How Quickly They Grow Up!
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
June 27, 2017 at 10:02PM
Category: Uncategorized
New Report: CCS Would Make Renewables And Nuclear Energy Look Cheap
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com
Eminent energy economist warns that carbon capture and storage will never be viable
That is the stark message of Professor Gordon Hughes, Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh and a former adviser to the World Bank. In a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes says that claims that costs will fall quickly are unlikely to be borne out in practice and even if they are, the total investment required makes CCS little more than a utopian dream.
And as Professor Hughes explains:
“We have spent countless millions trying to get carbon capture to work for coal-fired power stations. But in the future coal will mostly be used in the developing world, where CCS is going to be too expensive. Everyone else is moving to gas, for which CSS isn’t yet an option.”
And even if the technology can be made to work for gas, it would come at a price that “would make renewables and nuclear look cheap”. This is in part because of a lack of joined up policy, as Professor Hughes explains:
“Successive governments haven’t thought their policies through. The focus on renewables is making CCS – already a marginal technology – even less viable. A coherent strategy could reduce carbon emissions at a fraction of the current cost by switching to gas with the option to install CCS if/when it makes economic sense.”
Full paper (pdf) — The Bottomless Pit: The Economics Of Carbon Capture and Storage
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com
June 27, 2017 at 06:31PM
The Road to Grenfell Hell was clad with Green Intentions
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
http://ift.tt/1WIzElD
Report written by commenter ‘stickywicket’ at Spiked online
Everyone has been shocked to the core by the images of the inferno that engulfed the Grenfell Tower, killing 79 people. Most were horrified by the suggestion in the Times that the cause of the fire might have been penny-pinching on the type of cladding used in the recent refurbishment of the building. It seems unbelievable that they didn’t spend an extra £5,000 for fire resistant cladding.
This is probably not the whole story. The revelation that a further 70+ tower blocks have failed fire safety tests tells us that there is an endemic problem. We don’t know the precise reasons for the fire yet, but we should certainly look at the influence of slavish devotion to green regulations.
The Grenfell refurbishment project apparently cost £8.6m, or >£70K per flat. The cost of the cladding, per the BBC Panorama documentary was £2.6m or >£20K per flat. This does not look like a project that was done on the cheap.
What pointers do we have that the drivers of the choice of materials might have been something other than small cost differences?
First, the regulations relating to cladding appear to be unclear, with some Government ministers suggesting the PE version on high-rise is illegal but others saying the rules are ambiguous. However, the manufacturer’s own guidelines say the FR version should be used on buildings over 10m and the even more fire resistant A2 version over 30m.
So, what might cause somebody to go against manufacturer guidelines? Well, the polyethylene (PE) variant of Reynobond cladding used is twice as thermally resistant as the fire retardant (FR) variant that would have cost £5,000 more to install. This is important in the context of the planning application and the regulations governing the refurbishment of buildings covered below.
Second, the insulation used was apparently Celotex RS5000, made from polyisocyanurate (PIR). Sky News has reported this material produces hydrogen cyanide when it burns and is, as we saw, highly combustible. This material is also rated A+ in the BRE Green guide. Interestingly, Celotex is 40% more insulating than the alternative incombustible Rockwool product. Celotex has thermal conductivity 0.021W/mK, compared to Rockwool Rainscreen Duo slabs of 0.035 W/mK.
It appears insulation performance was the main criterion used for material selection, not fire safety.
We also need to challenge the wisdom of spending more than £20,000 per flat on cladding in the first place. No matter how insulating the cladding was, this cannot be justified by the potential savings made on fuel bills to the occupants. A small portion of this money could have been used to install sprinklers for fire safety and install internal insulation. Energy efficient appliances were out of scope of the refurbishment project, but could have been fitted.
What do the planning application and the regulations tell us?
The Sustainability and Energy statement makes clear that “improving the insulation levels of the walls, roof and windows is the top priority of this refurbishment”. Indeed, they parade their green credentials by boasting that “the proposed insulation levels far exceed those required by Building Regulations”. In other words, they deliberately chose materials to be more insulating than required. There was no discussion of the fire safety impact of cladding and insulation or the potential need to install sprinklers. It appears concerns about insulation levels trumped any other consideration, even fire safety.
The report used by Kensington and Chelsea council to decide the planning application considered the application against many policies such as amenity, diversity of housing and climate change, but not apparently, any fire safety policy. The council admonishes itself for only achieving a ‘good’ rating against its climate change objective, but congratulates itself because “the proposed alterations which include the new windows, cladding materials and internal heating system will all provide a significant improvement to the sustainability of the building”.
The BREEAM report used to assess the sustainability credentials of the refurbishment has 43% of its evaluation criteria weighted towards Energy, a further 8% towards Materials and just 17% towards Health and Wellbeing, a small portion of which is devoted to fire safety.
They achieved a measly single credit for saying they would install fire and carbon monoxide detectors in each flat. But they got a total of 10 credits for improving the energy efficiency and reducing primary energy demand. They got a further 19 credits for using “materials [that] will have a green guide rating of at least A+” and 8 more for using highly insulating materials.
In summary, 1 credit for fire safety and a total of 37 credits for green environmental measures.
The primary focus of the BREEAM framework is energy efficiency, with precious little focus on fire safety. Is it any wonder fire safety was apparently disregarded? It would be interesting to see what the BREEAM scores would have been had they used the FR/A2 versions of the cladding and Rockwool insulation.
This evidence points to environmental concerns trumping other considerations when choosing the refurbishment materials. It certainly challenges the narrative that the choice of cladding material was driven by cost cutting.
This surely leads to several questions for the Public Inquiry:
1) What was the primary purpose for choosing Reynobond PE over Reynobond FR or A2? Was it cost or was it insulation performance.
2) What was the reason for choosing combustible PIR insulation instead of incombustible Rockwool? Was it insulation properties or cost?
3) PIR insulation is common place in the building industry. Why are these products allowed to be placed in any buildings, when they are clearly combustible and emit poisonous fumes when burnt?
4) Why does ‘sustainability’ rank higher than fire safety in building regulations?
5) Should the building regulations be changed to place greater emphasis on fire safety over and above sustainability considerations?
Of course, it is too early to allocate blame, but surely the Public Inquiry should tell us whether we have sacrificed 79 people on the altar of Gaia.
_______________________________________________
Reynobond specification: http://ift.tt/2ufAgTO
Reynobond fire solutions (p2, top left): http://ift.tt/2ufAgTO
Rockwool Rainscreen Duo specification: http://ift.tt/2ti7J2Q
Celotex RS5000 specification: http://ift.tt/2tikk5T
BREEAM Report: http://ift.tt/2tigAkZ
S & E Report: http://ift.tt/2tigAkZ
RBKC officer report: http://ift.tt/2tigAkZ
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD
June 27, 2017 at 05:45PM
In Search of the 3% Renewable Energy ‘Tipping Point’.
via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
Guest post by David Middleton
In order to search for the 3% Renewable Energy ‘Tipping Point’, we must ascertain a definition of the phrase…
Definition of tipping point
: the critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place
Let’s see if we can find a “critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place” anywhere in this pile of greenschist…
COMMENTARY > THE MONITOR’S VIEW
Renewable energy at a ‘tipping point’
A SHIFT IN THOUGHT Washington may be showing less interest in alternative fuels, but the worldwide picture is dramatically different.
The Monitor’s Editorial Board
JUNE 26, 2017 —Should the world promote economic growth or fight climate change? That model of “either/or” thinking may be losing its validity faster than even some experts have imagined.
While fossil fuels – coal, oil, gas – still generate roughly 85 percent of the world’s energy supply, it’s clearer than ever that the future belongs to renewable sources such as wind and solar.
The move to renewables is picking up momentum around the world: They now account for more than half of new power sources going on line.
[…]
“While fossil fuels – coal, oil, gas – still generate roughly 85 percent of the world’s energy supply,” it’s clear that wind (1.6%) and solar (0.6%) are part of the “other renewables” that accounted for 3% of global primary energy consumption in 2016.
Figure 1. 2016 primary energy by source (l). 1965-2016 primary energy consumption and % solar/wind (r). Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017
Now there does seem to be a ‘tipping point’ in this passage, a logical ‘tipping point’:
President Trump has underlined fossil fuels – especially coal – as the path to economic growth. In a recent speech in Iowa, a state he won easily in 2016, he dismissed wind power as an unreliable energy source.
But that message did not play well with many in the Hawkeye State, where wind turbines dot the fields and provide 36 percent of the state’s electricity generation – and where tech giants such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Google are being attracted by the availability of clean energy to power their data centers.
If “that message did not play well with many in the Hawkeye State,” how did Trump “easily” win Iowa? Could it be that many in the Hawkeye State are also fond of coal-fired electricity because it’s cheap?
QUICK FACTS
- Iowa, the largest producer of ethanol in the United States, had 25.9% of the nation’s fuel ethanol manufacturing capacity in 2016.
- Iowa ranked third among the states in consumption of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) in 2014, in part because of heavy use of LPG in the industrial sector for such as activities as drying corn crops and in the residential sector for heating.
- Coal’s share of net electricity generation in Iowa declined from 76% in 2008 to 47% in 2016, but coal is still the state’s largest source of net electricity generation.
- In 2016, Iowa ranked second among the states in net electricity generation from wind and third in net electricity generation from all nonhydroelectric renewable energy resources.
- Wind provided 36.6% of Iowa’s total electricity generation in 2016, a larger share than in any other state. Wind was second only to coal as an energy source for electricity generation in the state.
Last Updated: March 16, 2017
I wonder how the “tech giants such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Google” will power their Iowa data centers with “clean energy,” when nearly half of it comes from coal?
The question “what happens when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?” has provided a quick put-down for skeptics. But a boost in the storage capacity of batteries, and a dramatic drop in their cost, is making their ability to keep power flowing around the clock more likely.
And Santa Claus is coming to town. We’ll put batteries in the speculative future ‘tipping point’ category. With an up-front price $200/kWh, batteries need a much deeper “drop in their cost” because the “ability to keep power flowing around the clock” needs to actually be certain, not just “more likely.”
Is it just an inability to conjugate verbs with these people?
The advance is driven in part by vehicle manufacturers, who are placing big bets on battery-powered electric vehicles. Although electric cars are still a rarity on roads in 2017, this massive investment could change the picture rapidly in coming years. China, whose cities are choked by air pollution, may lead the way.
“Renewables have reached a tipping point globally,” sums up Simon Virley, who studies the world’s energy markets for the international accounting firm KPMG.
“Could change the picture rapidly in coming years” does not equate to having “reached a tipping point globally.” Furthermore, “battery-powered electric vehicles” aren’t going to put a significant dent in oil consumption for two reasons:
- Growth in oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation, freight and maritime use will dwarf any savings in passenger cars, buildings and power generation.
- The growth in electric vehicle sales has been spectacularly linear with no indications of acceleration.
Figure 2. Growth in oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation, freight and maritime use will dwarf any savings in passenger cars, buildings and power generation. (Source IEA)
Figure 3. US and global PEV sales.
2012-2016 US, 2014-2016 World PEV Sales
Even ARS Technica is starting to catch on:
According to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), 2016 was a record year for electric vehicle (EV) sales. More than 750,000 EVs were sold worldwide last year, compared to 547,220 sold in 2015.
But the gains are overshadowed by the distance that electric cars still have to go—although more than 2 million EVs now travel the world’s roads, they only make up 0.2 percent of the total light-duty passenger vehicle share around the world. And the growth of the number of electric cars on the roads actually slowed in 2016 compared to 2015 (60 percent in 2016 versus 77 percent in 2015), leaving policy makers and sustainable growth advocates wondering how to continue to grow the global fleet to meet climate change mitigation goals.
It’s estimated that 600 million EV’s will be needed by 2040…
Still, electric vehicles only made up 0.2% of total passenger light-duty vehicles in circulation in 2016. They have a long way to go before reaching numbers capable of making a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. In order to limit temperature increases to below 2°C by the end of the century, the number of electric cars will need to reach 600 million by 2040, according to IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives. Strong policy support will be necessary to keep EVs on track.
The average U.S. vehicle is driven 15,000 miles per year. The average PEV consumes 30 kWh per 100 miles. This works out to 4,500 kWh/yr per PEV. 600 million PEV’s would consume 2.7 million GWh/yr of electricity. This is equivalent to 62% of the average total U.S. electricity generation from 2010-2016. There are about 263.6 passenger vehicles in the U.S. If the entire U.S. fleet was converted to PEV’s, it would consume the equivalent of 27% of our current annual electricity generation:
| PEV% of Pass. Cars | PEV’s | PEV (GWh) | % US GWh |
| 1% | 2,636,000 | 11,862 | 0.3% |
| 2% | 5,272,000 | 23,724 | 0.5% |
| 4% | 10,544,000 | 47,448 | 1.1% |
| 8% | 21,088,000 | 94,896 | 2.2% |
| 16% | 42,176,000 | 189,792 | 4.4% |
| 32% | 84,352,000 | 379,584 | 8.7% |
| 64% | 168,704,000 | 759,168 | 17.4% |
| 100% | 263,600,000 | 1,186,200 | 27.3% |
Adding 27% to the load while degrading the reliability of the grid… You literally can’t make this up.
While there’s a long way to go, the trend lines for renewables are spiking. The the pace of change in energy sources appears to be speeding up – perhaps just in time to have a meaningful effect in slowing climate change.
“The trend lines for renewables are spiking”… Where?
Figure 4. Primary energy consumption (million tonnes of oil equivalent). Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017
Even if a plot a logarithmic y-axis, “the pace of change” doesn’t appear “to be speeding up.”
Figure 5. Primary energy consumption (million tonnes of oil equivalent) logarithmic y-axis. Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017
Having failed to find anything resembling a ‘tipping point’ in the CSM article, I expanded my research horizon and found the answer… I was using the wrong definition of ‘tipping point’.
‘Tipping point’ is apparently just a journalistic cliche.
Opinions
200 journalism cliches — and counting
By Carlos Lozada February 27, 2014
Identifying journalistic cliches has become a favorite Washington parlor game. But might it not also open a rare window onto the struggles of writers and editors trying to think outside the box?
Over the past few years, some colleagues at The Washington Post and I have played our own parlor game, assembling a list of verbal crutches, stock phrases, filler words, cliches and perpetually misused expressions that we should avoid in The Post’s Sunday Outlook section — or at least think hard about before using. The initial list received some attention last year on the media blog Romenesko, triggering many more nominations.
Below is the latest, expanded version, which reached 200 entries on July 10, 2014. Feel free to suggest new entries (or arguments for why something should be taken off the list) in the comments section, or tweet at us: @CarlosLozadaWP or @PostOutlook. We’ll keep adding to it.
And believe me — this is not your father’s list of journalism cliches.
The Outlook List of Things We Do Not Say
[…]
Hastily convened
Much ballyhooed
ill-advised
Shrouded in secrecy
Since time immemorial
Tipping point
Inflection point
Point of no return
The [anything] community
If history is any guide
If past is prologue
The devil is in the details
[…]
As usual, any and all sarcasm was purely intentional.
Be sure to tune in next week for…
via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
June 27, 2017 at 03:23PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 