It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Thursday, November 25, 2021
MAKE SOME POPCORN FOR THIS ONE — Apple sues Israeli spyware group NSO
"Egregious, deliberate, and concerted effort" to target and attack iPhone users.
ARTS TECHNICA / A man walks by the building entrance of Israeli cyber company
NSO Group at one of its branches in the Arava Desert on November 11, 2021, in Sapir, Israel. Amir Levy | Getty Images
Apple is suing NSO Group Technologies, the Israeli military-grade spyware manufacturer that created surveillance software used to target the mobile phones of journalists, political dissidents, and human rights activists, to block it from using Apple products.
The iPhone maker’s lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in federal court in California, alleged that NSO, the largest known Israeli cyber warfare company, had spied on and targeted Apple users. It is seeking damages as well as an order stopping NSO from using any Apple software, device, or services.
NSO develops and sells its spyware, known as Pegasus, which exploits vulnerabilities in iPhones and Android smartphones and allows those who deploy it to infiltrate a target’s device unnoticed.
Apple’s suit provided new details about a recently patched vulnerability, nicknamed FORCEDENTRY, that was used by NSO’s clients for about eight months to deliver code to an unspecified number of targets.
NSO said its software had saved “thousands of lives . . . around the world” and that its technology helped governments “catch paedophiles and terrorists.”
The company has never provided any evidence to back up those claims, citing confidentiality agreements with the government agencies that NSO sells to with the approval of the Israeli authorities.
It has recently appealed to the Israeli government to help lobby the White House to remove NSO from a US Department of Commerce blacklist for selling a technology that has resulted in “transnational repression,” according to two people familiar with the request.Advertisement
It is not known if the Israeli government has acted on that request.
The US government announced this month that it had added NSO Group and rival Tel Aviv-based Candiru to the trade blacklist, which would restrict exports of US hardware and software to the companies, as it cracks down on the global hacking-for-hire industry.
Apple’s lawsuit comes as Moody’s cut NSO’s debt two notches to eight levels below investment grade, indicating a high risk of default on $500 million in loans.
The company had fully drawn down a bank credit line, Moody’s said, and tight liquidity meant NSO could breach a covenant on its debt, leading to a default.
Pegasus was revealed in July to have been used to target smartphones belonging to dozens of journalists, human rights activists, and politicians, according to an investigation by a consortium of newspapers.
“State-sponsored actors like the NSO Group spend millions of dollars on sophisticated surveillance technologies without effective accountability. That needs to change,” Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice-president of software engineering, said in a statement. “Apple devices are the most secure consumer hardware on the market—but private companies developing state-sponsored spyware have become even more dangerous.”
Apple’s complaint comes just weeks after the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that NSO and its parent company Q Cyber were not sovereign entities and therefore were not shielded from an earlier lawsuit brought by Facebook accusing NSO of targeting users of its WhatsApp messaging service.
In the complaint, Apple called NSO a group of “notorious” and “amoral” hackers that act as “mercenaries” creating cyber-surveillance machinery “that invites routine and flagrant abuse” for commercial gain.
The US company accused NSO of violating multiple federal and state laws “arising out of their egregious, deliberate, and concerted efforts in 2021 to target and attack Apple customers.”
Apple issued an emergency software update in September after a vulnerability from Pegasus was exposed by researchers at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab.
Apple suing 'hacker-for-hire' firm NSO that Canadian cyber watchdog Citizen Lab warned them about
Social Sharing
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Email
Reddit
Pegasus spyware has been used to target Apple products
Cybersecurity experts say NSO is a dangerous menace, not the 'lawful interception' it claims to be. (Mark Lenniha/The Associated Press)
Tech giant Apple announced Tuesday it is suing Israel's NSO Group, the world's most infamous hacker-for-hire company for creating and selling software designed to break into their devices.
The tech giant said in a complaint filed in federal court in California that NSO Group employees are "amoral 21st century mercenaries who have created highly sophisticated cyber-surveillance machinery that invites routine and flagrant abuse."
"State-sponsored actors like the NSO Group spend millions of dollars on sophisticated surveillance technologies without effective accountability. That needs to change," said Craig Federighi, Apple's senior vice-president of software engineering.
The move by Apple comes after cybersecurity watchdog group Citizen Lab, at the University of Toronto, warned Apple of a vulnerability in its software that could allow a type of spyware called Pegasus to infect Apple devices without the user doing anything or knowing about it.
How Pegasus works
Security researchers have found Pegasus being used around the world to break into the phones of human rights activists, journalists and even members of the Catholic clergy.
Pegasus infiltrates phones to vacuum up personal and location data and surreptitiously controls the smartphone's microphones and cameras. Researchers have found several examples of NSO Group tools using so-called "zero click" exploits that infect targeted mobile phones without any user interaction.
NSO claims it created the spyware for legitimate law enforcement purposes, but cybersecurity experts have long suspected the company has no qualms about who or what it sells its services to.
"It is important for all of us to have awareness of what NSO Group has been up to," said Chester Wisniewski, principal research scientist at security firm Sophos, in an interview with CBC News.
"Those of us who look into spyware, which is ultimately what NSO Group produces, have suspected them of doing this for years."
The hacker company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"Mercenary spyware firms like NSO Group have facilitated some of the world's worst human rights abuses and acts of transnational repression while enriching themselves and their investors," Citizen Lab's director Ron Deibert said in a statement. "They claim they are selling a carefully controlled "lawful interception" tool, but in reality what they are providing is despotism-as-a-service."
Wisniewski agrees that Citizen Lab deserves some credit, both for finding the proof of what NSO was up to and drawing attention to it by bringing the focus to such a high profile company such as Apple.
"If Citizen Lab hadn't done the work they had done, Apple probably wouldn't be as upset about it, and therefore they wouldn't have done anything," he said.
Exiled NSA contractor Edward Snowden also credited Citizen Lab with shining a light on the issue.
Growing list of lawsuits
It's the latest blow to the hacking firm, which was recently blacklisted by the U.S. Commerce Department and is currently being sued by social media giant Facebook.
The Biden administration announced this month that NSO Group and another Israeli cybersecurity firm called Candiru were being added to the "entity list," which limits their access to U.S. components and technology by requiring government permission for exports.
Apple also announced Tuesday that it was donating $10 million US, as well as any damages won in the NSO Group lawsuit, to cybersurveillance researchers and advocates.
While he welcomes Apple's move, Wisniewski says it ultimately probably won't solve the problem.
"It's unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on NSO Group continuing to do what they do," he said. "It's not going to stop them from producing spy tools and continuing to sell them to governments."
Tesla Giga Berlin Workers Reportedly Planning To Organize A Union
Trade union IG Metall claims Tesla is offering pay 20 percent below that of German automakers.
Nov 24, 2021
By: Dan Mihalascu
Elon Musk’s stance on labor unions is well known, with Tesla being the only large US automaker lacking a unionized workforce in its home country.
That might not necessarily fly with Tesla’s German workers who are reportedly planning to elect a works council to represent their interests at the massive EV plant near Berlin. German trade union IG Metall made the announcement on November 23 as Tesla is waiting to get permit approval to start production.
Seven employees at the Grünheide plant have already taken the first step toward setting up a union and they plan to choose a committee on November 29 that will run elections for a works council, IG Metall said according to Reuters. None of the seven employees are IG Metall members.
"A works council ensures that the interests of the workforce have a voice and a weight. This is in line with the democratic work culture in Germany.”
Birgit Dietze, IG Metall district leader in Berlin, Brandenburg and Saxony
Mind you, the trade union representative added that the election of a works council will not take place soon as only about a sixth of the plant’s 12,000 workers have been hired so far.
German labor law states that employees must be at a company for six months before they can run in a works council election. With most of the people hired so far being middle or senior managers, any body formed in the near future is likely to be dominated by management figures, the union said. A new election for a works council can only be called after two years, and only if the workforce has more than doubled.
IG Metall claims that applicants have told it that Tesla is offering pay 20 percent below the collectively bargained wages offered at German automakers. Furthermore, the contracts offered to employees are unconventional by German standards as they offer packages with stock options and bonuses rather than predetermined holiday pay.
It will be interesting to see how this will play out given that Elon Musk is known for his rocky relationship with organized labor. Earlier this year, the chief executive was ordered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to delete a 2018 tweet threatening US employees with the loss of stock options if they formed a union.
A reaction from Elon Musk is yet to appear, but he has already expressed irritation for German laws and processes. In a letter to authorities in April, he complained that the country’s complex planning requirements were at odds with the urgency required to fight climate change. Gallery: Tesla Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg County Fair 15 Photos
German union fears new Tesla works council will be top heavy
Logo of the electric-vehicle maker Tesla is seen near a shopping complex in Beijing
BERLIN (Reuters) – A works council being set up by Tesla staff at the company’s new Gruenheide plant near Berlin risks being unrepresentative as most of the employees hired so far are middle or senior managers, Germany’s largest union warned on Tuesday.
IG Metall said seven Tesla employees, none of whom were its members, had called a meeting for Monday to choose a committee to run elections https://reut.rs/3oVsGf8 for a council that would remain in position for at least two years.
“We’re happy there’s been a starting shot,” Birgit Dietze, head of IG Metall’s regional office for Berlin-Brandenburg-Saxony where Tesla’s factory https://reut.rs/30XbqxO is located, told Reuters.
“What’s important is that the workers’ council is really there for all employees … for us it’s a little too soon.”
Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Under German labour law, employees must be at a company for six months before they can run in a works council election – meaning any body formed in the near future is likely to be dominated by management figures, the union said.
Dietze said a new election can only be called after two years, and only then if the workforce has more than doubled. IG Metall says Tesla has hired about one in six of the 12,000 workers due to be recruited for the site so far.
The U.S electric vehicle maker is operating at Gruenheide under pre-approval permits as it awaits the green light from local authorities to start production. Tesla hopes to receive final approval by the end of 2021.
Chief Executive Elon Musk has sparred with organised labour in the past and was ordered https://reut.rs/3xhTFFk in March to delete a tweet from 2018 threatening to strip U.S. employees of their stock options if they formed a union.
IG Metall set up an office near the Gruenheide plant earlier this year to provide support. Dietze said the union would not have advocated setting up a works council until a wider pool of workers had been hired.
(Reporting by Victoria Waldersee; Editing by David Clarke)
Tesla employees in Germany plan works council
Tue, November 23, 2021, 9:38 AM·1 min read
BERLIN, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Employees at Tesla's huge new factory near Berlin will elect a works council to represent their interests, a German trade union said on Tuesday.
The IG Metall trade union said seven employees had taken the first step towards setting up a works council, planning to choose an election committee on Nov. 29.
"A works council ensures that the interests of the workforce have a voice and a weight. This is in line with the democratic work culture in Germany," said Birgit Dietze, IG Metall district leader in Berlin, Brandenburg and Saxony.
The Tesla plant near Berlin will employ 12,000 workers, although only about a sixth of that have been hired so far, meaning the election of a works council will not take place soon, IG Metall said.
IG Metall has said applicants have told it that Tesla, whose CEO Elon Must is known for his rocky relationship with organised labour, is offering pay 20% below the collectively bargained wages offered at other German automakers.
Tesla is also shaking up conventional German contracts by offering packages with stock options and bonuses rather than predetermined holiday pay.
Tesla did not immediately respond to a phone call or email request for comment.
Earlier this year, Musk was ordered to delete a 2018 tweet threatening that U.S. employees would lose their stock options if they formed a union.
Musk has made his irritation for German laws and processes known, saying in a letter to authorities in April that the country's complex planning requirements were at odds with the urgency needed to fight climate change.
(Reporting by Ilona Wissenbach Writing by Emma Thomasson Editing by Mark Potter)
'MAYBE' TECH
Giant pipeline in U.S. Midwest tests future of carbon capture
Leah Douglas Tue., November 23, 2021
FILE PHOTO: An ethanol plant with its giant corn silos next to a cornfield
(Reuters) - Dan Tronchetti received a letter in August that alarmed him: Summit Carbon Solutions, a company he'd never heard of, wanted his permission to conduct survey work for a 2,000-mile pipeline it planned to route through his Iowa corn and soybean fields.
The project, dubbed the Midwest Carbon Express, had ambitions to become the world's largest carbon dioxide pipeline, moving climate-warming greenhouse gases from Midwest biofuels plants to North Dakota for permanent storage underground.
But Tronchetti's first concern was for his livelihood. "It would go more than half a mile through prime farmland," he said.
The 65-year-old is among dozens of landowners along the route who are refusing to cede their property to the project, according to Reuters interviews with five landowners, four community groups organizing opposition, several academics and industry sources plus a review of filings with state regulators.
The impasse could escalate into potential court battles if Summit tries to seize the land by claiming eminent domain. Such legal fights contributed to the cancellation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline this year.
The outcome of the dispute poses huge stakes for Summit's $4.5 billion project, and for the Midwest ethanol producers it would serve who are hoping to wipe away their carbon footprints and burnish their green credentials.
It also represents what could be the biggest test yet for the carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry, which has struggled for years but which advocates say could become a powerful tool in the global fight against climate change.
Underground geological formations in the United States have the potential to store 2.6 trillion tons of planet-warming CO2, enough to cover all of America's historical emissions and those to come for centuries, according to the Department of Energy.
But there are open questions about whether CCS can ever fill them. Despite billions of dollars of public investment over the past decade, the technology remains relatively untested.
The United States boasts just 12 operational commercial CCS facilities that together have an annual capacity to store away 19.64 million tons of carbon, about 0.4% of national emissions.
Many other projects have been proposed but have either failed to reach startup or have been suspended because of financial or operational issues, including the $1 billion Petra Nova plant in Texas last year.
Health issues are also a concern. A 2020 liquid CO2 pipeline rupture in Yazoo County, Mississippi, for example, sickened dozens of people.
Jerald Schnoor, a professor at the University of Iowa’s engineering school and former chair of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council, said his "high hopes" for CCS had flagged in recent years after the string of project failures.
But he added that ethanol plants were theoretically prime sites for carbon capture, as they produce a highly concentrated stream of CO2.
"If you accept that climate change is a serious problem, and I do, then this large opportunity of CO2 to capture makes sense," he added.
Summit told Reuters its pipeline project would work, be safe, and help the agriculture industry by providing a critical new revenue stream for the 31 corn ethanol plants that have signed on with the company.
"This is a pretty transformative project for ethanol to compete in a lower carbon world," said Justin Kirchhoff, the president of Summit Ag Investors, the parent company of Summit Carbon Solutions.
The Biden administration is also encouraging the technology in its bid to decarbonize the U.S. economy by 2050, and has proposed a big hike in tax credits for its use that is now being debated in Congress. Summit would be a big beneficiary.
FEAR OF CROP DAMAGE
Summit first proposed the Midwest Carbon Express in February and has been working to get its route approved in the five states it will pass through.
Iowa, where state law has required Summit to hold public hearings in nearly every county, has emerged as the most contentious.
The state's farmers have been outspoken opponents to the project at these meetings, and several – including Tronchetti – are petitioning the Iowa Utilities Board to release the names of other landowners along the route so they can organize.
Summit is fighting that effort, according to a Reuters review of the docket, arguing that publishing the list would give advantage to its competitors.
The farmers in the path of the pipeline are mainly concerned about damage to their crops during and after installation of the line, when soil will be disturbed and compacted.
Research published by Iowa State University this month found that first and second-year yields in the right-of-way of the nearby Dakota Access crude oil pipeline were 25% lower for soybeans and 15% lower for corn.
Summit said in a filing with Iowa regulators that it plans to compensate farmers for potential damage by paying them the full value of the crops typically grown on the affected tract in the first year of construction and operation, with diminishing payments over the following two years.
Landowners fear that if they refuse to sign voluntary agreements for Summit to use their land for the pipeline, they could take it under eminent domain laws, as has happened with some oil and gas pipeline projects.
Despite that risk, Tronchetti and Bev Kutz, a Nebraska cattle farmer in the path of the pipeline, told Reuters that they and their neighbors had refused to let Summit surveyors onto their property.
"This is a private company seeking something that isn't in the best interest of the public," Kutz said.
The project also faces opposition from some local green groups, like the Iowa chapters of the Sierra Club and Food & Water Watch, who have expressed safety fears and concerns that the project will be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
Most existing CCS projects employ EOR, where the captured carbon is used to raise pressure in oil fields to boost crude production, something that climate activists say undermines the technology's green goals.
Summit said it hadn't ruled out EOR, but that its main focus was permanent storage.
The company declined to tell Reuters how much of the pipeline route it had been able to secure from landowners, but said it was optimistic.
"We are encouraged by the response we have received from landowners and look forward to continuing those conversations," said spokesperson Jesse Harris.
SUBSIDIES AND CREDITS
CCS has been slow going around the world. There are just 27 operational commercial CCS facilities globally, according to the Global CCS Institute, with capacity in top emitter China at around 2 million tons a year.
The Midwest Carbon Express, with the capacity to carry away 12 million tonnes of CO2 a year, would outstrip the current biggest project, the natural gas Century Plant in Texas, which can capture some 8 million tons of CO2 per year.
Summit's financial model relies on federal subsidies for CCS, as well as the proceeds from low carbon fuel credits generated by biofuels from the plants it serves.
The Biden administration’s federal budget reconciliation bill would, if passed, hike tax credits for carbon sequestration from $50 per ton of carbon to $85 per ton.
Summit has estimated the pipeline will eventually carry 12 million tons of CO2 each year from ethanol facilities, enough to generate $1 billion annually in tax credits at the higher rate.
The fuel from the plants could then be sold into states like California or Washington which have or are developing low carbon fuel markets, generating lucrative tradable credits.
All of this money could become an important revenue stream for the ethanol sector, which has plateaued in recent years.
But the pipeline’s support for the ethanol industry falls flat with some environmentalists, who criticize the business for shifting millions of acres of pastureland, idle croplands, and forests into corn crop production.
“We’re wedding two highly polluting forms of energy in this macabre dance," Mitch Jones, policy director of Food & Water Watch, said of ethanol and crude oil obtained through EOR.
(Writing by Leah Douglas; Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Pravin Char)
Oil giant Shell strikes deal to buy power from ‘world’s largest offshore wind farm’
The 15-year power purchase agreement relates to 240 megawatts from Dogger Bank C, the third and final phase of the 3.6 gigawatt Dogger Bank Wind Farm.
“Once the three phases are complete, which is expected by March 2026, Dogger Bank will be the largest offshore wind farm in the world,” Dogger Bank Wind Farm says.
Offshore wind farm. davee hughes uk | Moment | Getty Images
Shell said Wednesday it had signed a deal to purchase power from a development dubbed “the world’s largest offshore wind farm.”
The 15-year power purchase agreement relates to 240 megawatts from Dogger Bank C, the third and final phase of the 3.6 gigawatt Dogger Bank Wind Farm, which will be located in waters off the coast of northeast England.
The agreement builds upon a previous deal to purchase 480 MW from Dogger Bank A and B, meaning that its combined offtake will amount to 720 MW.
On Wednesday, Dogger Bank Wind Farm announced it had also agreed 15-year power purchase agreements for Dogger Bank C with Centrica Energy Marketing & Trading, SSE Energy Supply Limited and Danske Commodities.
“The commercial power agreements provide a route to sell the green energy generated by the third phase of the wind farm into the GB electricity market when it enters commercial operation,” it said.
Dogger Bank A and B represents a joint venture between Equinor, SSE Renewables and Eni, with the companies holding stakes of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively.
This month, it was announced Eni would also acquire a 20% stake in Dogger Bank C, with Equinor and SSE Renewables each holding on to a share of 40%. This deal is slated for completion in the first quarter of 2022.
“Once the three phases are complete, which is expected by March 2026, Dogger Bank will be the largest offshore wind farm in the world,” Dogger Bank Wind Farm says. Despite making deals related to renewable energy, Shell remains a major player in oil and gas. It has pledged to become a net-zero emissions energy firm by 2050.
In a landmark ruling earlier this year, a Dutch court ordered Shell to take much more aggressive action to drive down its carbon emissions and reduce them by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels. The verdict was thought to be the first time in history a company has been legally obliged to align its policies with the 2015 Paris Agreement. Shell is appealing the ruling, a move that has been sharply criticized by climate activists.
In October, billionaire activist investor Dan Loeb called on the business to break up into multiple companies to strengthen its performance and market value.
Shell acknowledged Loeb’s letter to clients calling for the company to split, saying it “regularly reviews and evaluates the Company’s strategy with a focus on generating shareholder value. As part of this ongoing process, Shell welcomes open dialogue with all shareholders, including Third Point.”
“The simplification will normalise our share structure under the tax and legal jurisdictions of a single country and make us more competitive,” Andrew Mackenzie, the company’s chair, said at the time.
—CNBC’s Sam Meredith and Chloe Taylor contributed to this article.
UK rail sector on track to diesel-free trains by 2040
29 per cent of the UK train fleet still runs on diesel
Passengers board a Eurostar train at St Pancras International station in London. About 29% of the UK train fleet still runs on diesel and freight trains run almost entirely on it. Photo: Tolga Akmen / AFP
As host of the recent COP26 climate summit, Britain’s drive to help slash global carbon emissions will involve keeping to its own target of phasing out diesel trains over the next two decades, industry bodies and observers say.
According to the latest government data, about 29 per cent of the UK train fleet still runs on diesel and freight trains run almost entirely on it.
The government has unveiled plans to electrify an additional 180 miles (288 kilometres) of track in a new rail strategy. This would help “to meet the ambition of removing all diesel-only trains from the network by 2040”, the Department for Transport said.
Diesel dependence
While electric trains emit 60 per cent less carbon than their diesel counterparts, only 42 per cent of the UK rail network is currently electrified, according to official data. That places the UK far behind European neighbours, such as the Netherlands, where 76 per cent of the network is electrified.
Only 42% of the UK rail network is currently electrified, That places the UK far behind European neighbours, such as the Netherlands, where 76% of the network is electrified
With the current surge in electricity prices, some electric-run operators have recently been forced to revert to diesel locomotives, trade body Rail Freight Group (RFG) observed last month. While the RFG described the switch back to diesel as “regrettable”, it insisted it was only temporary.
Its director general, Maggie Simpson, highlighted a need for “more electric wires to support the investment in newer locomotives”. Britain’s rail freight is presently 90 per cent hauled by diesel engines.“Of course, in the long term, we need to move to a decarbonised economy, so more use of electric traction is going to be a huge part of that,” Simpson told AFP.
Last month saw the launch of a new fully-electric passenger train in the UK – Lumo’s London-Edinburgh service carries no auxiliary diesel engine.
Train operators are taking the opportunity to transition also via hybrid models in much the same way as carmakers. Chiltern Railways, which runs passenger services between London in southeast England and the country’s Midlands, recently announced investment in a hybrid battery-diesel train, developed by rolling stock owner Porterbrook and Rolls-Royce, the maker of aircraft engines.
Hydrogen future
As well as increasing electrification of its rail tracks, Britain is in the early stages of producing trains that can run on the renewable energy hydrogen. French train manufacturer Alstom has announced plans to deliver the UK’s first-ever fleet of new hydrogen trains, as opposed to rolling stock that has been remodelled.
“Rail is already the lowest emission transport mode, but we can do even more,” Nick Crossfield, Alstom’s managing director UK and Ireland, said as the group this month unveiled its hydrogen project in collaboration with British trains owner Eversholt Rail.
The COP26 event in Glasgow – attended by Britain’s Prince Charles who is a committed environmental campaigner – showcased a hydrogen-powered train. HydroFLEX, developed by Porterbrook and the University of Birmingham with the help of UK government funding, is a remodelled train that its designers claim can carry sufficient hydrogen to match the performance of a diesel engine.
While Glasgow Central train station displayed HydroFLEX to the general public, the nearby COP26 summit focused on ending sales of road vehicles that run on fossil fuels.
Battery-electric trains can deliver environmental justice, cost savings and resilience to the U.S.
by Kiran Julin
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain
Trains have been on the sidelines of electrification efforts for a long time in the U.S. because they account for only 2% of transportation sector emissions, but diesel freight trains emit 35 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually and produce air pollution that leads to $6.5 billion in health costs, resulting in an estimated 1,000 premature deaths each year. What's more, these deaths and adverse health impacts disproportionately affect disadvantaged and low-income communities, which are more likely to be located near freight rail yards and railways.
The recent dramatic decline in battery prices has created a new possibility for electrification of freight trains. Researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), collaborating with UCLA and UC Berkeley researchers, make the case that the U.S. can retrofit diesel-electric trains with batteries in a way that is cost-competitive with diesel. Doing so would avoid these unnecessary deaths and health impacts and save the U.S. freight rail sector $94 billion over 20 years from reduced air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Their study was recently published in the journal Nature Energy.
"A rapid conversion of the freight-rail sector is not only technically feasible and cost-effective, it would bring immediate and lasting health and economic benefits to lower income communities," said Natalie Popovich, Berkeley Lab scientist and lead author of the study. "And it would provide a boost to our nation's efforts to curb climate change, especially considering that U.S. freight rail capacity is expected to double by 2050."
Trains play a significant role in moving goods throughout the U.S., particularly heavy freight such as coal, lumber, and ore. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, 28% of U.S. freight is moved around the country by rail, and that percentage is expected to grow substantially in the next couple of decades. At the recent 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the U.S. joined a dozen other countries in signing onto new agreements to curtail shipping emissions, and zero-emissions solutions for freight rail transport will be part of that commitment.
Diesel-electric, but not battery-electric
Unlike several other regions in the world, all freight trains in the US are still diesel electric, largely because the typical electrification strategy of building electrified lines over tracks is harder to implement in the U.S. with its vast distances. In diesel-electric trains, a diesel engine is connected to an alternator that then supplies electricity to electric motors connected to the locomotive axles. Retrofitting the trains to be powered by batteries is therefore feasible because diesel-electric trains already have an electric motor.
"Dramatic improvements in battery technology, coupled with the existing electric drivetrain in predominantly diesel-electric freight trains in the U.S., pave the way for a rapid conversion to battery-electric freight rail and with substantial cost savings," said Berkeley Lab scientist Amol Phadke, corresponding author of the study. "Also, the weight of batteries is less of a constraint than it would be for electric vehicles or trucks. We can add a car to a freight train built out with batteries, and the weight of that battery car is not an issue with trains."
Diesel-electric trains have been around since the 1920s, and they started to replace steam trains in the 1930s since they performed better and were less polluting. At that time, using diesel engines to generate power for the motors on trains was cheaper than trying to develop fully electric trains due to high electricity costs. Now, a century later, we are at a point where the price of electricity is competitive with diesel, and the environmental and health costs of continuing to rely on diesel to power freight trains are too devastating to ignore.
"Our analysis shows that a switch to battery-electric freight will cut the industry's annual carbon dioxide emission by more than half, eliminating more than 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 20 years," said Popovich.
The study highlights that additional pathways to electrifying U.S. freight trains exist, such as electrifying trains via overhead power lines or using hydrogen fuel cells in conjunction with battery-powered trains. However, based on the fact that freight trains are already diesel-electric, and considering recent advances in battery technology, the researchers show that the battery-electric pathway offers the most cost-effective, long-term solution with multiple added benefits.
Their analysis shows that existing battery technology could power a freight train for 150 miles (the average daily distance traveled). A battery-powered freight train would use half the energy required by a diesel-electric train, and taking into account falling battery prices and environmental costs of diesel, battery-electric trains are on track to be more cost-competitive than diesel-electric trains. Since freight rail planning is centralized, the study suggests that railroads could achieve high volume use of fast-charging infrastructure, which would further reduce costs.
One major benefit of retrofitting existing diesel-electric freight trains with battery cars—otherwise known as battery tender cars—is that the battery-electric trains can always fall back on the diesel engine as a backup fuel source. This dual-fuel capability, allowing for either battery or diesel usage, is a unique advantage compared to fully electrifying the freight rail system or using hydrogen fuel cells.
Modular batteries offer resilience benefits
Another major benefit is that battery-electric trains can be deployed as clean backup power, thus bolstering the electric grid's resilience. Historically, diesel-electric trains have been used as power generators during emergencies. In early 1998, a series of ice storms left over a million without power in the northeastern U.S. and in parts of Canada. In one suburb of Montreal, the mayor moved an entire diesel-electric locomotive close to City Hall to supply power for their emergency response operations.
With the rise of extreme weather events and power outages, battery-electric trains have the potential to be deployed nationwide to avoid blackouts. These modular, battery tender cars can be transported to where they are needed and charged in locations where the electricity prices are low, thus offering significant advantages over grid-scale storage. Moreover, the battery tender cars could work as modular shipping containers, capable of exchange between freight rail and maritime shipping vessels, with positive benefits to decarbonizing both sectors and expanding the resilience reach.
"Conversion of the U.S. freight rail sector to battery-electric would generate about 220 gigawatt-hours of mobile storage," said Phadke. "Furthermore, these battery tender cars could be deployed during extreme events, such as during the recent catastrophic wildfires in California or the 2021 winter storm in Texas that left millions without access to electricity. This mobile energy storage capability would also create a potential new revenue stream for freight rail operators."
From a technical perspective, the researchers demonstrated that there should not be any constraints in moving to fully battery-electric freight trains, but further research and large-scale demonstration projects are needed to optimize charging infrastructure. "Berkeley Lab's systems and markets analyses shed light on this overlooked area and demonstrated that we can decarbonize some sectors with existing technology, which will help us reach our climate goals that much faster while also advancing environmental justice and grid resilience. It's a win-win-win," said Berkeley Lab Energy Storage Center Director Noel Bakhtian. "The techno-economic analysis of battery-electric freight trains shows that we have viable solutions available to enable the transition to a clean, affordable, and resilient energy future."
More information:Natalie D. Popovich et al, Economic, environmental and grid-resilience benefits of converting diesel trains to battery-electric,Nature Energy(2021).DOI: 10.1038/s41560-021-00915-5
Near elimination of air pollution from diesel-electric freight trains by 2025 is now possible by retrofitting them with battery tender cars. (Credit: BeyondImages/iStock)
Trains have been on the sidelines of electrification efforts for a long time in the U.S. because they account for only 2% of transportation sector emissions, but diesel freight trains emit 35 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually and produce air pollution that leads to $6.5 billion in health costs, resulting in an estimated 1,000 premature deaths each year. What’s more, these deaths and adverse health impacts disproportionately affect disadvantaged and low-income communities, which are more likely to be located near freight rail yards and railways.
The recent dramatic decline in battery prices has created a new possibility for electrification of freight trains. Researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), collaborating with UCLA and UC Berkeley researchers, make the case that the U.S. can retrofit diesel-electric trains with batteries in a way that is cost-competitive with diesel. Doing so would avoid these unnecessary deaths and health impacts and save the U.S. freight rail sector $94 billion over 20 years from reduced air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Their study was recently published in the journal Nature Energy.
“A rapid conversion of the freight-rail sector is not only technically feasible and cost-effective, it would bring immediate and lasting health and economic benefits to lower income communities,” said Natalie Popovich, Berkeley Lab scientist and lead author of the study. “And it would provide a boost to our nation’s efforts to curb climate change, especially considering that U.S. freight rail capacity is expected to double by 2050.”
Trains play a significant role in moving goods throughout the U.S., particularly heavy freight such as coal, lumber, and ore. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, 28% of U.S. freight is moved around the country by rail, and that percentage is expected to grow substantially in the next couple of decades. At the recent 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the U.S. joined a dozen other countries in signing onto new agreements to curtail shipping emissions, and zero-emissions solutions for freight rail transport will be part of that commitment.
Diesel-Electric, but not Battery-Electric
Unlike several other regions in the world, all freight trains in the U.S. are still diesel electric, largely because the typical electrification strategy of building electrified lines over tracks is harder to implement in the U.S. with its vast distances. In diesel-electric trains, a diesel engine is connected to an alternator that then supplies electricity to electric motors connected to the locomotive axles. Retrofitting the trains to be powered by batteries is therefore feasible because diesel-electric trains already have an electric motor.
“Dramatic improvements in battery technology, coupled with the existing electric drivetrain in predominantly diesel-electric freight trains in the U.S., pave the way for a rapid conversion to battery-electric freight rail and with substantial cost savings,” said Berkeley Lab scientist Amol Phadke, corresponding author of the study. “Also, the weight of batteries is less of a constraint than it would be for electric vehicles or trucks. We can add a car to a freight train built out with batteries, and the weight of that battery car is not an issue with trains.”
Diesel-electric trains have been around since the 1920s, and they started to replace steam trains in the 1930s since they performed better and were less polluting. At that time, using diesel engines to generate power for the motors on trains was cheaper than trying to develop fully electric trains due to high electricity costs. Now, a century later, we are at a point where the price of electricity is competitive with diesel, and the environmental and health costs of continuing to rely on diesel to power freight trains are too devastating to ignore.
“Our analysis shows that a switch to battery-electric freight will cut the industry’s annual carbon dioxide emission by more than half, eliminating more than 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 20 years,” said Popovich.
The study highlights that additional pathways to electrifying U.S. freight trains exist, such as electrifying trains via overhead power lines or using hydrogen fuel cells in conjunction with battery-powered trains. However, based on the fact that freight trains are already diesel-electric, and considering recent advances in battery technology, the researchers show that the battery-electric pathway offers the most cost-effective, long-term solution with multiple added benefits.
Their analysis shows that existing battery technology could power a freight train for 150 miles (the average daily distance traveled). A battery-powered freight train would use half the energy required by a diesel-electric train, and taking into account falling battery prices and environmental costs of diesel, battery-electric trains are on track to be more cost-competitive than diesel-electric trains. Since freight rail planning is centralized, the study suggests that railroads could achieve high volume use of fast-charging infrastructure, which would further reduce costs.
Battery-tender cars are modular and can be deployed in different configurations to locations experiencing power outages as well as to other sectors, such as to for electrifying ships. (Credit: drogatnev/iStock)
One major benefit of retrofitting existing diesel-electric freight trains with battery cars – otherwise known as battery tender cars – is that the battery-electric trains can always fall back on the diesel engine as a backup fuel source. This dual-fuel capability, allowing for either battery or diesel usage, is a unique advantage compared to fully electrifying the freight rail system or using hydrogen fuel cells.
Modular Batteries Offer Resilience Benefits
Another major benefit is that battery-electric trains can be deployed as clean backup power, thus bolstering the electric grid’s resilience. Historically, diesel-electric trains have been used as power generators during emergencies. In early 1998, a series of ice storms left over a million without power in the northeastern U.S. and in parts of Canada. In one suburb of Montreal, the mayor moved an entire diesel-electric locomotive close to City Hall to supply power for their emergency response operations.
With the rise of extreme weather events and power outages, battery-electric trains have the potential to be deployed nationwide to avoid blackouts. These modular, battery tender cars can be transported to where they are needed and charged in locations where the electricity prices are low, thus offering significant advantages over grid-scale storage. Moreover, the battery tender cars could work as modular shipping containers, capable of exchange between freight rail and maritime shipping vessels, with positive benefits to decarbonizing both sectors and expanding the resilience reach.
“Conversion of the U.S. freight rail sector to battery-electric would generate about 220 gigawatt-hours of mobile storage,” said Phadke. “Furthermore, these battery tender cars could be deployed during extreme events, such as during the recent catastrophic wildfires in California or the 2021 winter storm in Texas that left millions without access to electricity. This mobile energy storage capability would also create a potential new revenue stream for freight rail operators.”
From a technical perspective, the researchers demonstrated that there should not be any constraints in moving to fully battery-electric freight trains, but further research and large-scale demonstration projects are needed to optimize charging infrastructure. “Berkeley Lab’s systems and markets analyses shed light on this overlooked area and demonstrated that we can decarbonize some sectors with existing technology, which will help us reach our climate goals that much faster while also advancing environmental justice and grid resilience. It’s a win-win-win,” said Berkeley Lab Energy Storage Center Director Noel Bakhtian. “The techno-economic analysis of battery-electric freight trains shows that we have viable solutions available to enable the transition to a clean, affordable, and resilient energy future.”
The research was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, by way of the Berkeley Lab Foundation.
# # #
Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest scientific challenges are best addressed by teams, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and its scientists have been recognized with 14 Nobel Prizes. Today, Berkeley Lab researchers develop sustainable energy and environmental solutions, create useful new materials, advance the frontiers of computing, and probe the mysteries of life, matter, and the universe. Scientists from around the world rely on the Lab’s facilities for their own discovery science. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory, managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science.
Additional information:
To catalyze solutions and partnerships around specific challenges to America’s energy storage future Berkeley Lab is convening a national summit on energy storage. The National Energy Storage Summit, Jumpstarting America’s Energy Storage Future, will be open to the public and take place March 8-9, 2022.
Britain's military clarifies reports about possible closure of Alberta training base
Author of the article:
Postmedia News
Publishing date:
Nov 24, 2021 •
Armoured vehicles are shown during an exercise at CFB Suffield in 2001.PHOTO BY POSTMEDIA ARCHIVES
Article content
Britain’s Ministry of Defence says it will not be shutting down its southern Alberta training base.
A report published in The Telegraph said the British military’s training bases at CFB Suffield and CFB Wainwright would be shut down and moved to the Middle East.
However in a tweet, the Ministry of Defence denied the reports about CFB Suffield.
Advertise
“Canada is one of the UK’s oldest and closest allies,” reads the tweet. “Contrary to reports today, we are not closing BATUS (British Army Training Unit Suffield).
“It will continue to be a vital training base for the British Army.”
The tweet makes no mention of the army’s second, smaller Alberta training base at CFB Wainwright, which is near Edmonton.
Britain’s defence secretary Ben Wallace told a British news website that while BATUS is not closing, the activities that happen there will change.
“Of course, we’ll change what we do there because some of those forces we might use elsewhere but no we’re not closing BATUS,” he told Forces.net .
Area residents are likely to be particularly sensitive to fires on the base because a fire spread from CFB Suffield in September 2017 and burned about 90,000 acres of grassland, killed 160 cattle and forced some residents in its path to flee their homes.
Suffield Base in Alberta is the largest chemical biological weapons research centre in North America, and one of only three NATO CBW research projects world ...
FRANCE IS NUCLEAR POWER
Large Insurers Are Hatching a Plan to Take Down Coal
Thomas Buberl, the chief executive of the French insurance company AXA, wants the industry to stop covering mines and plants. In 2015, AXA, lead by Thomas Buberl, became the first insurer to start divesting from coal.
This article is part of our latest DealBook special report on the trends that will shape the coming decades.
Insurers have a uniquely powerful role in addressing climate change — and one that may help determine the coal industry’s very existence in the next two decades, if not sooner. Insurers are not only among the largest institutional investors, their ability to withdraw insurance coverage can hinder a company’s operations.
Insurance companies also pay when climate change causes natural disasters, which cost the industry $82 billion last year, according to the insurer Munich Re.
AXA, the French insurance company, has eagerly leaned into its levers for reducing carbon emissions. In 2015, AXA became the first insurer to start divesting from coal, and it is now chair of the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance, a pledge signed by eight of the world’s largest insurers and reinsurers who have committed to have underwriting portfolios with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The majority of the signatories are European insurers. U.S. insurers, including AIG and Berkshire Hathaway, have not agreed to the terms. AXA’s chief executive, Thomas Buberl, has made it his mission to change that.
You were perhaps the first to embrace insurers’ role in climate change. What drove your decision?
We saw this whole question around climate transition very early on because as an insurer, you basically have two perspectives: You have the investment perspective, and you’ve got the underwriting perspective. And from the underwriting perspective, you also see, later on, the claims. And what we’ve seen from very early on was: Yes, investment in coal, and so on, seems to be quite an isolated and attractive investment — but then when you blend in the claims side, what happens to natural catastrophes and companies that we insure in terms of flooding, fires and so on? What happens to the patients that we have with their health? The equation doesn’t work.
AXA has worked towards reducing carbon emissions.
Credit...James Hill for The New York Times
Why do you believe that underwriting is the key to driving out the coal industry?
Even if all the insurers say, “We don’t invest in coal anymore,” even if all the banks say, “We don’t invest in coal anymore,” there is still private individuals who say, “I’ll give you the money for coal.” Whereas on the insurance side, if you don’t have the insurance, you will have no financing — whether it’s private, public, from an insurer, from an asset manager, whatever.
And so we said, “Look, by bringing the majority of this market together, because [there’s] only let’s say 12, 15 actors globally who do this business — if we get together and if we agree on principles of what to do we still insure and what do we not insure anymore — without violating any antitrust rules — we will create a very powerful coalition to really drive this market out.
There are a couple ways in which the government could step in on this issue. A regulator could integrate capital charges for unsustainable investments. Or it could take a taxonomy approach for green activities like it has in the European Union. Should, or will, that happen in the U.S.?
Look at other areas like diversity quotas. Why have they arrived? Because companies haven’t done their job early enough. Being proactive and making sure that there is enough diversity on their boards, on their management teams and so on. And so I’m always a believer of the basis that you don’t need government if you have sorted it out yourself. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always happen. But in this case, we are still early enough I think, to sort it out ourselves.
You’ve met personally with executives of major insurers to encourage them to sign the pledge. When you talk to them, what is their biggest concern?
It’s a question of, if I exclude customers, what does it mean for my relationships, what does it mean for my business. Because it is true, all those industries in question on the insurance side, the underwriting side, are very large customers.
Mr. Buberl has been Chief Executive Officer and director of AXA since September of 2016.
Credit...James Hill for The New York Times
When we went out of coal investment — I had a whole speech from my investment team. “Are you crazy? You will never find investments that have the same yield.” When I look now, five years later, we have allocated over $20 billion — our aim is now to go even further to $24, $25 billion — we have allocated that money into green investments. The yield is not so different to what we would have seen in the coal sector. The same was true on the underwriting side. We had to let go of a significant amount of business by not ensuring corporate use anymore. But have you seen any dip in our gross numbers? No, you haven’t.
The DealBook Newsletter Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them. Get it sent to your inbox.
In 20 years, will major insurance companies be underwriting coal?
You don’t need to wait 20 years for that.
Will they be out in five years?
No, but if you take us: We are completely out of coal in O.E.C.D [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] by 2030 and non-O.E.C.D. by 2040. I do believe that also, in non-O.E.C.D. countries, the pressure is rising every day. So those dates will probably be brought forward. I would say in 10 years from now, you will be mostly out.
Lauren Hirsch joined the New York Times from CNBC in 2020, covering business, policy and mergers and acquisitions. Ms. Hirsch studied comparative literature at Cornell University and has an M.B.A. from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. @laurenshirsch
