ITS ALL MUTABLE

The Pope Says Sexy Sins Are Not the ‘Most Serious’ Sins
By Mia Mercado

Pope Francis, contemplating which sins are the most sinful. 

Photo: Franco Origlia/Getty Images

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Sometimes the pope says unexpected things because he wants to and feels like it. This week, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Paris Archbishop Michel Aupetit after a report that Aupetit had a consensual intimate affair with a woman in 2012. Ooh la la! When asked about the accusations during a recent press conference, the pope decided to give a fun little ranking of the sins.

“This is a sin, but it is not one of the gravest sins,” the pope said, referring to rumors of Aupetit’s affair, which the archbishop has denied but admitted his actions may have been “ambiguous.” Pope Francis added, “Because sins of the flesh are not the gravest.” So there! A little bit of extramarital sensuality is a sin but not, like, a sin sin. “It was a failing against the sixth commandment,” — you shall not commit adultery — “but not a total one, one of small caresses, massage given to his secretary — that is what the accusation is,” Francis continued, referring to the claims the woman made about her intimate relationship with Aupetit. “There is a sin there but not the worst kind.”

Then what, pray tell, are the most sinful sins? According to the pope, pride and hatred are “more serious” sins. But lust? Not the worst! So, that time the pope’s Instagram account liked a butt pic? A minor sin! A chill sin! A casual, everyday version of sinning!

Mass has ended. You may go in peace with the newfound knowledge that Catholics may have a little ambiguous flesh sin as a treat.

SEE  THE SONG OF SONGS, LIBER 1075

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Passover Song 

Hubble telescope clicks photo of colliding gases in 'running man' nebula
WION Web Team
New Delhi Published: Dec 09, 2021,

(Image: NASA) Colliding gases can be seen in this image captured by Hubble space telescope Photograph:( Others )

The image Hubble telescope clicked was of Herbig-Haro object (HH 45). Herbig Haro nebula is a type of nebula that forms when gas from a young star collides with surrounding dust and produces shockwaves

Hubble space telescope has been humankind's eye in the sky for decades and though the space telescope has developed glitches, hit snags and has required frequent repairs, it has clicked wonders lying in unimaginably distant corners of the universe and enhanced our knowledge.

It has now clicked an image of colliding gases in 'Running Man' Nebula

Nebulas are where stars form. When this image was clicked, Hubble was trying to observe effect young stars have on their surroundings.

The image it clicked was of Herbig-Haro object (HH 45). Herbig Haro nebula is a type of nebula that forms when gas from a young star collides with surrounding dust and produces shockwaves.

Herbig Haro objects are a rare sight in the universe. This Herbig Haro object has been spotted by Hubble in nebula named NGC 1977. This nebula is also called 'Running Man Nebula'. This is a complex structure of three nebulae. The Running Man Nebula is about 5000 light-years away from Earth. The Running Man Nebula is a reflection nebula. This means that it does not emit light of its own but reflects light emitted by other nebulae.

NASA is soon launching a 'successor' to Hubble Space Telescope. In December, it is going to launch James Webb Space Telescope. This space telescope is more powerful than Hubble telescope and will be equipped with latest technology.

NASA depicts solar eclipse from space in a brilliant photo
WION Web Team
New Delhi Published: Dec 08, 2021, 

(Photo: NASA) The image of a solar eclipse taken by NASA's Deep Space Climate Observatory. Shadow of Moon can be seen over Antarctica in the south

 Photograph:( Instagram )

Watching solar eclipse from Earth is such a passe. Now watch what happens from space courtesy NASA

Solar eclipse is a treat to the senses. It's amazing to see a day give way to a sudden night and the ever-shining disc of the Sun getting obscured by the Moon. Those observing can see stars twinkling right in front of them in a black sky which, by logic, should have been lit by bright sunshine.

But not everyone is lucky to have seen a total eclipse. You have to be in the right place at the right time to witness this natural wonder. There may be thousand who wouldn't have seen total, or even a partial solar eclipse.

But witnessing a solar eclipse from space is a privilege afforded to even fewer people.

NASA has come to aid of those who can't become an astronaut overnight in order to see an eclipse from space.

In its Instagram post, NASA has posted an image taken from space during the recent total eclipse which was visible only from Antarctica.

"Have you ever seen a total solar eclipse? How about seeing a total solar eclipse FROM SPACE?" asks NASA at the outset. The image shows the familiar blue orb of our planet. But what's different than usual is a black spot right over Antarctica in the south. That is Moon's shadow as it passes between the Sun and Earth, therby treating the regions under that shadow to a beautiful solar eclipse.

"Our robotic and human explorers are here to help. On Dec. 4, 2021, the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) spacecraft captured the Moon's shadow as it passed over Antarctica, home to penguins and a handful of scientists. Shaped like a cone extending into space, the shadow has a circular cross-section most easily seen during a solar eclipse. People in parts of Namibia, South Africa, New Zealand, and the Falkland Islands were treated to a partial eclipse," says NASA in Instagram post.

Check it out below

As it can be seen. Netizens have loved the pic and it has been 'liked' by nearly a million people.

Scientists plan to land on Apophis, an ominous asteroid set for a rare Earth flyby

They estimate such a flyby only happens once every 20,000 years.


Eric Mack
Dec. 8, 2021 

Artwork of an asteroid approaching Earth. In 2029, Apophis will fly lower than many artificial satellites.NASA

When the stadium-sized asteroid 99942 Apophis comes uncomfortably close to Earth on April 13, 2029, a team of South Korean scientists hopes to greet it in space and bring a sample back to Earth.

Apophis is classified as "potentially hazardous" due to its proximity and size. Earlier this year, NASA ruled out the possibility that the asteroid poses any threat of colliding with Earth when it passes closer to us than the ring of large communications satellites in geostationary orbits.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Still, scientists see a rare opportunity to study such a large body and also conduct a planetary defense exercise that will be as close to the real thing as humanity has ever seen.

The Korean plan involves approaching Apophis in January of 2029 before it makes its close pass above us. A spacecraft that would launch from Earth in late 2027 would basically accompany the asteroid as it whips by our planet. The plan is to observe and map Apophis the whole way to look for possible changes in its structure as a result of its close encounter with Earth and our planet's gravitational forces.

The Deep Space Network's Goldstone complex in California and the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia picked up radio images of Apophis from distance of 10.6 million miles (17 million kilometers) away.NASA/JPL-Caltech and NSF/AUI/GBO

"When the gravity has the greatest impact on the asteroid... I think we will have real-time data from the asteroid," explained Young-Jun Choi from the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, who presented the plan at the Korea Space Forum on Monday. "For example, earthquakes or landslides happening on the asteroid."

Choi also mentioned the possibility of landing on the asteroid and taking a sample to return to Earth, similar to Japan's Hayabusa missions and NASA's Osiris-Rex, which have sampled other asteroids.

For the record, Apophis will come within 20,000 miles (32,000 kilometers) of Earth, which is remarkably rare for such a massive object. But there's zero chance of impact.

At a 2020 conference on Apophis and its 2029 visit, the Korean team noted that "with a dedicated rendezvous mission to Apophis, we should be able to fill in the knowledge gaps in our scientific understanding of (gravitational) effects that could be used for planetary defense when there is a real threat."

Earlier this year NASA called the 2029 flyby "an unprecedented opportunity for astronomers to get a close-up view of a solar system relic that is now just a scientific curiosity and not an immediate hazard to our planet."

Choi reiterated that the opportunity to see such a large asteroid up close while it's also so close to Earth is truly rare. He estimates such a flyby only happens once every 20,000 years.

First published on Dec. 7, 2021 at 9:50 a.m. PT.

Opinion: The Ocean Is Returning Our Plastic Waste. That’s a Real Problem.

New research has brought to light a global plastic cycle that could haunt us for generations to come.

Visual: Nariman Mosharrafa/Unsplash

BY CHARLOTTE STEVENSON
12.09.2021

SOME SAY THAT the ocean throws back anything it does not want. In the wake of new research on plastic waste, the truth of this aphorism has taken on new meaning: Recent studies have revealed that the ocean is spitting tiny bits of plastic pollution back onto land.

In a paper published earlier this year, a team led by Janice Brahney of Utah State University and Natalie Mahowald of Cornell University found that the oceans have been spraying a steady stream of microplastics into the atmosphere, where they can float across continents and oceans before eventually settling back to earth. The work illuminates a global cycle of plastic, akin to other biogeochemical cycles like those of water, nitrogen, and carbon.

But it also puts the problem of plastic pollution in a new, disheartening light. The study by Brahney, Mahowald, and their colleagues is among the latest in an accumulating body of work that suggests the estimated 8.8 million tons (8 million metric tons) of plastic waste that annually slide off the continents doesn’t just pose a problem for aquatic life. Rather, there is no final resting place for plastic, no corner of the globe that is spared. The plastic waste we produce today will continue to haunt us for generations to come. In other words, we may have vastly underestimated the scope, breadth, and intractability of the global plastic pollution problem.

RELATEDThe Dawn of the Plastics Age

To say that plastic is everywhere isn’t really a revelation anymore. By now, it’s been established that plastic waste in the environment is broken apart primarily by sunlight, abrasion, and temperature into fragments ranging from the size of tiny pebbles to the size of bacteria. This microplastic can break down even further: Nanoplastic, which scientists are only beginning to measure but expect is equally abundant, can be as small as a virus.

Microplastic — often laced with potentially harmful chemical additives — is known to alter soil quality, diminish crop production, and move through food chains. Research suggests we eat an estimated 39,000 to 52,000 pieces of microplastic a year and inhale tens to hundreds of pieces a day into our lungs, and microplastic has even found its way into hard-to-reach places like the human placenta. Microplastics, and the chemicals that ride them into our bodies like a trojan horse, are being investigated as possible causes of immune system dysfunction, reproductive complications, neurodevelopmental delays in children, and other disorders.

According to Brahney, all dust on earth now contains microplastic. Microplastic rains down from the Antarctic to the Arctic, from Tibetan Plateaus to the peaks of the Pyrenees. More than 1,100 tons of microplastic — or 132 pieces per meter per day — fall annually on remote landscapes in the Western U.S.

Yet, it was only during the past two years that scientists began to fully understand the sources of all this plastic. In 2020, a team led by Steve Allen of Canada’s Dalhousie University and Deonie Allen of Scotland’s Strathclyde University showed for the first time that microplastic can be lifted off the ocean surface through the complex physics of bubbles and sea spray. They estimated that more than 149,000 tons of ocean plastic were being spat back onto shorelines through coastal breezes around the world every year.

Microplastic rains down from the Antarctic to the Arctic, from Tibetan Plateaus to the peaks of the Pyrenees.

Brahney and her colleagues went a step further, showing that these sea-sprayed plastics could be lofted not only onto shore but also into the atmosphere. Their model suggests that the plastic ejected from the ocean — on the order of millions of tons per year — is part of a continuous, global transaction of plastic dust between the ocean, the atmosphere, and the land. They concluded that even in remote areas of the Western U.S., roughly 11 percent of all raining microplastic originated from the ocean. In fact, the model suggests the ocean is sending almost twice as much plastic back onto the continents as the continents are sending atmospherically to the ocean — a counterintuitive finding that Brahney attributes to the vast amount of plastic that’s already accumulated for decades in areas like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

“What we’re seeing in the atmosphere is legacy pollution. It’s not this year’s emissions,” Brahney explained to me. “It’s decades of emissions.”

The implications of this finding could be profound. It suggests that even if humanity stopped producing plastic tomorrow, the problem of plastic pollution would remain with us for generations. For a substantial amount of plastic that finds its way into the oceans, the sea is not a final destination, but a mere pitstop on a journey that will eventually see it back to land — back to us — in a dusty form that makes it seem nearly impossible to remediate. Trying to corral decades of plastic dust cycling the globe would be like trying to sweep during a sandstorm. (Regardless, plastic production is escalating, not waning. At the current rate, the annual global flow of plastic into the ocean will nearly triple by 2040.)

It’s also possible that microplastics lofted into the skies could alter physical processes in the atmosphere. Some scientists are probing whether the particles could behave like aerosols, possibly absorbing enough radiation to have a net warming effect on the planet. Others have shown that floating microplastics can seed ice crystals, possibly forming clouds, which also could have climate effects.

To be clear, the existence of a global plastic cycle does not significantly mitigate the threat that plastic waste poses to aquatic life. Scientists estimate that there are 24.4 trillion pieces of microplastic floating on or near the ocean surface, swirled into enormous ocean gyres, with concentrations that call up images of soup or even smog. Still, 99 percent of all plastic dumped into the ocean has sunk below the surface. Recent research shows much of it is now being swept into mounds by deep sea currents, often in areas of deep ocean biodiversity. (Yes, there are essentially garbage patches on the ocean floor too.) Although we still know less about the topography of the deep sea than the surface of Mars, preliminary work suggests that deep sea canyon microplastics can be resuspended, only adding to the growing evidence that even the deep sea may not be willing to sequester our plastic problem forever.

Perhaps the most important lesson of the newfound plastic cycle is that plastic pollution is a global problem that demands global cooperation. We cannot solve this issue by shipping our plastic waste to other countries, as many first world nations have done for decades. As Allen, author of the 2020 paper, told me, “There are no borders in nature, and plastic is a prime example.”

The science journalist Christina Reed has aptly called this moment the “dawn of the plasticene age.” These days, we can get a mouthful of plastic when biting into a Hot Pocket or enjoying a beer. Even a baby’s first poop can contain plastic. And now we know that we are constantly being showered with microplastic from around the world. The ocean, apparently, does not want it.

Charlotte Stevenson has a M.S. from Stanford University in environmental toxicology, was a National John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellow, and is currently a Masters candidate at the Johns Hopkins program in science writing. Her work is published with University of Southern California Sea Grant, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NOAA, and Age of Awareness.

CORPORATE WELFARE BUMS
Germany – gas industry wants funding for ‘turquoise’ hydrogen
December 8, 2021



Germany – gas industry wants funding for ‘turquoise’ hydrogen.

Germany’s natural gas lobby on Wednesday called for 800 million euros ($902.56 million) in sponsorship to build plants to turn natural gas into hydrogen and split off the polluting carbon, in a test of the new government’s climate pledges.

The government, which was sworn in on Wednesday, has presented radical plans to step up climate protection efforts, raising questions whether they can be achieved in practice.

The government’s energy goals demand alternatives to fossil fuels and leave the door open for new technologies – such as a process to produce “turquoise” hydrogen – that can avoid carbon emissions.

Turquoise hydrogen is produced by methane pyrolysis, a technology which is in its infancy but promising, according to some industry players, including Wintershall Dea (WINT.UL), which works on pyrolysis with gas grid firm VNG, majority owned by EnBW (EBKG.DE), and British firm Hiiroc, based in Hull.

The process breaks down methane in natural gas into a gaseous hydrogen inside a vacuum to obtain solid carbon, which can be used, for example, by pigment or tyre makers.

Timm Kehler, chairman of the Zukunft Gas lobby, told a virtual media conference:

The potential of turquoise hydrogen has not been sufficiently used in the past

“The coalition’s open approach brings new possibilities,” he said referring to the new government, in which the Green Party is a member.

The pyrolysis method for hydrogen production sits alongside plans for electrolysis plants to produce “green” hydrogen, made by splitting water molecules with zero-carbon wind, solar or biomass power.

The government wants 10 gigawatts (GW) of electrolysis capacity by 2030.

Kehler said the 800 million euros could help to build enough capacity to produce 90 terawatt hours (TWh) per annum of turquoise hydrogen and could be raised partly from revenue the government collects from issuing mandatory carbon emissions permits.

The government’s target of 10 GW of electrolysis would only yield 40 TWh per year, he said.

But some environmental lobbies seeking to promote a faster and more far-reaching shift away from fossil fuels via zero-carbon electricity view initiatives to repurpose gas infrastructure for hydrogen merely as the fossil industry’s attempt to ensure its survival.

Legal charity Client Earth has warned the Berlin government should not “segue into a 20-year affair with another fossil fuel”.

READ the latest news shaping the hydrogen market at Hydrogen Central

German gas industry wants funding for ‘turquoise’ hydrogen, December 8, 2021

Visualizing the 3 Scopes of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

December 8, 2021

Article/Editing:
Govind Bhutada
Graphics/Design:
Amy Realey

The following content is sponsored by the Carbon Streaming Corporation.


The Briefing

There are three groups or ‘scopes’ of emissions as defined by the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Corporate Standard

A company’s supply chain emissions (included in Scope 3) are on average 5.5 times more than its direct operations (Scope 1 and Scope 2)

Visualizing the 3 Scopes of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Net-zero pledges are becoming a common commitment for nations and corporations striving to meet their climate goals.

However, reaching net-zero requires companies to shrink their carbon footprints, which comprise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from various stages in the value chain. As more companies work to decarbonize, it’s important for them to identify and account for these different sources of emissions.

The 3 Scopes of GHG Emissions

According to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, there are three groups or ‘scopes’ that categorize the emissions a company creates. The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, referred to as the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, provides the most widely accepted standards for reporting and accounting for emissions and is used by businesses, NGOs and governments.

Scope 1 Emissions

These are direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. Consequently, they are often the easiest to identify and then reduce or eliminate. Scope 1 emissions include:

On-site manufacturing or industrial processes

Computers, data centers, and its owned facilities

On-site transportation or company vehicles

Scope 2 Emissions

These are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased or acquired energy that the company consumes. Scope 2 emissions physically occur at the site that produces the energy and the emissions depend on both the company’s level of consumption and the means by which the energy was generated (e.g. fossil fuels vs renewable energy). Scope 2 emissions include:
Purchased electricity, heating, cooling, and steam

Scope 3 Emissions

Scope 3 includes all other indirect emissions that occur throughout a company’s value chain. These occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company and are typically difficult to control and thereby reduce.

Scope 3 emissions often make up the largest portion of a company’s carbon footprint. According to the CDP, a company’s supply chain emissions (included in Scope 3) are on average 5.5 times more than emissions from its direct operations (Scope 1 and 2). These include emissions from:
Employee commuting or business travel
Purchased goods and services
Use of sold products
Transportation and distribution of products

Companies can reduce their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by improving operational efficiency and using renewable energy sources. However, managing and reducing Scope 3 emissions can be difficult depending on the company’s upstream and downstream activities.

For example, controlling the emissions from the extraction of raw materials used in a company’s end-product or from the usage of such product by a customer is not entirely in the company’s hands. But this is where carbon offsets can help.

Offsetting Emissions with Carbon Offsets

One carbon offset, also referred to as a carbon credit, represents one metric ton of GHG emissions that has been avoided, reduced or removed from the atmosphere. By purchasing carbon credits, companies can offset the emissions that are difficult to reduce or eliminate, such as Scope 3 emissions.

In fact, the voluntary carbon markets will surpass $1 billion in annual transaction value for the first time in 2021. As decarbonization plans pick up pace, carbon credits will play an important role in helping companies achieve their climate goals.

Carbon Streaming Corporation is focused on acquiring, managing and growing a high-quality and diversified portfolio of investments in carbon credits.

Brookfield sees 'truly massive' opportunities in energy shift

Saijel Kishan and Alastair Marsh, Bloomberg News

Market Call Jennifer Radman discusses Brookfield Asset Management
Jennifer Radman, head of investments and senior portfolio manager at Caldwell Investment Management, discusses Brookfield Asset Management.

Investors face an historic opportunity to put their money into renewable energy assets given the global consensus that now exists around the urgent need for decarbonization, according to Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

“The market opportunity is truly massive,” Connor Teskey, chief executive of renewable power and co-head of transition investing at Brookfield, said at the Bloomberg Sustainable Business Summit on Thursday.

The transition from old to new energy forms has investors everywhere placing bets on which technologies will emerge as the dominant power forms in an era dedicated to eliminating hydrocarbons and fighting global warming. Estimates of how much is needed to eradicate greenhouse gases over the next three decades range from US$100 trillion to US$150 trillion.

“The majority of that capital is going to need to come from private capital,” Teskey said. “Public government balance sheets simply cannot sustain that level of investment. But the private markets absolutely can.”

While the stakes are high, so are the potential rewards. “Given the very attractive commercial opportunities in investing in renewables and investing in transition, we would expect that that capital does show up from the private sector and shows up in spades,” Teskey said.

IMPACT FUND

Brookfield, which oversees US$650 billion, hired former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney last year to strengthen its environmental, social and governance investing. Earlier this week, the asset manager said it now expects to raise more than US$15 billion for its new impact fund, exceeding a previous forecast of US$12.5 billion.

Chief Executive Officer Bruce Flatt said on Wednesday that the amount raised “could have been more,” but the firm capped the size of the fund, indicating “the interest in transition investing.”

Speaking at the Bloomberg summit, Michael O’Leary, a managing director at investment fund Engine No. 1., said investors need to play a greater role in holding companies to account on their sustainability claims.

In May, Engine No. 1 successfully pressed for three climate-friendly directors to be added to Exxon Mobil Corp.’s board, in one of the most stunning upsets for a shareholder vote.

Many executives say it’s important for them to serve their workers, communities and the environment, but they aren’t always matching that rhetoric with transforming their companies in the way that’s needed, according to O’Leary.

CLIMATE PLEDGES

“Every company is now making the same pledges,” O’Leary said. While accountability will come from regulators and standard setters, “accountability through investors is ultimately where the buck stops,” he said.

O’Leary said climate change is increasingly becoming a “big tent” issue among investors, citing how almost a dozen climate-related resolutions passed during the past proxy season, compared with none two years ago.

As investor sentiment shifts, global banks are also increasingly trying to show shareholders that they’re embracing more climate-friendly business models, though the data suggest some have a long way to go.

Wells Fargo & Co. is among the U.S. banks that have committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. For now, the company ranks as the largest provider of loans to fossil-fuel companies since the Paris climate agreement in late 2015, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“We’re working across the enterprise, from our lines of business to our risk organization to our own operations, to really integrate climate change and sustainability into the culture of the company,” said Mary Wenzel, Wells Fargo’s head of sustainability and ESG integration, speaking at the summit. The goal is to be “a leading voice on addressing climate change, and working and collaborating to develop solutions to climate change,” she said.

As an example, Wenzel pointed to Wells Fargo having established an energy transition group to work with clients.

Stanford researchers point the way to avoiding blackouts with clean, renewable energy

Peer-Reviewed Publication

STANFORD WOODS INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

 

IMAGE: GRAPHS SHOWING TIMELINE OF ENERGY SOURCES FOR MEETING ALL U.S. ENERGY NEEDS WITH WIND, WATER AND SOLAR (WWS) POWER SOURCES. THE GRAPH ON LEFT SHOWS MIX FOR 80% WWS BY 2030 AND 100% BY 2035. THE GRAPH ON RIGHT SHOWS MIX FOR IS 80% BY 2030 AND 100% BY 2050. THE 2050 END POINTS IN BOTH CASES ARE CASES EXAMINED IN THE STUDY. view more 

CREDIT: JACOBSON, ET AL. / RENEWABLE ENERGY

For some, visions of a future powered by clean, renewable energy are clouded by fears of blackouts driven by intermittent electricity supplies. Those fears are misplaced, according to a new Stanford University study that analyzes grid stability under multiple scenarios in which wind, water and solar energy resources power 100% of U.S. energy needs for all purposes. The paper, just published in Renewable Energy, finds that an energy system running on wind, water and solar coupled with storage avoids blackouts, lowers energy requirements and consumer costs, while creating millions of jobs, improving people’s health, and reducing land requirements.

“This study is the first to examine grid stability in all U.S. grid regions and many individual states after electrifying all energy and providing the electricity with only energy that is both clean and renewable,” said study lead author Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. “This means no fossil fuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, bioenergy, blue hydrogen or nuclear power”

Imagine all cars and trucks were powered with electric motors or hydrogen fuel cells, electric heat pumps replaced gas furnaces and water heaters and wind turbines and solar panels replaced coal and natural gas power plants. The study envisions those and many more transitions in place across the electricity, transportation, buildings and industrial sectors in the years 2050 and 2051. The scenario is not as far-fetched as it may seem, according to Jacobson and his coauthors. Wind, water and solar already account for almost 20% of US electricity, and 15 states and territories and more than 180 U.S. cities have enacted policies requiring a virtually all-renewable electricity sector, among other signs of a larger shift to clean, renewable energy.

Critics of such a shift have pointed to grid blackouts amid extreme weather events in California during August 2020 and Texas during February 2021 as evidence that renewable electricity can’t be trusted for consistent power. Although in both instances renewable energy was not found to be more vulnerable than other sources, the fear of increased blackouts has remained substantial, according to the researchers, who aimed to evaluate the contention on a larger scale.

Expanding on a previous 2015 renewable energy roadmap study for the 50 U.S. states, the researchers looked at how to meet continuous energy demand every 30 seconds for two years. They ran simulations for six individual states – Alaska and Hawaii, which are isolated, and California, Texas, New York and Florida, large states far from each other and subject to different weather conditions – as well as all the interconnected electricity grid regions in the U.S., and the contiguous U.S. as a whole.

Their scenarios envisioned a massive scaling up of offshore wind turbines and rooftop solar panels – none of which take up new land – as well as onshore wind turbines, utility solar panels, and concentrated solar power plants. The scenarios also include some new geothermal but no new hydroelectric infrastructure. Overall, they found that new electricity generators would take up about 0.84% of U.S. land versus the approximately 1.3% of land currently occupied by the fossil fuel industry.

Under these scenarios, the researchers further found that per capita household annual energy costs were nearly 63% less than in a business as usual scenario. In some states, costs dropped as much as 79%. The investment cost to transition everything in the U.S. ranges from near $9 to $11 trillion, depending on how much interconnection of regions occurs. However, this pays for itself through energy sales and from the cost savings each year compared with not transitioning. In fact, based on energy cost savings alone, the payback time may be as short as five years.

Interconnecting larger and larger geographic regions made power supply smoother and costs lower because it upped the chances of available wind, sun and hydro power availability and reduced the need for extra wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.

A significant finding of the study was that long-duration batteries were neither needed nor helpful for keeping the grid stable. Instead, grid stability could be obtained by linking together currently available batteries with storage durations of four hours or less. Linking together short-duration batteries can provide long-term storage when they are used in succession. They can also be discharged simultaneously to meet heavy peaks in demand for short periods. In other words, short-duration batteries can be used for both big peaks in demand for short periods and lower peaks for a long period or anything in-between.

The study also finds that building and operating a completely clean, renewable grid may create about 4.7 million long-term, full-time jobs across various energy sectors, such as construction and component manufacturing, as well as indirect employment at stores, restaurants and other businesses. Cleaner air would spare about 53,200 people per year from pollution-related deaths and millions more from pollution-related illnesses in 2050, saving about $700 billion per year in health costs, the researchers found.

The researchers’ simulations suggested that blackouts in California and Texas could be avoided at low cost due to a clean, renewable grid. Part of the reason is that energy requirements are reduced 60 percent in California and 57 percent in Texas by electrifying all energy sectors and providing the electricity with clean, renewable energy. A second reason is that, when the wind is not blowing, the sun is often shining during the day and vice versa, so using both helps meet demand with supply. Third, giving people financial incentives not to use electricity at certain times of day helps to shift the time of peak electricity demand. Fourth, using storage helps to fill in supply gaps when wind and solar are not available. Fifth, during cold spells, wind is stronger, on average, so increasing wind energy helps to meet winter peaks in building heat demand. Sixth, underground seasonal heat storage helps meet winter heat demand. These last two are especially helpful for Texas.

To avoid summer time blackouts in California, the study suggests more offshore wind turbines since wind speeds are fastest during summer offshore of California, especially during the late afternoon and early evening when blackouts are most likely due to drops in solar power output.

“There is so much to be gained if we can gather the willpower to undertake the transition at a pace fitting the urgency of reaching a zero carbon system,” said study coauthor Anna-Katharina von Krauland, a PhD student in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. “I suspect that these ideas, which might sound radical now, will soon become obvious in hindsight.”

Jacobson is also director of Stanford’s Atmosphere/Energy program; a senior fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy; and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

Coauthors of the study also include Stanford graduate students in civil and environmental engineering Stephen Coughlin, Frances Palmer and Miles Smith.

---

JOURNAL

Renewable Energy

DOI

10.1016/j.renene.2021.11.067 

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Zero air pollution and zero carbon from all energy at low cost and without blackouts in variable weather throughout the U.S. with 100% wind-water-solar and storage

OPINION
Three Myths About Renewable Energy and the Grid, Debunked


Renewable energy skeptics argue that because of their variability, wind and solar cannot be the foundation of a dependable electricity grid. But the expansion of renewables and new methods of energy management and storage can lead to a grid that is reliable and clean.

BY AMORY B. LOVINS AND M. V. RAMANA • 

DECEMBER 9, 2021

Yale Environment 360
Published at theYale School of the Environment
About E360

Wind turbines and solar panels in Bavaria, Germany.

 FRANK BIENEWALD / LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES

LONG READ

As wind and solar power have become dramatically cheaper, and their share of electricity generation grows, skeptics of these technologies are propagating several myths about renewable energy and the electrical grid. The myths boil down to this: Relying on renewable sources of energy will make the electricity supply undependable.

Last summer, some commentators argued that blackouts in California were due to the “intermittency” of renewable energy sources, when in fact the chief causes were a combination of an extreme heat wave probably induced by climate change, faulty planning, and the lack of flexible generation sources and sufficient electricity storage. During a brutal Texas cold snap last winter, Gov. Greg Abbott wrongly blamed wind and solar power for the state’s massive grid failure, which was vastly larger than California’s. In fact, renewables outperformed the grid operator’s forecast during 90 percent of the blackout, and in the rest, fell short by at most one-fifteenth as much as gas plants. Instead, other causes — such as inadequately weatherized power plants and natural gas shutting down because of frozen equipment — led to most of the state’s electricity shortages.

In Europe, the usual target is Germany, in part because of its Energiewende (energy transformation) policies shifting from fossil fuels and nuclear energy to efficient use and renewables. The newly elected German government plans to accelerate the former and complete the latter, but some critics have warned that Germany is running “up against the limits of renewables.”

In reality, it is entirely possible to sustain a reliable electricity system based on renewable energy sources plus a combination of other means, including improved methods of energy management and storage. A clearer understanding of how to dependably manage electricity supply is vital because climate threats require a rapid shift to renewable sources like solar and wind power. This transition has been sped by plummeting costs —Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that solar and wind are the cheapest source for 91 percent of the world’s electricity — but is being held back by misinformation and myths.
Myth No. 1: A grid that increasingly relies on renewable energy is an unreliable grid.

Going by the cliché, “In God we trust; all others bring data,” it’s worth looking at the statistics on grid reliability in countries with high levels of renewables. The indicator most often used to describe grid reliability is the average power outage duration experienced by each customer in a year, a metric known by the tongue-tying name of “System Average Interruption Duration Index” (SAIDI). Based on this metric, Germany — where renewables supply nearly half of the country’s electricity — boasts a grid that is one of the most reliable in Europe and the world. In 2020, SAIDI was just 0.25 hours in Germany. Only Liechtenstein (0.08 hours), and Finland and Switzerland (0.2 hours), did better in Europe, where 2020 electricity generation was 38 percent renewable (ahead of the world’s 29 percent). Countries like France (0.35 hours) and Sweden (0.61 hours) — both far more reliant on nuclear power — did worse, for various reasons.

The United States, where renewable energy and nuclear power each provide roughly 20 percent of electricity, had five times Germany’s outage rate — 1.28 hours in 2020. Since 2006, Germany’s renewable share of electricity generation has nearly quadrupled, while its power outage rate was nearly halved. Similarly, the Texas grid became more stable as its wind capacity sextupled from 2007 to 2020. Today, Texas generates more wind power — about a fifth of its total electricity — than any other state in the U.S.
Myth No. 2: Countries like Germany must continue to rely on fossil fuels to stabilize the grid and back up variable wind and solar power.

Again, the official data say otherwise. Between 2010 — the year before the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan — and 2020, Germany’s generation from fossil fuels declined by 130.9 terawatt-hours and nuclear generation by 76.3 terawatt hours. These were more than offset by increased generation from renewables (149.5 terawatt hours) and energy savings that decreased consumption by 38 terawatt hours in 2019, before the pandemic cut economic activity, too. By 2020, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions had declined by 42.3 percent below its 1990 levels, beating the target of 40 percent set in 2007. Emissions of carbon dioxide from just the power sector declined from 315 million tons in 2010 to 185 million tons in 2020.

So as the percentage of electricity generated by renewables in Germany steadily grew, its grid reliability improved, and its coal burning and greenhouse gas emissions substantially decreased.

In Japan, following the multiple reactor meltdowns at Fukushima, more than 40 nuclear reactors closed permanently or indefinitely without materially raising fossil-fueled generation or greenhouse gas emissions; electricity savings and renewable energy offset virtually the whole loss, despite policies that suppressed renewables.
Myth No. 3: Because solar and wind energy can be generated only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, they cannot be the basis of a grid that has to provide electricity 24/7, year-round.

While variable output is a challenge, it is neither new nor especially hard to manage. No kind of power plant runs 24/7, 365 days a year, and operating a grid always involves managing variability of demand at all times. Even with no solar and wind power (which tend to work dependably at different times and seasons, making shortfalls less likely), all electricity supply varies.

Seasonal variations in water availability and, increasingly, drought reduce electricity output from hydroelectric dams. Nuclear plants must be shut down for refueling or maintenance, and big fossil and nuclear plants are typically out of action roughly 7 percent to 12 percent of the time, some much more. A coal plant’s fuel supply might be interrupted by the derailment of a train or failure of a bridge. A nuclear plant or fleet might unexpectedly have to be shut down for safety reasons, as was Japan’s biggest plant from 2007 to 2009. Every French nuclear plant was, on average, shut down for 96.2 days in 2019 due to “planned” or “forced unavailability.” That rose to 115.5 days in 2020, when French nuclear plants generated less than 65 percent of the electricity they theoretically could have produced. Comparing expected with actual performance, one might even say that nuclear power was France’s most intermittent 2020 source of electricity.

Climate- and weather-related factors have caused multiple nuclear plant interruptions, which have become seven times more frequent in the past decade. Even normally steady nuclear output can fail abruptly and lastingly, as in Japan after the Fukushima disaster, or in the northeastern U.S. after the 2003 regional blackout, which triggered abrupt shutdowns that caused nine reactors to produce almost no power for several days and take nearly two weeks to return to full output.


The Bungala Solar Farm in South Australia, where the grid has run almost exclusively on renewables for days on end. 

LINCOLN FOWLER / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

Thus all sources of power will be unavailable sometime or other. Managing a grid has to deal with that reality, just as much as with fluctuating demand. The influx of larger amounts of renewable energy does not change that reality, even if the ways they deal with variability and uncertainty are changing. Modern grid operators emphasize diversity and flexibility rather than nominally steady but less flexible “baseload” generation sources. Diversified renewable portfolios don’t fail as massively, lastingly, or unpredictably as big thermal power stations.

The purpose of an electric grid is not just to transmit and distribute electricity as demand fluctuates, but also to back up non-functional plants with working plants: that is, to manage the intermittency of traditional fossil and nuclear plants. In the same way, but more easily and often at lower cost, the grid can rapidly back up wind and solar photovoltaics’ predictable variations with other renewables, of other kinds or in other places or both.This has become easier with today’s far more accurate forecasting of weather and wind speeds, thus allowing better prediction of the output of variable renewables. Local or onsite renewables are even more resilient because they largely or wholly bypass the grid, where nearly all power failures begin. And modern power electronics have reliably run the billion-watt South Australian grid on just sun and wind for days on end, with no coal, no hydro, no nuclear, and at most the 4.4-percent natural-gas generation currently required by the grid regulator.

Most discussions of renewables focus on batteries and other electric storage technologies to mitigate variability. This is not surprising because batteries are rapidly becoming cheaper and widely deployed. At the same time, new storage technologies with diverse attributes continue to emerge; the U.S. Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database lists 30 kinds already deployed or under construction. Meanwhile, many other and less expensive carbon-free ways exist to deal with variable renewables besides giant batteries.

Many less expensive and carbon-free ways exist to deal with variable renewables besides giant batteries.


The first and foremost is energy efficiency, which reduces demand, especially during periods of peak use. Buildings that are more efficient need less heating or cooling and change their temperature more slowly, so they can coast longer on their own thermal capacity and thus sustain comfort with less energy, especially during peak-load periods.

A second option is demand flexibility or demand response, wherein utilities compensate electricity customers that lower their use when asked — often automatically and imperceptibly — helping balance supply and demand. One recent study found that the U.S. has 200 gigawatts of cost-effective load flexibility potential that could be realized by 2030 if effective demand response is actively pursued. Indeed, the biggest lesson from recent shortages in California might be the greater appreciation of the need for demand response. Following the challenges of the past two summers, the California Public Utilities Commission has instituted the Emergency Load Reduction Program to build on earlier demand response efforts.

Some evidence suggests an even larger potential: An hourly simulation of the 2050 Texas grid found that eight types of demand response could eliminate the steep ramp of early-evening power demand as solar output wanes and household loads spike. For example, currently available ice-storage technology freezes water using lower-cost electricity and cooler air, usually at night, and then uses the ice to cool buildings during hot days. This reduces electricity demand from air conditioning, and saves money, partly because storage capacity for heating or cooling is far cheaper than storing electricity to deliver them. Likewise, without changing driving patterns, many electric vehicles can be intelligently charged when electricity is more abundant, affordable, and renewable.



The top graph shows daily solar power output (yellow line) and demand from various household uses. The bottom graph shows how to align demand with supply, running devices in the middle of the day when solar output is highest. ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE

A third option for stabilizing the grid as renewable energy generation increases is diversity, both of geography and of technology — onshore wind, offshore wind, solar panels, solar thermal power, geothermal, hydropower, burning municipal or industrial or agricultural wastes. The idea is simple: If one of these sources, at one location, is not generating electricity at a given time, odds are that some others will be.

Finally, some forms of storage, such as electric vehicle batteries, are already economical today. Simulations show that ice-storage air conditioning in buildings, plus smart charging to and from the grid of electric cars, which are parked 96 percent of the time, could enable Texas in 2050 to use 100 percent renewable electricity without needing giant batteries.

To pick a much tougher case, the “dark doldrums” of European winters are often claimed to need many months of battery storage for an all-renewable electrical grid. Yet top German and Belgian grid operators find Europe would need only one to two weeks of renewably derived backup fuel, providing just 6 percent of winter output — not a huge challenge.

The bottom line is simple. Electrical grids can deal with much larger fractions of renewable energy at zero or modest cost, and this has been known for quite a while. Some European countries with little or no hydropower already get about half to three-fourths of their electricity from renewables with grid reliability better than in the U.S. It is time to get past the myths.

Amory B. Lovins is an adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and co-founder and chairman emeritus of Rocky Mountain Institute. 

M. V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. 

MOREABOUT AMORY B. LOVINS AND M. V. RAMANA 

Video: Amory Lovins: Natural Capitalism — Global Issues
https://www.globalissues.org/video/732/amory-lovins-natural-capitalism
2004-10-17 · Natural Capitalism Running time 5m 00s Filmed San Raphael, USA, October 17, 2004 Credits Marcus Morrell About Amory Lovins Energy Consultant, Author. Amory Lovins is one of the world’s foremost energy consultants and is the CEO of Rocky Mountain Institute, based in Colorado. His work focuses on developing advanced resource productivity and energy efficiency.

Natural Capitalism - Read the Book
https://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid5.php
Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, is the first book to explore the lucrative opportunities for businesses in an era of approaching environmental limits. In this groundbreaking blueprint for a new economy, three leading business visionaries explain how the world is on the verge of a new industrial revolution-one that promises to …

Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution
https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/natural-capitalism-the...
BIOLOGIST; AUTHOR; MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SCHUMACHER CENTER FOR A NEW ECONOMICS. Amory Lovins is the co-founder and chief executive officer of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which has been around since 1982—a fifty-person, independent, nonprofit, applied research center in Snowmass, Colorado. The Institute’s objective is to foster efficient and restorative use of natural and …

As climate 'net-zero' plans grow, so do concerns from scientists

by Patrick Galey

Scientists and monitoring groups are growing increasingly alarmed at the slew of vague 

net-zero pledges that appear to privilege offsets and future technological breakthroughs 

over short-term emissions cuts.

Faced with the prospect that climate change will drive ever deadlier heat waves, rising seas and crop failures that will menace the global food system, countries, corporations and cities appear to have come up with a plan: net zero.

The concept is simple: starting now, to ensure that by a certain date—usually 2050—they absorb as much carbon dioxide as they emit, thereby achieving carbon neutrality.

But scientists and monitoring groups are growing increasingly alarmed at the slew of vague net-zero pledges that appear to privilege offsets and future technological breakthroughs over short-term emissions cuts.

"They're not fit for purpose, any of them," Myles Allen, director of Oxford Net Zero at the University of Oxford said of today's carbon neutrality plans.

"You can't offset continued fossil fuel use by planting trees for very long. Nobody has even acknowledged that in their net-zero plans, even the really ambitious countries," he told AFP.

Last month's COP26 climate summit in Glasgow saw major emitter India commit for the first time to work towards net-zero emissions, joining the likes of China, the United States and the European Union.

According to Net Zero Tracker (NZT), 90 percent of global GDP is now covered by some sort of net-zero plan. But it said that the vast majority remain ill-defined.

Take offsets. These are when countries or companies deploy measures—such as tree planting or direct CO2 capture—to compensate for the emissions they produce. NZT found that 91 percent of country targets, and 48 percent of public company targets, failed to even specify whether offsets feature in their net-zero plans.

Which emissions?

What's more, it found that less than a third (32 percent) of corporate net-zero targets cover what are known as "scope 3 emissions"—those from a company's product, which normally account for the vast majority of carbon pollution from a given business.

Alberto Carrillo Pineda, co-founder of Science Based Targets initiative, which helps companies align their net-zero plans with what science says is needed to avoid catastrophic heating, said most decarbonisation pledges "don't make sense" without including scope 3 emissions.

"From a climate point of view it matters, the companies are driving emissions not only through their operations but also through what they buy and sell," he told AFP.

"And that constitutes their business model. A company wouldn't exist without their product and so their product needs considering from an emissions point of view."

The UN climate change body, UNFCCC, analysed the latest national emissions cutting plans during COP26.

It found that they would see emissions increase 13.7 percent by 2030, when they must fall by roughly half to keep the Paris Agreement warming limit of 1.5C within reach.

Of the 74 countries that have published detailed net-zero plans, the UNFCCC found that their emissions would fall 70-79 percent by 2050—a significant drop, but still not net zero.

Stuart Parkinson, executive director of Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), said governments had started to use net-zero pledges as a way of delaying the immediate action the atmosphere needs.

"From our perspective, that's thoroughly irresponsible," he said.

"It is kicking the problem into the long grass and relying on speculative efforts in technology when we know that we can change behaviour right here and now and reduce emissions."

Last month UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said an independent group would be established to monitor companies' net-zero progress.

'Rude awakening'

Many countries and businesses plan to deploy mass reforestation as part of net-zero plans. Experts say this is problematic for two reasons.

The first is simple science: Earth's plants and soil already absorb enormous amounts of manmade CO2 and there are signs that carbon sinks such as tropical forests are reaching saturation point.

"The concern is that the biosphere is turning from a sink to a source by warming itself," said Allen.

"So relying on the biosphere to store fossil carbon is really daft when we may well need all the nature-based solutions we can find just to keep the carbon content of the biosphere stable."

Teresa Anderson, senior policy director at ActionAid International, said relying on land-based carbon sequestration was "setting Earth up for a rude awakening".

But the concept is also problematic from the perspective of human rights and fairness.

"When it comes to the competition for land to plant trees and bioenergy, that's going to impact low-income communities, the ones that have done the least to cause the problem," Anderson told AFP.

And because humans have already burned through most of the carbon budget—that is, how much total carbon pollution we can produce before 1.5C is breached—there simply isn't time to delay.

This year the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that since 1850, humans had emitted around 2400 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That leaves just 460 billion tonnes left before 1.5C is breached—around 11 years at current emissions rates.

Pineda said that while hundreds of companies have made net-zero pledges, "very few" have concrete long-term plans to decarbonise.

"We need to be very sceptical of any target that doesn't have clear milestones in terms of how the company is going to halve emissions by 2030," he said.

"Any net-zero target without a 2030 milestone is just unbelievable, basically."

New emissions pledges barely affect global heating: UN

© 2021 AFP