'MAYBE' TECH 

Catalysts found to convert carbon dioxide to fuel

by Queensland University of Technology

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The goal of tackling global warming by turning carbon dioxide into fuel could be one step closer with researchers using a supercomputer to identify a group of "single-atom" catalysts that could play a key role.

Researchers from QUT's Centre for Materials Science, led by Associate Professor Liangzhi Kou, were part of an international study that used theoretical modelling to identify six metals (nickel, niobium, palladium, rhenium, rhodium, zirconium) that were found to be effective in a reaction that can convert carbon dioxide into sustainable and clean energy sources.

The study published in Nature Communications involved QUT researchers Professor Aijun Du, Professor Yuantong Gu and Dr. Lin Ju.

Professor Kou said the research was conducted by modelling the experiments using the National Computational Infrastructure at the Australian National University, looking at how single atoms of the metals would react with two-dimensional pieces of "ferroelectric" materials.

Ferroelectric materials have a positive charge on one face, and negative charge on another, and this polarization can be reversed when a voltage is applied.

In the theoretical modelling, the researchers found that adding the atom of the catalyst metal to the ferroelectric material resulted in converting the greenhouse gas into a desired chemical fuel.

Once the polarity is reversed, the state will be preserved to act as a catalyst in converting the carbon dioxide.

Professor Kou said while single-atom catalysts to be used in reducing carbon dioxide was proposed a decade ago, this research takes the field forward significantly.

"We have designed a special chemical catalyst, it can convert the greenhouse gas CO2 into the desired chemical fuels. The conversion efficiency can be controlled using a feasible approach," Professor Kou said.

"It means we for the first time developed the abilities to speed up or slow down, even switch off the chemical reaction.

"Carbon dioxide is the main reason of global warming due to the greenhouse effect, to convert it into the chemical fuels is not only important for our environments, but also helpful to solve the energy crisis."

Dr. Ju, first author on the study, said the research work provided a guidance for the design of novel catalysts which could produce significant impacts for the chemical industry.

Professor Kou said the long-term goal in this area of research was to find ways to turning carbon dioxide into clean energy sources.

Professor Kou said the results of this study could eventually lead to a way of adding a coating to engines or industrial systems that would convert carbon dioxide instead of releasing more of the gas into the atmosphere.

The QUT researchers are from the School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, and School of Chemistry and Physics.Carbon dioxide reactor makes Martian fuel

More information: Lin Ju et al, Controllable CO2 electrocatalytic reduction via ferroelectric switching on single atom anchored In2Se3 monolayer, Nature Communications (2021). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25426-5

Journal information: Nature Communications 

Provided by Queensland University of Technology 

RepAir Carbon realised fuel cell tech could be applied to CO2 capture — now they plan to scale
Mike Butcher@mikebutcher •October 6, 2021



Existing technologies for direct air capture technologies require a lot of heat to remove the CO2, after it’s been absorbed into filters. The process to date has been laborious and often highly energy inefficient. What’s often been missing in the process has been a more efficient way of capturing CO2 in the first place. The key to the whole thing is filters, and it is this aspect that more than one startup has been working on in the last few years.

Israel-based RepAir Carbon has now came up with an approach drawn from the ideas behind fuel cell technology to do just that, and it’s now closed a $1.5 million seed funding round co-led by Counteract and ESIL, with participation from Consensus Business Group, ImpactAssets and other investors. ESIL is a partnership of EDF Renewables, Johnson Matthey and Bazan Group.

RepAir Carbon’s aim is to develop this “cell” approach for what it describes as “modular Direct Air Capture” to capture or store greenhouse gases “at a gigaton scale”. The promise is much lower energy consumption and a less CapEx intensive, modular design based on electrochemistry.

RepAir says it uses an electrical current and a selective membrane to separate CO2 from the air, consuming “up to 3 times less energy for each tonne of CO2 captured without the need for high temperature or significant pressure differentials.”

Amir Shiner, co-founder and CEO of RepAir said: “Direct Air Capture plays a key role in any scenario where global temperature rises less than 2°C. However, today’s solutions are too expensive, energy-hungry, and resource-intensive. We’re working hard to develop a technology with a responsible energy footprint that can be deployed in many more settings. This investment will help us advance and optimize our TRL3 prototype.“

Alongside Shiner, the RepAir team includes co-founder and Chairman Yehuda Borenstein, CTO Ben Achrai, PhD, and Board Member Yushan Yan, PhD.

Andrew Shebbeare, managing partner at Counteract, said: “We firmly believe in the part Direct Air Capture will play but are also convinced that today’s technology needs to evolve. With a promising platform and exceptional team, we are convinced RepAir is advancing the state of the art and will help pave the way for responsible and scalable DAC.”

Eli Cymbalista, CEO of ESIL, said: “Our aim is to accelerate and commercialize startups delivering economically viable solutions that support the transition to a NetZero world. We believe RepAir fits that brief exactly and are excited to contribute the skills and resources of our partners’ network to help accelerate their progress.”

In an interview with me, Shiner added: “We will eventually have more blocks that can scale like Lego. We can scale in a modular nature. So we can place our device next to, say, a wind farm, where we get the energy to populate the device. We’re very flexible in terms of where we locate the device because we use air rather than the emitted pollution from a chimney.”

CAPITALI$T ANARCHY

'Steeply disconnected': Why Alberta's battered producers could miss out on global natural gas boom

Natural gas prices are hitting multi-year seasonal highs across North America

Author of the article: Geoffrey Morgan

Publishing date:Oct 06, 2021 

Producers point to maintenance and expansion work on TC Energy Corp.’s Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. pipeline system for the disconnect between Alberta’s market and the rest of North America.

PHOTO BY SUNMEDIA FILES

CALGARY — Heavily discounted natural gas prices in Alberta have domestic producers frustrated they could miss out on much of the upside of a global rally as natural gas prices skyrocket ahead of the winter.

Natural gas prices are hitting multi-year seasonal highs across North America due to a combination of low storage levels and red-hot demand from overseas markets even before winter heating season begins in earnest. The Henry Hub benchmark price in Louisiana traded for US$5.69 per thousand cubic feet on Tuesday, while gas prices at Dawn, Ont. traded at US$5.19 per mcf according to ATB Capital Markets.

By contrast, Alberta’s AECO benchmark price averaged at US$3.12 per mcf on Tuesday — which is at a just 55 per cent of the U.S. Henry Hub benchmark price, or a US$2.57 per mcf discount.

Producers point to maintenance and expansion work on TC Energy Corp.’s Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) pipeline system for the disconnect between Alberta’s market and the rest of North America. NGTL is the largest gas transmission system in Canada and TC Energy also operates the largest network of export pipelines, moving Alberta gas eastward to Ontario and westward to San Francisco.

“The AECO basis, which is really that delta between the two markets AECO and Henry Hub and adjusted for different markets and currencies, is quite large right now,” said Darren Gee, president and CEO of Peyto Exploration and Development Corp., adding that he’s concerned the discount will persist through the winter as TC Energy is expanding its gas transmission system in the province.

“It actually is quite steeply disconnected right now,” he said, referring to the pricing relationship between AECO and U.S. benchmarks Henry Hub and NYMEX.

Gee said that in years past, a $2 per mcf AECO discount was common as there were restrictions on the NGTL system. Now that natural gas prices are higher, AECO continues to trade above the bargain-basement levels of the last several years, but remains heavily discounted to other North American benchmarks during periods of NGTL maintenance.

In an effort to diversify away from the volatility and discounts of the AECO benchmark, producers pay to move their gas on long-haul pipelines to the U.S. West Coast, Chicago and Central Canada, where prices typically trend higher than in Alberta.

“While we do not comment or speculate on the dynamics of the market, we are able to confirm that all outages in question are planned in nature, closely coordinated with our customers and communicated to industry months in advance,” TC Energy said an emailed statement.

Calgary-based TC Energy said the maintenance and expansion work is part of the company’s $8 billion in spending to expand the system and remove bottlenecks over a five-year period. The pipeline giant said flows on the system “have remained robust” at 12.2 billion cubic feet per day.

“While conducting maintenance is an integral part of ensuring the safe and reliable operations of the system, we have and will continue to work with our customers to ensure we can complete this important work while mitigating impacts whenever possible,” the company said.

TC Energy did not say when the scheduled maintenance will wrap up as natural gas producers watch prices jump sharply in other hubs even before the winter heating season begins to draw large quantities of gas out of storage.

“It’s supposed to all be coming on in pieces, mid-October by November 1st,” said Raymond James analyst Jeremy McCrea, adding the scheduled maintenance normallyends before winter heating season beginsand prices tick upward seasonally.

“The problem though, and I’m hearing this from a number of producers, given how rampant COVID-19 is here in the province, there is just one delay after another,” McCrea said, adding that outbreaks among field workers is slowing work on a number of projects.

In response to a question about COVID-19 delays at its operations, TC Energy said in an emailed response, “Flows and utilization levels across our network continue to be in line with historical norms despite the ongoing impacts of COVID-19, extreme weather events and energy market volatility.”

• Email: gmorgan@nationalpost.com | Twitter: geoffreymorgan

24/7

Fossil fuel industry gets subsidies of $11m a minute, IMF finds

Trillions of dollars a year are ‘adding fuel to the fire’ of the climate crisis, experts say

A state-owned coal-fired power plant i in Huainan, Anhui province, China. 

Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images


Damian Carrington Environment editor
@dpcarrington THE GUARDIAN
Wed 6 Oct 2021 07.00 BST

The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).

Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said. This would be a big step towards meeting the internationally agreed 1.5C target. Keeping this target within reach is a key goal of the UN Cop26 climate summit in November.

Agreeing rules for carbon markets, which enable the proper pricing of pollution, is another Cop26 goal. “Fossil fuel price reform could not be timelier,” the IMF researchers said. The ending of fossil fuel subsidies would also prevent nearly a million deaths a year from dirty air and raise trillions of dollars for governments, they said.

“There would be enormous benefits from reform, so there’s an enormous amount at stake,” said Ian Parry, the lead author of the IMF report. “Some countries are reluctant to raise energy prices because they think it will harm the poor. But holding down fossil fuel prices is a highly inefficient way to help the poor, because most of the benefits accrue to wealthier households. It would be better to target resources towards helping poor and vulnerable people directly.”

With 50 countries committed to net zero emissions by mid-century and more than 60 carbon pricing schemes around the world, there are some encouraging signs, Parry said: “But we’re still just scratching the surface really, and there’s an awful long way to go.”

The G20 agreed in 2009 to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies and in 2016, the G7 set a deadline of 2025, but little progress has been made. In July, a report showed that the G20 countries had subsidised fossil fuels by trillions of dollars since 2015, the year the Paris climate deal was reached.

“To stabilise global temperatures we must urgently move away from fossil fuels instead of adding fuel to the fire,” said Mike Coffin, senior analyst at the thinktank Carbon Tracker. “It’s critical that governments stop propping up an industry that is in decline, and look to accelerate the low-carbon energy transition, and our future, instead.

“As host of Cop26, the UK government could play an important global leadership role by ending all subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as halting new North Sea licensing rounds,” he said. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in May that the development of new oil and gas fields must stop this year to meet climate goals.

The comprehensive IMF report found that prices were at least 50% below their true costs for 99% of coal, 52% of diesel and 47% of natural gas in 2020. Five countries were responsible for two-thirds of the subsidies: China, the US, Russia, India and Japan. Without action, subsidies will rise to $6.4tn in 2025, the IMF said.

Proper pricing for fossil fuels would cut emissions by, for example, encouraging electricity generators to switch from coal to renewable energy and making electric cars an even cheaper option for motorists. International cooperation is important, Parry said, to allay fears that countries could lose competitiveness if their fossil fuel prices were higher.

“The IMF report is a sobering reading, pointing to one of the major defects of the global economy,” said Maria Pastukhova, at the thinktank e3g. “The IEA’s net-zero roadmap projects that $5tn is necessary by 2030 to put the world on the pathway to a climate-safe world. It is maddening to realise the much-needed change could start happening now, if not for governments’ entanglement with the fossil fuels industry in so many major economies.”

“Fossil fuel subsidies have been a major stumbling block in the G20 process for years,” she said. “Now all eyes are on the G20 leaders’ summit in late October.”

Ipek Gençsü, at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “[Subsidy reform] requires support for vulnerable consumers who will be impacted by rising costs, as well for workers in industries which simply have to shut down. It also requires information campaigns, showing how the savings will be redistributed to society in the form of healthcare, education and other social services. Many people oppose subsidy reform because they see it solely as governments taking something away, and not giving back.”

The G20 countries emit almost 80% of global greenhouse gases. More than 600 global companies in the We Mean Business coalition, including Unilever, Ikea, Aviva, Siemens and Volvo Cars, recently urged G20 leaders to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

Energy In 2050: 

OPEC's rosy oil forecast in sharp contrast to TotalEnergies' alarming 'rupture' scenario

In TotalEnergies 'rupture' scenario, oil demand in 2050 will shrink to around 35 million bpd. OPEC believes it will remain at current levels

Nathaniel Bullard
Publishing date:Oct 06, 2021 • 

The sun sets behind a oil derek near the Saudi Arabian border. 

PHOTO BY JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES


Two of Big Oil’s biggest players dropped their long-term energy outlooks last week: French energy company TotalEnergies and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. They offer quite different visions of the world 25 years from now. The European energy major sees a future driven by technology and policy; the cartel presents a vision that looks much like today.

TotalEnergies looks at all energy demand, not just oil, and posits a now-familiar refrain of Europe’s long-term corporate energy planners: renewable energy will continue to expand rapidly; oil and coal demand growth will fall; and natural gas demand, continuing to rise, will be the key to the energy transition. Even with a timeline measured in decades, details matter. Let’s take a closer look at two scenarios Total puts forth of the energy transition: Momentum and the somewhat alarmingly, named Rupture.

Momentum, the outlook notes, is “based on decarbonization strategies of net-zero 2050, with China on track to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060” and includes the announced climate targets and Paris Agreement-based nationally determined contributions of other countries. This scenario, a baseline expectation, foresees a temperature rise of 2.2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Rupture is more aggressive: it expects countries to meet the global aspirations of the Paris Agreement along with even more net zero commitments, strong public policy, technology advancements, and a new energy system built on a global scale.



Momentum also creates ceilings on future demand for oil and coal (gas, on the other hand, continues to grow). Peak oil demand will come at some point in this decade. In the Rupture scenario, oil demand in 2050 is 60 per cent lower than in 2019. Coal demand has already peaked and gas demand continues to grow.

OPEC, not surprisingly, has a rather different take on oil. It sets out four scenarios, only one of which has a technology lens. The oil cartel sees demand rising in one scenario, plateauing in another, and peaking in the 2030s in another. The only decline from 2019 levels is in its most aggressive scenario, the Accelerated Policy and Technology Case.

OPEC’s energy transition-focused scenario allows for more aggressive policies, but does not spell them out. Technology breakthroughs play no part in its vision, but it allows for the possibility of faster adoption of existing technology.

New research from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School suggests that OPEC’s technology scenario significantly underestimates what is possible to change transport. The researchers have scrutinized the actual and projected costs for 50 different energy technologies, and found that most models consistently over-estimated costs and under-estimated deployment for renewable technologies. Solar, wind, and batteries on the other hand, have dropped in cost at a rate of roughly 10 per cent per year for several decades. Today’s energy technology simply needs to continue at that rate to change tomorrow’s energy system.

That is a scenario the Oxford researchers see as possible. Their “Fast Transition” scenario assumes that “renewable energy and storage technologies maintain their current deployment rates for a decade, replacing fossil fuels in two decades.” Its “Slow Transition” scenario requires current renewable growth rates to slow immediately, with fossil fuels still dominating through the middle of the century. In a “No Transition” scenario, every energy type grows proportionally to its share today. This, the authors say, is essentially a worst case scenario.

“No Transition” sounds much like what OPEC expects: today, just more of it. But that is not what research suggests is possible based on decades of observation. And it’s not what companies like TotalEnergies expect either, when even their standard scenario sees demand for oil peaking soon, then declining substantially by mid-century.

Nathaniel Bullard is BloombergNEF’s Chief Content Officer.

Turkey finally ratifies Paris climate agreement but protests key detail


By Isil Sariyuce and Caitlin Hu, CNN
Updated 7:11 AM ET, Thu October 7, 2021

Presidential honor guard officers walk as Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attends a ceremony at the parliament in capital, Ankara, on July 15, 2021.

Istanbul (CNN)Turkey became the last G20 nation to ratify the Paris climate agreement on Wednesday, almost six years after initially signing it, but at the same time, lawmakers protested a key detail -- the country's classification as a developed nation.

Turkish environment and urbanization minister Murat Kurum said Wednesday that lawmakers had voted unanimously in favor of ratifying the agreement, just weeks before world leaders convene in the Scottish city of Glasgow for crucial talks on climate.
Kurum said on Twitter that he hoped the decision would help the country achieve net zero by 2053. Net zero is where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted is no greater than the amount removed from the atmosphere.

The Paris Agreement, adopted by nearly 200 nations, commits participants to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and, if possible, below 1.5 degrees. Each country is responsible for developing its own plan for achieving those goals.




What is COP26? How the pivotal UN conference could avert global climate 'catastrophe'

Turkey was one of just a handful of signatory countries that had not yet ratified the pact. It had held out for years because the government opposed Turkey being listed under Annex I -- a category for industrialized nations -- which means the country is obliged to do more on climate than developing nations.

While lawmakers backed the Paris Agreement -- which calls Turkey an industrialized nation -- they also adopted a statement saying they were ratifying the deal as a developing country, and would only implement it if it did not "harm its right to economic and social development."

Ümit Şahin, coordinator of Climate Change Studies at Istanbul Policy Center, said that the Paris Agreement did not allow for any such conditions to be imposed on it. That means the statement is essentially symbolic.

"The countries can always give a statement within their right of being a sovereign state, but this does not change the fact that Turkey signed it as an Annex I country," he said.
"This is climate politics and diplomacy, but does not change the fact that Turkey ratified Paris."

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced last month at the United Nations General Assembly in New York that he would submit the agreement to parliament and called for more accountability from the world's most developed nations, which are historically the greatest contributors to global carbon emissions.

"Whoever has done the most damage to nature, to our atmosphere, our water, our soil and the earth, and whoever has wildly exploited natural resources, should also make the greatest contribution to the fight against climate change," he said.

"Unlike the past, this time no one can afford the luxury to say, 'I'm powerful so I will not pay the bill.'"

Local climate activism groups and business chambers were supporting Turkey's ratification ahead of the COP 26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in early November.

CNN's Isil Sariyuce reported from Istanbul and Caitlin Hu reported and wrote from New York.

ITS GREEN IT GLOWS IN THE DARK

Nuclear Energy Could Bridge The Energy Transition Gap

By Felicity Bradstock - Oct 06, 2021

• Nuclear power is making a comeback as it has become clear that renewable energy alone cannot meet global demand 
• 
  
• Small-scale modular SMR nuclear reactor may well be the key to a nuclear revival by reducing both the cost and danger of nuclear power
• 
  
• SMR reactors have the support of companies in Poland, Britain, the U.S., and Canada, with even big names such as Bill Gates supporting them

Small scale nuclear companies are picking up pace, following the example of bigger nuclear firms looking for their place in future of renewables, as nuclear power finally makes a comeback following years of criticism and fear of power stations.

Two companies in Poland, KGHM and Synthos, are looking to get small-scale modular SMR nuclear reactors up and running in a bid to stake their claim to the future of Europe’s nuclear power. To date, over 70 companies around the world are involved in SMR nuclear reactor projects, with the popularity of small-scale nuclear business quickly expanding. 

Both KGHM and Synthos are planning to work with American companies familiar with the SMR technology to advance their independent projects in Poland, in line with European Union expectations for net-zero carbon emissions within the next few decades. 

Critics of the small-scale projects suggest that opponents of nuclear energy will use the same arguments as those of larger nuclear projects, that because of the cost and safety concerns around nuclear power, alternatives such as wind and solar energy projects are far more useful to invest in and will be more technologically advanced in a shorter timeframe. In addition, much of the small-scale technology still requires extensive testing to ensure its safety. However, small nuclear plants may be able to bridge the gap in energy output that wind and solar energy production faces. When there is a lull in renewable energy production, small-scale nuclear power could plug the gap in a way that is not possible for larger nuclear projects to do due to their high cost to energy value. 

The next step is for countries developing the technology, such as the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, to work alongside the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and national regulators to continue testing the safety of SMR reactors and agree upon international protocols and safety procedures. 

But companies like KGHM and Synthos are simply following the examples of countries like the U.K., the U.S. and France, which have been proponents of nuclear power for years and continue to back nuclear energy despite criticism over safety and potentially life-threatening failures.                                               

Many countries are highlighting nuclear power as a necesity in a zero-carbon future, with the U.K. announcing this week that it is planning for a fossil fuel-free power grid by 2035 through the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy will be used by the U.K. as a back-up for renewable energy production during the energy transition period. To drive this transition, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised the construction of at least one large-scale nuclear project by 2025.

As some of the world’s energy leaders are showing their support for large-scale nuclear projects, some popular names are also backing the new small-scale technology. Bill Gates’ Terrapower, for example, is planning for a nuclear plant in Wyoming to be made up of small reactors that are better suited for a smaller grid system. 

A major appeal of SMR reactors is that they can be factory-built and then shipped, adding more as energy demand rises. These reactors have an output of anything between 50 and 300 megawatts but can be combined to form a powerplant of up to 1,000 megawatts. Furthermore, if one of the modules breaks, it can be repaired without completely stopping operations. This reduces the environmental risk as well as the cost of the project – which is often criticized by energy companies and opponents of nuclear power. 

The backing of nuclear energy by several governments, companies, and leading energy names around the world is largely due to the desire to move away from fossil fuels towards renewable alternatives and the lack of scope currently available for renewable energy production. While wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable energies have come a long way, there is still a significant road to track before the scale of these projects can meet the energy demand of 7.9 billion people worldwide. 

But it’s important to remember that nuclear energy still has a bad rep. After the monumental failures of Fukushima and Chernobyl, several countries swore off nuclear power completely. Many people around the world oppose nuclear power for fear of safety issues, fighting governments who want to build new nuclear plants. But many now question if the safety concerns, for both people and the environment, are any worse than those we face because of continued oil and gas use. As the energy transition becomes unavoidable, proponents of nuclear power are likely to remind us of this comparison and the need for something beyond renewable energy projects to bridge the gap. 

Yet, while some small companies and major governments are welcoming nuclear power once again, others continue to reject it. Nuclear power, it seems, is not for everyone - even in regions that are in dire need of sustainable electricity sources such as California. The Diablo Canyon nuclear powerplant, based in San Luis Obispo County, California, is currently in the middle of a ten-year decommissioning project, which will entirely strip the state of nuclear power. This is a questionable decision for a state that has experienced severe electricity cuts in the face of annual heatwaves.

Some of the arguments against nuclear power in California include the risk of earthquakes potentially leading to failures in the plants, utility companies in the region that are not willing to buy nuclear power, and the cost involved in the development of nuclear power plants compared to other energy options such as wind and solar power. So, while nuclear power could provide the low-carbon energy production so direly needed in California, the risks are deemed too costly. 

There seem to be mixed messages when it comes to nuclear power. Advocates believe that nuclear energy is necessary if we hope to meet the world’s energy demand as we transition away from fossil fuels, as well as being more environmentally friendly – providing rigorous international safety guidelines are met. However, not everyone agrees. Whether for the cost or for fear of failure, some governments may never get on board. What we may start to see, however, is the development of small-scale nuclear projects that support renewable energy advances over the next decade, providing competition to larger energy companies that do not want to get involved. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

How nuclear energy can help make all UK electricity green by 2035

October 6, 2021 

Boris Johnson is set to announce at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester that all of Britain’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2035, according to a recent report in the Times.

The government suspects that the British public – tired of petrol station queues and dreading winter gas bills – will like the idea of moving away from fossil fuels. But the nature of this energy crisis, stoked by a late summer lull in wind power generation, high wholesale gas prices and Britain’s meagre prospects for storing energy, demands a careful response.

And what energy technology offers low-carbon credentials and a reliable base supply? The UK government’s emphatic answer appears to be nuclear power.

Only three years ago, UK ambitions for new nuclear power plants were in trouble. Major Japanese conglomerates Toshiba and Hitachi had pulled the plug on their separate nuclear projects in the country. But with renewed support from Boris Johnson’s government, one of these now appears to be back on the table.

It was recently revealed that there are ongoing discussions between the government and American partners about US nuclear engineering firm Westinghouse building a new nuclear power plant on the island of Anglesea in north Wales. There is even talk of government support for Derby-based industrial giant Rolls-Royce to develop a series of smaller modular nuclear reactors. These are, in essence, scaled-down versions of traditional power plants that will generate 470 megawatts of electricity compared with the 1,000 megawatts from their larger equivalents. Importantly, with these new designs, true factory-based manufacture becomes possible. The factories produce modules for rapid assembly on-site.

Read more: Everything you need to know about mini nuclear reactors

There are likely to be benefits for British businesses in the government’s approach. But how would a new generation of nuclear plants help keep the lights on while cutting emissions from the energy sector?

The nuclear option

The reactors in nuclear power stations convert the heat generated by splitting atoms (a process known as nuclear fission) to electricity, and can usually run at maximum power for months, whatever the weather. This process doesn’t emit greenhouse gases – although there are likely to be emissions during the construction of the plant itself. The vapour that rises from the iconic cooling towers of a nuclear power plant is water, not carbon dioxide.

Large nuclear power stations have huge turbine generators spinning at high speed. These hold their speed in the face of small national fluctuations, providing stability to the grid. A constant base supply of nuclear power could continue to meet demand when renewable generation falters because the wind isn’t blowing and the Sun isn’t shining.

There are other ways nuclear energy can aid decarbonisation. Heat generated in nuclear reactors might be pumped into the central heating systems of homes and other buildings, replacing fossil gas boilers. Nuclear energy could even go towards producing hydrogen fuel – a form of stored energy with potential benefits in heating and transport. And because nuclear fuel like uranium is what’s called energy-dense, even relatively small amounts can offer an ample supply. The UK also has its own fuel factory and plant for enriching uranium, allowing greater national control over the entire process.

Read more: The future of nuclear: power stations could make hydrogen, heat homes and decarbonise industry

There remain concerns about the cost and safety of nuclear power. But these should now be placed in the context of climate change. Fossil fuels in power generation must end, and the stable and continuous operation of nuclear power plants is a useful complement to the varying output of renewable sources such as wind and solar. This appears to be the government’s logic, favouring a boost to both nuclear and renewables investment.

UK governments have pushed to rebuild British’s nuclear capacity more than once in the last two decades. When Tony Blair was prime minister, he aimed for a series of very large nuclear power plants. The construction of the first of these, Hinkley Point C, is well underway. The pandemic and other problems have caused delays, but the first electricity generated from its two large reactors is expected in the summer of 2026.

The nuclear reactor on unit one at Hinkley Point C. 

Ben Birchall/PA Images/Alamy Stock Photo

Hinkley Point C is underpinned by a finance deal with China, struck by former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. The days when, in 2015, Osborne said “Britain should run towards China” are fading. So too is the rhetoric of a nuclear renaissance that coincided with a post-cold war optimism for globalisation and market liberalisation. First it became clear that competitive electricity markets struggled with the challenge of replacing old nuclear with new. Then globalisation faltered with the return of great power nationalism.

Nuclear technology is back in the government’s sights, but this time it will involve more British money and technology. Talk of a green future has been joined with voices on the right clamouring for a new sense of national self-reliance, free from the vicissitudes of global fossil-fuel supply. Despite such realities, and the many difficulties encountered along the way, the UK nuclear renaissance remains internationalist in outlook. It is a strength that should be defended.

Author

William Nuttall
Professor of Energy, The Open University

Disclosure statement
William Nuttall is a co-investigator on grants from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council relating to nuclear energy. He is currently finalising the second edition of his book "Nuclear Renaissance" (Taylor and Francis group) originally published in 2005. Professor Nuttall has recently contributed to work by Policy Connect relating to energy matters.
Partners



The Open University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

Growing climate anxiety poses significant threat to individuals and society

by British Medical Journal

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Levels of eco-anxiety—the chronic fear of environmental doom—are growing, particularly among children and young people, and are likely to be significant and potentially damaging to individuals and society, warn experts in The BMJ today.

Mala Rao and Richard A Powell say neglecting the effects of increasing eco-anxiety "risks exacerbating health and social inequalities between those more or less vulnerable to these psychological impacts," while the socioeconomic effects—as yet hidden and unquantified—"will add considerably to the national costs of addressing the climate crisis."

And they call on leaders to "recognize the challenges ahead, the need to act now, and the commitment necessary to create a path to a happier and healthier future, leaving no one behind."

They point to a 2020 survey of child psychiatrists in England showing that more than half (57%) are seeing children and young people distressed about the climate crisis and the state of the environment.

And a recent international survey of climate anxiety in young people aged 16 to 25 showed that the psychological (emotional, cognitive, social, and functional) burdens of climate change are "profoundly affecting huge numbers of these young people around the world."

These findings also offer insights into how young people's emotions are linked with their feelings of betrayal and abandonment by governments and adults, they write. Governments are seen as failing to respond adequately, leaving young people with "no future" and "humanity doomed."

So what is to be done to alleviate the rising levels of climate anxiety, they ask?

"The best chance of increasing optimism and hope in the eco-anxious young and old is to ensure they have access to the best and most reliable information on climate mitigation and adaptation," they explain.

"Especially important is information on how they could connect more strongly with nature, contribute to greener choices at an individual level, and join forces with like-minded communities and groups."

They conclude: "The climate crisis is an existential threat, and fearfulness about the future cannot be fully tackled until a common united global strategy is put in place to address the root cause, global warming, and to give everyone—especially the young and the most vulnerable communities—the hope of a better future."Government inaction on climate change linked to psychological distress in young people

More information: The BMJ, blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/10/06/t … -rise-of-eco-anxiety

Provided by British Medical Journal 

‘Eco-anxiety’: fear of environmental doom weighs on young people

Although not a diagnosable condition, experts says climate anxiety is on the rise worldwide

In September children and young people around the world, including Glasgow, took part in protests against the climate crisis. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Andrew Gregory Health editor
Wed 6 Oct 2021 23.30 BST

The climate crisis is taking a growing toll on the mental health of children and young people, experts have warned.

Increasing levels of “eco-anxiety” – the chronic fear of environmental doom – were likely to be underestimated and damaging to many in the long term, public health experts said.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, Mala Rao and Richard Powell, of Imperial College London’s Department of Primary Care and Public Health, said eco-anxiety “risks exacerbating health and social inequalities between those more or less vulnerable to these psychological impacts”.

Although not yet considered a diagnosable condition, recognition of eco-anxiety and its complex psychological effects was increasing, they said, as was its “disproportionate” impact on children and young people.

In their article, they pointed to a 2020 survey of child psychiatrists in England showing that more than half (57%) are seeing children and young people distressed about the climate crisis and the state of the environment.


Children set for more climate disasters than their grandparents, research shows

A recent international survey of climate anxiety in young people aged 16 to 25 showed that the psychological burdens of climate crisis were “profoundly affecting huge numbers of these young people around the world”, they added.

Rao and Powell called on global leaders to “recognise the challenges ahead, the need to act now, and the commitment necessary to create a path to a happier and healthier future, leaving no one behind”.

Research offered insights into how young people’s emotions were linked with their feelings of betrayal and abandonment by governments and adults, they said. Governments were seen as failing to respond adequately, leaving young people with “no future” and “humanity doomed”.

Their warning comes a week after Greta Thunberg excoriated global leaders, dismissing their promises to address the climate emergency as “blah, blah, blah”.

In April, she quoted Boris Johnson, who derisively used the phrase “bunny hugging” to describe climate activism. Thunberg said: “This is not some expensive, politically correct, green act of bunny hugging”.

By 2030 carbon emissions are expected to rise by 16%, according to the UN, rather than fall by half, which is the cut needed to keep global heating under the internationally agreed limit of 1.5C

Protest in a pandemic: voices of young climate activists – video

Rao and Powell said it was important to consider what could be done to alleviate the rising levels of climate anxiety.


“The best chance of increasing optimism and hope in the eco-anxious young and old is to ensure they have access to the best and most reliable information on climate mitigation and adaptation,” they said. “Especially important is information on how they could connect more strongly with nature, contribute to greener choices at an individual level, and join forces with like-minded communities and groups.”

Separately, new research also published in the BMJ suggests changing unhealthy behaviour could be key to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Theresa Marteau, of the University of Cambridge, said technological innovation alone would be insufficient.

Adopting a largely plant-based diet and taking most journeys using a combination of walking, cycling and public transport would substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve health, she said.

FIRST READING: Alberta really, really doesn't like Jason Kenney anymore

The federal Liberal government goes to bat for a pipeline (seriously)

Author of the article:

Tristin Hopper

Publishing date:

Oct 06, 2021  •  +NATONAL POST

Jason Kenney actually looked relatively confident at this Tuesday press conference, but we                                   grabbed this photo of him looking defeated to match the headline. PHOTO BY DARREN MAKOWICHUK/POSTMEDIA

Premier Jason Kenney has become one of the most hated leaders in modern Alberta history, according to a new poll by ThinkHQ. More than 77 per cent of Albertans gave the thumbs-down to his leadership, putting him in roughly the same territory as Alison Redford just prior to her 2014 resignation. With COVID-19 hospitalizations now reaching an all-time high in Alberta, Kenney is currently getting hate from the right for inaugurating a system of vaccine passports, and from the left for pursuing a months-long strategy of strenuously avoiding even moderate measures for contract tracing and monitoring.

That’s right; COVID-19 has made Albertans pine for Rachel Notley to return. PHOTO BY THINKHQ

The Canadian Energy Centre is the fancy name for Kenney’s government-funded “energy war room.” The centre just released a report tracking the quantities of foreign oil that Canada has imported since the 1980s, with the implication being that Canada should buy more of its own supply rather than __. They found that Quebec is the largest single buyer of foreign oil in Canada, with the average Quebec household consuming roughly $1,576 of imported petroleum per year.

FIRST READING: Alberta really, really doesn't like Jason Kenney anymore | National Post

Canadian oil exports to U.S. jump with expanded Line 3 pipeline

Sheela Tobben, Bloomberg News

Canadian oil shipments to the U.S. jumped to the highest volume since the start of the year thanks in part to the startup of a long-delayed Canadian pipeline.

Weekly oil deliveries from America’s northern neighbor reached 4.04 million barrels day, the most since January, according to the Energy Information Administration. It’s only the third time the U.S. has imported more than 4 million barrels a day of Canadian crude since the agency began compiling weekly data in 2010.

It’s likely these increased flows will be the new norm mainly because of the expanded Line 3, said Elisabeth Murphy, ESAI Energy LLC upstream analyst for North America. In fact, weekly volumes should start to average closer to 3.7-3.8 million barrels a day from here, from current levels of around 3.5 million, she added.



The additional barrels from Canada come as a relief to U.S. refiners struggling with less supply from OPEC+, shrinking imports from Latin America, and more recently, the loss of about 30 million barrels of Gulf of Mexico production after Hurricane Ida.

Gulf Coast refineries have increasingly been pulling from Canada to offset the crude production in the Gulf of Mexico thats remains shut since Hurricane Ida swept through over a month ago, said Shirin Lakhani, director of global oil service at Rapidan Energy Group.

Last week, Enbridge Inc. started its new Line 3 crude pipeline after years of delays. It can transport 760,000 barrels a day of heavy and light oil, nearly double the size of the old line it replaced.

Canada set to fall short on targets for carbon emissions, report finds

Oct 6, 2021

Canada is forecast to fall short of its 2030 target to cut emissions by 40 per cent, according to a new report by Trottier Energy Institute.  

#GlobalNews