Other stories below: As climate changes, Louisiana seeks to lift a highway; With gas prices rising, smog rules may stall
Germany’s $263 Billion Renewables Shift Biggest Since War
Not since the allies leveled Germany in World War II has Europe’s biggest economy undertaken a reconstruction of its energy market on this scale.
Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning to build offshore wind farms that will cover an area six times the size of New York City and erect power lines that could stretch from London to Baghdad. The program will cost 200 billion euros ($263 billion), about 8 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2011, according to the DIW economic institute in Berlin.
Germany aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors supplying a fifth of its electricity with renewables such as solar and wind. Merkel to succeed must experiment with untested systems and policies and overcome technical hurdles threatening the project, said Stephan Reimelt, chief executive officer of General Electric Co. (GE)’s energy unit in the country.
Washington Post: As climate changes, Louisiana seeks to lift a highway
Here on the side of Louisiana’s Highway 1, next to Raymond’s Bait Shop, a spindly pole with Global Positioning System equipment and a cellphone stuck on top charts the water’s gradual encroachment on dry land.
In 1991 this stretch of road through the marshlands of southern Louisiana was 3.9 feet above sea level, but the instrument — which measures the ground’s position in relation to sea level — shows the land has lost more than a foot against the sea. It sank two inches in the past 16 months alone.
That’s a problem because Highway 1, unprotected by levees, connects critical oil and gas resources in booming Port Fourchon to the rest of the nation.
Ten miles of the highway is now standing 22 feet above sea level on cement piles. But another seven miles is not, and if less than half a mile of this highway succumbs to the 14-foot storm surges expected in the future, the highway will need to be shut down, cutting off the port.
With Gas Prices Rising, Smog Rules May Stall
The Obama administration, facing political heat over high gasoline prices, may delay new rules that would cut pollution from cars but also could bring higher prices at the pump, environmental and industry leaders said.
The rules would require refiners to make cleaner-burning gasoline and auto makers to build cars that emit fewer smog-forming pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency was scheduled to roll out the rules before April, but it hasn’t yet submitted them for White House review.
“We expect that timing will begin to slip, perhaps for political considerations” said American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard.
Why is the timing never right for action on climate?
Ten years ago, a very senior federal deputy minister told me that implementing Canada’s Kyoto Protocol target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 would force an adjustment on the Canadian economy greater than that of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. (The FTA, which was ultimately of great economic benefit to Canada, had a significantly disruptive effect on the Canadian economy, especially the manufacturing sector, in the short term.)
This bureaucrat’s comment on Kyoto, made five years after Canada signed the Protocol and the year it was ratified by Parliament, reflected the dominant view within the government at that time. Even with the relatively strong Canadian economy that then prevailed, and with a decade in which to implement Kyoto, conventional wisdom in Ottawa held that Canada’s target was a bridge too far. And this was the opinion within the Chrétien government, which signed Kyoto and remained rhetorically committed to it. As a result, nothing meaningful was done to reduce Canada’s GhG emissions at the federal level during the Chrétien years.
Keystone XL Pipeline Could Cost More Jobs Than It Creates
The proposed route of the Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil extracted from Alberta, Canada’s tar sands through six states: Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Although many proponents of the pipeline make a big deal about the jobs it would create, the six states would only gain about 20 permanent pipeline operation jobs, according to a report by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute. Meanwhile, the agricultural and tourism sectors that are already major employers in those states would be affected greatly by a major spill.
The Keystone XL pipeline would go right through “America’s breadbasket.” Agricultural and rangeland make up 79 percent of the land that would be affected by the pipeline. The agricultural sector is a major source of employment in the six states. About 571,000 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector in the six states. The total agricultural output for the six states is $76.3 billion.
A wise investment in renewable-energy innovation: Let’s not throw it away
If you could get $3 back for every dollar you invested, would you throw the opportunity away? How about if the deal included added benefits like creating high-tech jobs, new start-up companies, technological breakthroughs, education for tomorrow’s scientists and leaders, and improved energy security in your home state? And if it meant that Minnesota could be a producer of new renewable energy technologies, rather than a consumer of technologies developed in China or Europe?
The answer seems obvious to us. That’s why we at the IREE are opposing the current version of legislative proposal SF2181, which is poised to strip our state of a premier and highly successful program that brings innovative renewable energy technologies to life and provides tremendous returns on investment for both economic and intellectual capital.
Mortgages for Drilling Properties May Face Hurdle
The Department of Agriculture is considering requiring an extensive environmental review before issuing mortgages to people who have leased their land for oil and gas drilling.
Last year more than 140,000 families, many of them with low incomes and living in rural areas, received roughly $18 billion in loans or loan guarantees from the department under the Rural Housing Service program. Much of the money went to residents in states that have seen the biggest growth in drilling in recent years, including Pennsylvania, Texas and Louisiana.
The program is popular because it generally requires no down payment. As its financing has grown and credit markets have tightened in recent years, the program’s loans have roughly quadrupled since 2004.
Indian State prepares action plan on climate change
Kolkata: The state will send its final draft on the action plan on climate change to the Centre in a few days. The plan includes the government’s strategy to address the problems of rising levels of sea water to melting Himalayan glaciers.
State environment secretary RPS Kahlon said the final draft plan had almost been prepared and was now to be submitted. “After the submission of the final draft plan, the Centre will decide which funding agency, be it the World Bank or Asian Development Bank (ADB), to approach for executing the projects,” Kahlon said.
The environment department has been working on preparing the final draft of the state action plan on climate change for quite some time. All other states, too, are preparing similar drafts for submission to the Centre. All the drafts will then be compared and contrasted to form an integrated plan for the country.
Brazil bars 17 oil workers from leaving after spill
A Brazilian court has ordered 17 employees from two U.S. companies, oil giant Chevron and rig operator Transocean, to surrender their passports, barring them from leaving Brazil as authorities prepare to file criminal charges in coming days in connection with an offshore oil spill involving the companies.
The ruling by Judge Vlamir Costa Magalhaes, issued late Friday night, adds to Chevron’s woes in Brazil, which began in November when oil was found to be leaking from an offshore field controlled by Chevron. Prosecutors have already filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages of 20 billion reals, or about $11.2 billion, from the company.
Brazil’s navy and Chevron said Friday that they had detected a new sheen of oil from the same field where the earlier spill occurred.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
A french friend of mine asserts that Germany’s anti-nuke move is somewhat hollow, on grounds that the power formerly supplied by German nuke plants will be purchased from France (which relies heavily on nuke power). Any rebuttals? Is Germany going to import any nuke power from anywhere?
If Germany imported its power from French reactors then wouldn’t the French then need to import the missing power from somewhere else?
Otherwise 1.) France would need to have a large number of spare reactors sitting idle.
OR
2.) France would need to be willing to built a large number of reactors quickly.
France now exports more electricity to Germany than it imports. In addition, Germany buys electricity from the Czech Republic, which has NPPs. The Czech Republic is going to construct additional NPPs with a main purpose being selling electricity to Germany. A Polish utility company is going to do much the same. In addition, even the Russians in Kalingrad are contemplating building an underwater HVDC transmission line to wheel electricity from the NPP under construction there.
(Much of this comes from following World Nuclear News)
“Any rebuttals?” Yes
Maybe the next time you try to take a look at the actual data instead of the “A french friend of mine…”
German Federal Statistical Office:
https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online;jsessionid=71574903D7266F00D90566E1B7D06886.tomcat_GO_1_1?operation=previous&levelindex=2&levelid=1332257162364&step=2
Sorry but the site is in German
Einfuhr von Elektrizität = export of electricity
Ausfuhr von Elektrizität = import of electricity
Austauschsaldo = net total
negative number = net export
positive number = net import
Germany is regulary importing electricity from France and Czech Republic but at the same time it is exporting even more to Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg.
Even last year germany was a net exporter of electicity, but not as much as 2011.
Einfuhr von Elektrizität = export of electricity
Ausfuhr von Elektrizität = import of electricity
i made a mistake, its the other way around:
Einfuhr von Elektrizität = import of electricity
Ausfuhr von Elektrizität = export of electricity
sorry
In the link: “Germany’s $263 Billion Renewables Shift Biggest Since War”
which is awesome news, I see the following technology mentioned and wonder what the process is, and if it’s ultimately CO2 neutral?
“Volkswagen AG (VOW)’s Audi luxury car division plans to build a plant that uses water and carbon dioxide to convert electricity into natural gas, backed by 5 million euros of investment from EON in a pilot plant based on a similar technology.”
Brooks, I found that part of the article totally confusing.
I believe the VW company might be pursuing the reverse water-gas shift where CO2 is reacted with H2 to create H2O and CO. The CO run through a Fischer-Tropsch process would generate diesel and other fuels.
See:
http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=Reverse_Water-Gas_Shift_Reaction
Thanks, I think :-) I can see possibilities but afraid it needs further translation for me.
This sounds more like it:
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
“For the first time, the process of natural gas production combines the technology for hydrogen-electrolysis with methanisation. “Our demonstration system in Stuttgart splits water using surplus renewable energy using electrolysis. The result is hydrogen and oxygen,” explains Dr. Michael Specht of ZSW. “A chemical reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide generates methane – and that is nothing other than natural gas, produced synthetically.”"
Another, significant quote from the article:
“The new concept is a game changer and a new significant element for the integration of renewable energies into a sustainable energy system,” adds Sterner. The efficiency of converting power to gas equals more than 60 percent. “
Brooks,
CO2 + H2 = H2O + CO
To arrive at CH4 there would have to be 2 more Hs.
Go back to my link, it explains reverse water gas shift. Reporters are not the best equipped to explain bonding.
John, I’m ill-equipped to argue chemistry. I’m assuming you didn’t use the link because this is a press release from some very serious people (as opposed to Krugman’s Very Serious People). I don’t think they could be unaware of a straightforward equation such as yours. From the link:
“In order to push the new energy conversion technology forward, the two German research institutes have joined together with the company Solar Fuel Technology of Salzburg. Starting in 2012, they intend to launch a system with a capacity of approximately 10 megawatt.
The cooperation partners:
ZSW is among the most renowned research institutions in the field of photovoltaics, energy systems analysis, regenerative fuels, battery technology and fuel cells. Currently, approximately 170 scientists, engineers and technical experts are employed at the three locations in Stuttgart, Ulm and Widderstall. They have a turnover of more than 22 million Euro.”
Apologies for my denseness but also couldn’t get your link to work. But found Wikipedia for “Sabatier reaction” with this:
“The process is hydrolysis of water by electricity to create hydrogen (which can partly be used directly in fuel cells) and the addition of carbon dioxide CO2 (Sabatier process) to create methane. CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O ”
No mention of efficiency.
“Germany aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors supplying a fifth of its electricity with renewables such as solar and wind”
Totally absurd – had the article stated Germany plans to replace natural; gas with wind it might be worth celebrating.
So in essence the carbon footprint of renewables to replace clean energy is more carbon.
Good job making it worse.
“To suggest phasing out nuclear power when the world is faced with a climate change crisis is utter madness. It shows that some people have lost sight of which goal is the more important.” ( http://www.monbiot.com/2012/03/15/no-primrose-path/ )
Im kinda starting to wonder about people that paint it differently as well.
Never been in favor of that. Don’t know many in the policy community who are.
Never said you were – I just seem to come across it in discussion constantly elsewhere and see hints to it dropped in stories like I quoted.
Something is behind it.
Also some of the evaluation of a nuclear expansion seems to have had GG reduction targets set for 2015 – 2020. I dont think save a global recession we are going to hit those so it would be better to rethink at least a modest expansion of new nuclear technology. IMHO.
Of course given the current climate (political) that is easier said than done and emphasis now probably needs to be put on a carbon tax.
I dont think its all going very well joe and there are real disasters starting to occur that need full attention now too. Most all of it also in some way caused or exacerbated by climate change.
At 200 G€ Germany could have built at least 40 EPRs, which would have supplied far more clean electricity than this wind project. As an added bonus the electricity from nuclear is reliable, unlike wind and solar, and could actually retire dirty and dangerous coal and gas plants, instead of needing them for backup when the wind is not blowing.
Current state of biochar progress
http://biochar.be/biochar/item/current-state-of-biochar-progress.html
Article by a guest author… comments? feeback?
The site Biochar Earth Network has gone under a major update. It is now much easier to submit site content (blog entries).
People who like to become an author just mail me from the site contact form. But basically everybody can contribute. Even if it is just a link to your project page.
Cheers
Personally, I think nuke power has role to play as an emergency last resort. First I’ll describe NOW and then I’ll describe LATER.
NOW: I’d be happy if we built very few new ones, and built those to keep the art alive, but there are SO MANY things we can do without nuke power right now I see little reason to embrace them in a big way at this time. For starters, if we’re still depleting soil fertility to grow grain to feed to animals to eat meat to get cardiovascular disease…. flipping that paradigm on its head would be a big step forward… and away from Chernobyl and Fukushima.
LATER: On the other hand, after we have done all we can do in terms of nonnuke clean energy, conservation, and efficiency, I bet we will still come up short on power. Recalling the warming in the pipeline, the projected end of seafood, and dustbowlification shown on the Palmer drought index maps Joe has posted…. where are we gonna live, what are we gonna eat, and will we have enough “just right” warm/dry/wet/fertile land to host BOTH the relocation of people and the relocation of cropland? No way. So we’re gonna have to create more of it using tech and energy, and its pretty hard to imagine desalination plants on the coasts, or the piping to make a Mississippi of irrigation water flow to the continents’ heartland. And its impossible to imagine that without nuke power.
Speaking of dystopia….. those Palmer drought maps for 2060 make me think the old soviets that are still alive are laughing in their vodka.
The Met Office has announced the new updated HadCRUT4 global temperature data set:
“Updates have resulted in some changes to individual years in the nominal global mean temperature record, but have not changed the overall warming signal of about 0.75 °C since 1900.”
One of the key reasons for slight changes to mean temperature for later years in HadCRUT4 is the inclusion of much more data from the Arctic, an area which is warming faster than other parts of the world.
Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, said: “HadCRUT is underpinned by observations and we’ve previously been clear it may not be fully capturing changes in the Arctic because we have had so little data from the area.
“For the latest version we have included observations from more than 400 stations across the Arctic, Russia and Canada. This has led to better representation of what’s going on in the large geographical region.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates
Post is coming!
Last Friday, Michael Mann was a guest in the “Conversations with Great Minds” segment on the Big Picture With Thom Hartmann show:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvmnZ3Q7Vj0&feature=player_embedded
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XchthcwNbBM&feature=related
Check out the video of Andrew Saul (almost complete in english). Andrew talks about his private financed start up – something similar to what Elon Musk (Tesla) is doing.
http://ecarvolution.com/item/elektroauto-genovation-g2.html
E Car Volution is a new project im working on..
Ampera/Volt sweeps on Car of the Year 2012
http://ecarvolution.com/item/amperavolt-sweeps-on-car-of-the-year-2012.html
So let me get this straight, Germany is spending $263 billion to replace nuclear plants with wind? That will have a net negative impact on global warming. This is terrible news from a climate change perspective. All of the energy required to build the turbines and install them as well as all those new transmission lines will add to greenhouse gas emissions and there will be no reduction in GHGs by switching from nuclear to wind. Couldn’t they think of something else to do with that money that would actually have a positive effect on net GHG emissions?
Can we please quantify the “claims” about building “alternative” energy generation facilities?
You have to factor the entire lifecycle gains of these resources, jobs and direct effects on health, which are reduced to a minimum with wind (instead of nuclear).
Also the cost shrink significant, since you do not require a place to store radioactive waste. ANd then you have all these impacts on the environment from cooling of the “cool water”. These warmer waters which gets released into inland streams are a potential source of greenhouse gases, because a warmer environment accelerates decomposition and radiats more heat into the local environment.
Also building the nuclear plant requires large amounts of cement, which is a major greenhouse gas source.
The nuclear plants are already built. Tearing them down will release even more GHGs. Check this out:
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm
They get 18% of their power from coal and 23% from lignite (brown coal)! Why don’t they replace those with wind first? They get exactly the same percentage of electricity from coal that we do – 41%.
Insanity.
No, sanity.
Nuclear reactors are dangerous and should be shut down. I agree that coal burners should be shut down immediately; efficiency, conservation, complementing wind with solar and pumped storage, as Germany has already proven regionally, would go a long way toward freeing Germany from the harmful effects of both coal and nuclear.
Nuclear has a much higher EROEI than wind and solar, primarily because much less construction material is needed per produced energy. The nuclear fuel cycle (mining, enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste management) is extremely efficient due to the extremely high energy density.
Nuclear power also benefits from being reliable and dispatchable, unlike wind and solar, which is at the mercy of the weather. Solving the intermittency issues requires unfeasible amount of storage, or relying on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels as ‘backup’ (I fear that it will be mainly fossil with some renewables in reality). Wind and solar would work reasonably well for complementing hydro where it has high penetration.
An awful lot of people also forget that nuclear is the safest energy source based on fatalities per TWh by a good margin, even better than wind and solar (but I don’t hold that against them as all three are significantly better than hydro, which again is far better than fossil). A useful analogy is that far more people fear flying than driving, even though flying is far safer than driving. The safety discrepancy between nuclear and fossil is even greater, yet people don’t fear it nearly as much as they should, while fearing nuclear much more than they should.
That said, I’d be perfectly happy with a world powered by renewables alone, I just think it’s highly unrealistic, and pursuing it while ignoring nuclear will make matters worse.
Huh?
History of climate change re-written with release of Russian data
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/international-news/123326-history-of-climate-change-re-written-with-release-of-russian-data.html
Germany shift to Renewables has given a big boost to Renewable Energy field.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP), India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com