate. The Democrats have stayed in pretty much the same place and the Republicans have moved to the right. And I argue that that's because of electric utilities and fossil fuel companies trying to delay action.</p>And their reason for doing that is simply about their bottom line and keeping their share of the market?
<p>Exactly. You have to remember that delay and denial on climate change is a profitable enterprise for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities. The longer we wait to act on the crisis, the more money they can make because they can extract more fossil fuels from their reserves <em>and</em> they can pay more of their debt at their coal plants and natural gas plants. So delay and denial is a money-making business for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities.</p>There’s been a lot of research, reporting and even legal action in recent years about the role of fossil fuel companies in discrediting climate science. From reading your book, it seems that electric utilities are just as guilty. Is that right?
<p>Yes, far less attention has been paid to electric utilities, which play a really critical role. They preside over legacy investments into coal and natural gas, and some of them continue to propose building new natural gas.</p><p>They were just as involved in promoting climate denial in the 1980s and 90s as fossil fuel companies, as I document in my book. And some of them, like Southern Company, have continued to promote climate denial to basically the present day.</p><p>But that's not the only dark part of their history.</p><p>Electric utilities promoted energy systems that are pretty wasteful. They built these centralized fossil fuel power plants rather than having co-generation plants that were onsite at industrial locations where manufacturing is happening, and where you need both steam heat — which is a waste product from electricity — and the electricity itself. That actually created a lot of waste in the system and we burned a lot more fossil fuels than if we had a decentralized system.</p><p><span></span>The other thing they've done in the more modern period is really resisted the energy transition. They've resisted renewable portfolio standards and net metering laws that allow for more clean energy to come onto the grid. They've tried to roll them back. They've been successful in some cases, and they've blocked new laws from passing when targets were met.</p>You wrote that, “Partisan polarization on climate is not inevitable — support could shift back to the bipartisanship we saw before 2008.” What would it take to actually make that happen?
<p>Well, on the one hand, you need to get the Democratic Party to care more about climate change and to really understand the stakes. And if you want to do that, I think the work of the <a href="https://www.justicedemocrats.com/" target="_blank">Justice Democrats</a> is important. They have primary-challenged incumbent Democrats who don't care enough about climate change. That is how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected. She was a primary challenger and she has really championed climate action in the Green New Deal.</p><p>The other thing is that the public supports climate action. Democrats do in huge numbers. Independents do. And to some extent Republicans do, particularly young Republicans.</p><p>So communicating the extent of public concern on these issues is really important because, as I've shown in other research, politicians don't know how much public concern there is on climate change. They dramatically underestimate support for climate action.</p><p>I think the media has a really important role to play because it's very rare that a climate event, like a disaster that is caused by climate change, is actually linked to climate change in media reporting.</p><p>But people might live through a wildfire or a hurricane or a heat wave, but nobody's going to tell them through the media that this is climate change. So we really need our reporters to be doing a better job linking people's lived experiences to climate change.</p>With economic stimulus efforts ramping up because of the COVD-19 pandemic, are we in danger of missing a chance to help boost a clean energy economy?
<p>I think so many people understand that stimulus spending is an opportunity to rebuild our economy in a way that creates good-paying jobs in the clean-energy sector that protects Americans' health.</p><p>We know that <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200427-how-air-pollution-exacerbates-covid-19" target="_blank">breathing dirty air</a> makes people more likely to die from COVID-19. So this is a big opportunity to create an economy that's more just for all Americans.</p><p>But unfortunately, we really are not pivoting toward creating a clean economy, which is what we need to be doing. This is an opportunity to really focus on the climate crisis because we have delayed for more than 30 years. There is not another decade to waste.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Both Conservatives and Liberals Want a Green Energy Future, but ... ›
- 40 Million Health Workers Endorse Green Recovery - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin Sits on $43 Billion Intended for Clean Energy Loans ... ›
- The U.S. Could Get to 90 Percent Clean Power by 2035 - EcoWatch ›
- The U.S. Could Get to 90 Percent Clean Power by 2035 - EcoWatch ›
Read More
Show Less
Aerial view of a wind farm near The Øresund Bridge in Sweden on June 26, 2018. Maxym Marusenko / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Johnny Wood
What does COVID-19 mean for the energy transition? While lockdowns have caused a temporary fall in CO2 emissions, the pandemic risks derailing recent progress in addressing the world's energy challenges.
<p>The current state of the sector is described in the World Economic Forum's <a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/fostering-effective-energy-transition-2020" target="_blank">Energy Transition Index 2020</a>. It benchmarks the energy systems of 115 economies, highlighting the leading players in the race to net-zero emissions, as well as those with work to do.<br><br>With pressure to get idle economies back to "normal," the short-term shift to a more sustainable energy sector could be in doubt. But the current crisis also presents an opportunity to rethink how our energy needs are met, and consider the long-term impact on the planet.</p>
Unprecedented Change
<p>The past decade has seen rapid transformations as countries move towards clean energy generation, supply and consumption. Coal-fired power plants have been retired, as reliance on natural gas and emissions-free renewable energy sources increases. Incremental gains have been made from carbon pricing initiatives.</p><p>Since 2015, 94 of 115 countries have improved their combined score on the Energy Translation Index (ETI), which analyzes each country's readiness to adopt clean energy using three criteria: energy access and security; environmental sustainability; and economic development and growth.<br><br>But the degree of change and the timetable for reaching net-zero emissions differ greatly between countries, and taken as a whole, today's advances are insufficient to meet the climate targets set by the Paris Agreement.</p>The 10 Countries Most Prepared for the Energy Transition
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI3OTU4My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDQ0NjQ4MX0.SumXaqZnlWq6pBIoqAggmvg9LDqI_Vqn984i3YL1yhU/img.png?width=980" id="53351" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0d6767a8b912d7699fb087ecff33ce3f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Sweden is the nation most ready to transition to sustainable energy. WEF Fostering Effective Energy Transition 2020 edition
<p>Sweden tops the overall ETI ranking for the third consecutive year as the country most ready to transition to clean energy, followed by Switzerland and Finland. There has been little change in the top 10 since the last report, which demonstrates the energy stability of these developed nations, although the gap with the lowest-ranked countries is closing.<br><br>Top-ranked countries share a reduced reliance on imported energy, lower energy subsidies and a strong political commitment to transforming their energy sector to meet climate targets.<br><br>The UK and France are the only two G20 economies in the top 10 however, which is otherwise made up of smaller nations.</p>
Powerful Shocks
<p>Outside the top 10, progress has been modest in Germany. Ranked 20th, the country has committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants and moving industrial output to cleaner fuels such as hydrogen, but making energy services affordable remains a struggle.</p><p>China, ranked 78th, has made strong advances in controlling CO2 emissions by switching to electric vehicles and investing heavily in solar and wind energy - it currently has the world's largest solar PV and onshore wind capacity. Alongside China, countries including Argentina, India and Italy have shown consistent strong improvements every year. Gains over time have also been recorded by Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Kenya and Oman, among others.</p><p>But high energy-consuming countries including the US, Canada and Brazil show little, if any, progress towards an energy transition.</p><p>In the US (ranked 32nd), moves to establish a more sustainable energy sector have been hampered by policy decisions. Neighboring Canada grapples with the conflicting demands of a growing economy and the need to decarbonize the energy sector.</p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a reminder of the impact of external shocks on the global economy. As climate change increases the likelihood of weather extremes such as floods, droughts and violent storms, the need for more sustainable energy practices is intensified.</p><p>Policy-makers need to develop a robust framework for energy transition at local, national and international levels, capable of guarding against such shocks.<br><br>"The coronavirus pandemic offers an opportunity to consider unorthodox intervention in the energy markets, and global collaboration to support a recovery that accelerates the energy transition once the acute crisis subsides," says Roberto Bocca, Head of Energy & Materials at the World Economic Forum.</p><p>"This giant reset grants us the option to launch aggressive, forward-thinking and long-term strategies leading to a diversified, secure and reliable energy system that will ultimately support the future growth of the world economy in a sustainable and equitable way."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/energy-transition-index-2020-eti-clean-sustainable-power/" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Corporate Leaders to Trump: Withdrawing From the Paris ... ›
- This Country Is Already Carbon Neutral and Now Plans to Go 100 ... ›
- Morocco Leading the World Toward a Green Energy Future ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The EPA's Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, rule does not place limits on power plant pollution. markmortensen / Getty Images
Last year, the EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era policy aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants.
<p><br/></p>
<iframe style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/13968320/height/45/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/" height="45" width="100%" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>The agency replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy – or ACE – rule.</p><p>The new rule does not place limits on power plant pollution. Instead, it directs states to prioritize energy efficiency improvements at power plants. The idea is that more-efficient plants will burn less fuel.</p><p>"An unfortunate kind of unintended consequence of that approach is that those power plants then become more cost-effective to operate and tend to run more," says Kathy Fallon Lambert of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment.</p>
<p>Her team <a target="_blank" href="https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2343/2019/07/Carbon-Standards-Re-Examined_Final1.pdf">analyzed EPA data</a> about the expected impact of the ACE rule. Because some plants will likely run more and old power plants may be kept online longer, she says that over a fifth of power plants were estimated to have an increase in CO2 emissions.</p><p>Overall, the new rule is projected to drive down emissions less than 1% beyond what would likely happen without any policy at all.</p><p>"The bottom line when it comes to the ACE rule is that it does virtually nothing to confront climate change," Lambert says.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/researcher-the-epas-ace-rule-for-power-plants-does-little-to-address-global-warming/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
100% Renewable Energy in Virginia? It Is the First Southern State to Commit
13 March
Renewable Energy
Gov. Ralph Northam delivers the State of the Commonwealth address at the Virginia State Capitol on Jan. 8, 2020 in Richmond, Virginia. Zach Gibson / Getty Images
Virginia, which now has a Democrat as governor and Democrats in control of the statehouse, has followed the lead of several other blue states and committed itself to transition away from fossil fuels to a clean, renewable, carbon-free energy, as Vox reported. It makes Virginia the first state in the South to commit to 100 percent clean energy.
<p>Last September, Gov. Ralph Northam signed an <a href="https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/executive-actions/EO-43-Expanding-Access-to-Clean-Energy-and-Growing-the-Clean-Energy-Jobs-of-the-Future.pdf" target="_blank">executive order</a> for the state to run on 100 percent <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" rel="noopener noreferrer">renewable energy</a> completely by 2050. His order forced several state agencies to create a plan for meeting that goal and for moving 30 percent of the state's power to renewable sources in the next decade, <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/virginia-governor-sets-renewable-energy-goal-of-100-percent-by-2050" target="_blank">according to PBS</a>. The order also brought Virginia into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a nine state carbon-trading market. </p>
<p>However, Republicans had control of the state house and prohibited Virginia from joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Yet, in November, the balance of power shifted to Democrats. That led to last week's passage of the <a href="https://www.vacleaneconomy.org/" target="_blank">Virginia Clean Economy Act</a>, as Vox reported.</p>
<p>Virginia now joins seven other states — California, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Washington — along with Washington DC and Puerto Rico, which have passed similar legal requirements. More states, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/oregon-executive-order-climate-2645460120.html" target="_self">like Oregon</a>, will have similar laws enacted soon. </p>
<p>The bill actually pushed Northam's mandate up five years for Dominion Energy, one of the state's two power companies. It will run on clean energy by 2045, at the latest. The other, Appalachian Power, will have to 2050 to transition. </p>
<p>The bill also calls for setting targets for massive investments in energy efficiency, energy storage and in-state solar and wind power, according to <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/virginia-100-clean-energy-by-2050-mandate-law" target="_blank">Green Tech Media</a>. It also brings the state back into the RGGI carbon-trading network.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.vacleaneconomy.org/" target="_blank">Virginia Clean Economy Act</a> will also hold costs down and protect low-income and vulnerable communities. It also requires the state's energy suppliers to boost power storage, increase their offshore wind energy generation and invest in rooftop solar panels, according to Vox. </p>
<p>"The cost of doing nothing is staggering," said State Sen. Jennifer McClellan of Richmond, as the <a href="https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/02/11/virginia-clean-economy-act-passes-as-debate-reveals-deep-partisan-and-regional-divides/" target="_blank">Virginia Mercury reported</a>. "Yes, this is a big bill, but it does some very important things that Virginia is far, far behind in doing. … Sometimes change is necessary to meet a greater good."</p>
<p>While the bill faced criticism from Republicans who sounded the usual dog whistle of clean energy costing jobs and being expensive, it also faced Democratic defections, mainly from delegates who believed the bill isn't strong enough.</p>
<p>General Assembly Delegate Ibraheem Samirah of Fairfax did not cast a vote, saying in a statement that he abstained "because the legislation fails to rise to the level of urgency needed to tackle the climate crisis," according to the Virginia Mercury.</p>
<p>Unlike in Oregon, where Republicans fled the state to stop the state from establishing a cap-and-trade market, Virginia Republicans do not have the option of walking out and shutting down the legislature, as Vox reported.</p>
<p>Virginia has two major power suppliers, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power. The two hold enormous lobbying power and have resisted progress toward clean energy. However, a broad coalition sprouted up to support the Virginia Clean Economy Act. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-companies-led-way-clean-energy-virginia" target="_blank">GreenBiz</a> noted:</p><blockquote>[A] broad coalition of clean energy businesses, environmental groups, grassroots groups and lawmakers came together to craft the bills, negotiate with the state's major utilities and shepherd them to final passage.<br>A number of businesses that are not tied to the energy sector also spoke up in support of these bills, helping state legislators understand that there is broad business support for decarbonizing the entire Virginia economy.<br></blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, a <a href="https://www.aee.net/articles/report-virginia-would-gain-from-transition-to-clean-electricity" target="_blank">study by Advanced Energy Economy</a> concluded that the bill would lower rates, create jobs and boost the state's GDP. Advanced energy, especially efficiency, is a huge and growing source of employment in the state, according to an <a href="https://info.aee.net/advanced-energy-jobs-for-virgina-0" target="_blank">AEE analysis</a>, as <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/12/21172836/renewable-energy-virginia-100-percent-clean" target="_blank">Vox</a> reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 100% Renewable Energy Worldwide Isn't Just Possible—It's Also ... ›
- Chicago Commits to 100% Renewable Energy By 2040 - EcoWatch ›
- How's Amazon Really Doing on Renewables? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Wind and Solar Power Will Soon Be Cheaper Than Coal Globally, New Research Shows
12 March
Renewable Energy
A new report shows that investments in coal plants may be a waste of money as renewables are cheaper than new coal plants, according to new research from the financial think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative.
<p>The new research, released today, shows that nearly $640 billion of investment in coal power capacity worldwide is at risk because it is less expensive to generate electricity from wind and solar power, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coal-power/nearly-640-billion-coal-investments-undercut-by-cheap-renewables-research-idUSKBN20Z001" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://carbontracker.org/reports/how-to-waste-over-half-a-trillion-dollars/" target="_blank">report</a> also found that more than 60 percent of global coal power plants are generating electricity at a higher cost than it could be produced by building new renewables. The researchers found that by 2030, at the latest, it will be cheaper to build new wind or solar capacity than continue operating with coal, according to a statement from the Carbon Tracker Initiative.</p>
<p>Right now, in all major markets, including the U.S., Europe, China, India and Australia it is cheaper to invest in renewables, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/coal-plant-investment-electricity-renewable-energy-cost-difference-a9394341.html" target="_blank">according to The Independent</a>. The report casts doubt on the future of the many countries who have investments in coal, including Australia's $26 billion thermal coal export industry, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and-solar-plants-will-soon-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-all-big-markets-around-world-analysis-finds" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>.</p>
<p>The authors of the report suggested the report should be a signal to policy makers to shift their priorities toward investments in renewables. </p>
<p>"Renewables are outcompeting coal around the world and proposed coal investments risk becoming stranded assets which could lock in high-cost coal power for decades," Matt Gray, Carbon Tracker co-head of power and utilities and co-author of the report, <a href="https://carbontracker.org/coal-developers-risk-600-billion-as-renewables-outcompete-worldwide/" target="_blank">said in a statement</a>. "The market is driving the low-carbon energy transition but governments aren't listening. It makes economic sense for governments to cancel new coal projects immediately and progressively phase out existing plants."</p>
<p>Despite the economic reality and the environmental impact of coal, many governments around the world are artificially propping up coal power with incentives and underwriting new plants. Governments are either giving subsidies to the industry or passing the cost down to consumers, as The Guardian reported.</p>
<p>The report found that a country like Japan, which invests heavily in coal power, is wasting its money. As The Guardian reported, in Japan, wind power costs less than new coal plants and is expected to be cheaper than existing coal by 2028. Solar power in Japan is forecast to outperform new coal plants by 2023 and existing coal by 2026.</p>
<p>The story was the same for China, which relies on a tremendous amount of coal power, and for South Korea. The report found that wind power is already cheaper than coal in China, and solar power will be cheaper by the end of this year. In South Korea, renewables will be cheaper than coal in two years, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and-solar-plants-will-soon-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-all-big-markets-around-world-analysis-finds" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>Institutional investors have started to run away from coal since it is not returning the profits it once did. Furthermore, the capital recovery period for new investments in coal plants is usually 15 to 20 years, making it a risky investment when cleaner, cheaper and more efficient power generation is starting to flood the market, as Reuters reported.</p>
<p>Reuters also noted that ditching coal is a mandatory step to putting a stop to global heating. According to a major UN report in 2018, the share of coal power in electricity generation needs to fall to under 2 percent by 2050 for global warming to stay within a 1.5 degree Celsius limit.</p>
<p>The new report echoed the UN's findings, noting that keeping global warming within a 1.5 degree Celsius limit, to avoid the worst impacts of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>, means coal use to generate electricity will have to fall by 80 percent from 2010 to 2030 around the world. Essentially, one coal plant has to shut down every day until 2040, the report said, as The Independent reported.</p>
<p>The Carbon Tracker report found that if the coal market were deregulated, market forces would drive it out of existence, as renewable energy developers would capitalize on the growing price gap.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Significant Renewable Energy Growth in U.S. Very Soon, New ... ›
- America Enters 'Coal Cost Crossover' as Solar and Wind Are Now ... ›
- Still Cheaper Than Coal: A Report on the Economics of Solar Power ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Tesla, PG&E to Help Build World’s Largest Energy Storage Facility in California
28 February
Renewable Energy
Sign with logo for Tesla Motors in front of new glass building near the company's headquarters in the Silicon Valley, Fremont, California, July 28, 2018. Smith Collection / Gado / Getty Images
A California county has given the green light to what officials say will be part of the largest renewable energy storage facility in the world.
<p>The project, which is a partnership between <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/tesla" target="_self">Tesla</a> and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) won unanimous approval from the Monterey County Planning Commission Wednesday, <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/tesla-pge-to-build-massive-clean-energy-facility-in-monterey-county/2243293/" target="_blank">NBC Bay Area reported</a>. It is the second clean energy battery facility to be approved at the site of an underused power plant in Moss Landing.</p><p>"Certainly, combined, this is going to be the largest battery facility in the world, so it's a big boost to our community and our country," Monterey County Supervisor John Phillips said, as <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/27/humongous-tesla-battery-plant-approved-in-california-is-10x-bigger-than-worlds-biggest-battery-plant/" target="_blank">CleanTechnica reported</a>.</p><p>The Tesla/ PG&E facility will have the capacity to store up to 730 megawatts of wind and solar power during off-peak hours, the <a href="https://www.montereyherald.com/2020/02/26/moss-landing-battery-storage-project-approved/" target="_blank">Monterey Herald reported</a>. The other project recently approved on the site, which is being built by Vistra Energy, will have a capacity of 1,200 megawatts.</p>
<p>The most recent project will involve the installation of 268 Tesla Megapack lithium-ion batteries.</p><p>The Megapack is a relatively new Tesla design, following the Powerpack batteries it used at its storage facility in Hornsdale, South Australia, which <a href="https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/" target="_blank">is the largest lithium ion battery in the world</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-megapack-utility-scale-energy-storage" target="_blank">Tesla explained</a> how they work:</p><blockquote>Megapack significantly reduces the complexity of large-scale battery storage and provides an easy installation and connection process. Each Megapack comes from the factory fully-assembled with up to 3 megawatt hours (MWhs) of storage and 1.5 MW of inverter capacity, building on Powerpack's engineering with an AC interface and 60% increase in energy density to achieve significant cost and time savings compared to other battery systems and traditional fossil fuel power plants. Using Megapack, Tesla can deploy an emissions-free 250 MW, 1 GWh power plant in less than three months on a three-acre footprint – four times faster than a traditional fossil fuel power plant of that size. Megapack can also be DC-connected directly to solar, creating seamless renewable energy plants.</blockquote><p>The Megapack also replaces the need for "peaker" natural gas power plants, Tesla explained. These are power plants that fire up whenever the local grid can't meet demand.</p>
<p>"They cost millions of dollars per day to operate and are some of the least efficient and dirtiest plants on the grid," Tesla wrote.</p><p>Construction on the company's Moss Landing project will begin at the end of the month and should be completed by the end of 2020, NBC Bay Area reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Hyundai to Leapfrog Tesla With World's Largest Battery - EcoWatch ›
- Mass-Market Electric Pickup Trucks and SUVs Are on the Way ... ›
- Tesla's Massive Australian Battery Responds to Coal Power ... ›
- World's Largest Liquid Air Battery Will Help the UK Go Carbon Neutral - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Large storage tank of Ammonia at a fertilizer plant in Cubatão, Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Luis Veiga / The Image Bank / Getty Images
The shipping industry is coming to grips with its egregious carbon footprint, as it has an outsized contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and to the dumping of chemicals into open seas. Already, the global shipping industry contributes about 2 percent of global carbon emissions, about the same as Germany, as the BBC reported.
<p>In its efforts to clean up its act, the industry is looking to stop burning diesel and is exploring using ammonia as its fuel source. When ammonia burns, it does not create carbon dioxide emissions, as the BBC reported.</p>
<p>Recently, the European Union awarded just over $11 million to the ShipFC project, which is composed of 14 firms looking to make maritime shipping a bit greener. The money will be used to outfit a shipping vessel used by Norwegian energy company Equinor that has been running on diesel for 17 years with ammonia fuel cells, as <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/equinor-to-run-ship-fitted-with-ammonia-fuel-cells.html" target="_blank">CNBC reported</a>.</p>
<p>"Together with Equinor, we are now launching a full-scale research project to test a propulsion solution based on fuel cells running on pure and emission-free ammonia," Jan Fredrik Meling, who is the CEO of Eidesvik Offshore, which made the ship, said according to CNBC.</p>
<p>"The goal is to install fuel cell modules with a total power of 2 MW (megawatts) on board Viking Energy in 2024," he added. "This will make the vessel the world's first emission-free supply vessel."</p>
<p>One of the hang-ups right now is that making ammonia is actually a huge source of carbon emissions, according to a report from the <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/green-ammonia" target="_blank">Royal Society</a>. Ammonia production actually accounts for 1.8 percent of global CO2 emissions, which is by far the most of any chemical, as the BBC reported.</p>
<p>While producing ammonia is carbon-intensive, scientists believe that a cleaner, carbon-free way to produce ammonia will happen soon, either by trapping CO2 and burying it or by creating 'green' ammonia, according to the Royal Society report.</p>
<p>"We see a very big interest from the market in ammonia as a fuel – even though there are challenges," Peter Kirkeby, a spokesman for Man Energy Solutions, which is making ammonia powered engines, said to the BBC. "We expect the first ships fuelled with ammonia will be existing tankers that are already transporting ammonia for fertilizer. They know how to handle it."</p>
<p>Some of the largest names in shipping are getting behind the effort to use the fertilizer by-product as an alternative to shipping fuel. Recently, Korean Register, which verifies and certifies ships worldwide, touted ammonia as a viable clean energy since it does not require a large amount of technical expertise to use as fuel.</p>
<p>"The strength of ammonia is that it is relatively easy to store due to the rational energy, density and liquefaction temperature compared to hydrogen, the production and transport costs are lower compared to other carbon-neutral fuels, and has the technology for stable production and transport," a Korean Register technical report said, as <a href="https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/bunkering/korean-register-backs-ammonia-viable-carbon-free-marine-fuel" target="_blank">Seatrade Maritime News reported</a>. </p>
<p>However, there are still caveats. For example, ammonia does not burn as efficiently as diesel. It also creates nitrogen oxides, which are greenhouse gasses. However, the Royal Society report is optimistic that technology will address those problems, according to the BBC. </p>
<p>"Ammonia is the only zero-carbon fuel that will get you across the oceans," said the Royal Society's lead author, Bill David, as the BBC reported. And yet, he added, "In terms of emissions from industrial processes, ammonia comes only after cement and steel, so we need to decarbonize the production of ammonia."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
New Solar Panels Power 66% of Government Operations in Fayetteville, Arkansas
10 February
Renewable Energy
By Diana Madson
On 87 acres of land owned by the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, solar panels absorb the sun's rays.
<p>Last year, the city partnered with the local utility and a solar developer on a pair of 5-megawatt installations, which <a href="https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/sep/07/solar-arrays-online-plants/" target="_blank">went online</a> in September. They now generate enough electricity to fully power the city's two wastewater treatment plants.</p><p>Listen here:<em></em></p>
<iframe style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/12814781/height/45/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/" height="45" width="100%" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe><p>"In total, those plants use about 66% of the total electricity consumed by city of Fayetteville government operations," says Peter Nierengarten, Fayetteville's environmental director.</p><p>So he says the project takes the city a long way toward meeting its goal of powering all city facilities with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> by 2030.</p><p>And it saves money because the city buys the solar power at a rate slightly lower than what it paid for electricity from the utility.</p><p>"It just made really good economic sense for us," Nierengarten says. "It made good energy sense for us. It made good political sense for us."</p>
<p>He encourages other cities to switch to renewables.</p><p>"It's not that difficult," he says. "The price of renewables, particularly solar, has come way down. These types of projects are very accessible and … with the right partner, very doable."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/02/new-solar-panels-power-66-percent-of-city-operations-in-fayetteville-arkansas/">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 'Anti-Solar' Cells Could Keep the Power Going at Night - EcoWatch ›
- 4 Ways Local Solar Projects Benefit Cities - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less