Monday, September 05, 2022

'The Insanity Continues': Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Nearly Doubled in 2021

"Fossil fuel subsidies are a roadblock to a more sustainable future," said the head of the International Energy Agency.


People look at a coal-fired power plant in Peitz, Germany on October 29, 2021.
 (Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON
September 1, 2022

An analysis published this week found that government subsidies bolstering the production and consumption of coal, oil, and gas nearly doubled in 2021, even as climate scientists warned that fossil fuel development must be rapidly cut off if the international community is to have any hope of stopping runaway planetary warming.

Data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that 51 governments around the world—including the United States, Germany, Canada, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—provided a combined $697.2 billion in tax breaks and other handouts to the fossil fuel industry last year, up from $362.4 billion in 2020.

The International Monetary Fund has estimated that total global fossil fuel subsidies amounted to nearly $6 trillion in 2020.

"The insanity continues," climate scientist Bill McGuire tweeted in response to the new figures.

The OECD and IEA said that fossil fuel subsidies, which have continued despite nations' vows to start reining them in amid climbing carbon emissions and devastating extreme weather, are undercutting global efforts to fight the climate crisis.

"Fossil fuel subsidies are a roadblock to a more sustainable future," said IEA executive director Fatih Birol, who noted that the doubling of fossil fuel subsidies last year was at least in part attributable to government attempts to blunt the impact of soaring energy costs on consumers.

As The Guardian pointed out Wednesday, that approach "largely benefits wealthier households, as they use the most energy, rather than targeting those on low incomes."

Research has shown that the richest 10% of the global population consumes around 20 times as much energy as the poorest 10%.

Oil companies, meanwhile, are raking in huge profits as they exploit Russia's invasion of Ukraine to push massive costs onto consumers.

"Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has caused sharp increases in energy prices and undermined energy security. Significant increases in fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption though, while not necessarily reaching low-income households," OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said in a statement. "We need to adopt measures which protect consumers from the extreme impacts of shifting market and geopolitical forces in a way that helps keep us on track to carbon neutrality as well as energy security and affordability."

The fresh subsidy data was released days ahead of a U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report showing that "global sea levels and ocean heat content reached record highs in 2021," an indicator that the climate crisis is accelerating as governments prop up the oil and gas industry.

"The data presented in this report are clear—we continue to see more compelling scientific evidence that climate change has global impacts and shows no sign of slowing," NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a statement Wednesday.

"With many communities hit with 1,000-year floods, exceptional drought, and historic heat this year," Spinrad added, "it shows that the climate crisis is not a future threat but something we must address today as we work to build a climate-ready nation—and world—that is resilient to climate-driven extremes."

Global fossil fuel subsidies rocket to almost $US700 billion in 2021


Rachel Williamson 
5 September 2022 


Global fossil fuel subsidies almost doubled over the course of 2021, a new report has shown, as governments around the world – and not least of all in Australia – boosted their levels of support for coal, oil and gas projects in the name of fending off cost of living crises.

OECD and IEA data shows that 51 countries worldwide spent a combined $US697.2 billion on subsidies for fossil fuels in 2021, up from $US362.4 billion in 2020.

These subsidies are expected to rise further in 2022, alongside fossil fuel prices, as the global energy crisis continues, and the soaring cost of fossil fuel energy takes its toll on consumers.



In Australia, state and federal governments in Australia have spent billions on subsidies for both companies and consumers in 2021 and in 2022, to assuage the impact of skyrocketing fuel and electricity prices and to support the former Coalition government’s “gas-led recovery.”

The latest OECD fossil fuel subsidy data for Australia is for 2020 and show the government spent $10.6 billion on tax breaks and handouts.

But in 2021 and 2022 that figure could almost double as federal funding and compensation for power plant operators following the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) intervention in the National Energy Market (NEM) in June alone totals some $7.1 billion.

Since 2020, the former Coalition government splashed at least $5.6 billion in extra federal funding for fossil fuel projects and tax breaks for consumers.

Those subsidies included $58.6 million for new gas storage and import infrastructure, $600 million for Snowy Hydro’s new gas fired power plant at Kurri Kurri – a project whose costs have now blown out past $1 billion – and almost $2 billion to oil refiners to prop up profit margins.

In 2022 before the federal election in May, the Morrison government squeezed in another $50.3 million to support gas infrastructure in the Bowen, Surat and Beetaloo basins and $3 billion worth of support to internal combustion engine (ICE) drivers by cutting the fuel excise tax by 22.1c for six months in March.

State governments added more subsidies via electricity rebates to assist with cost of living pressures. These include Western Australia’s $400 Household Electricity Credit, Victoria’s $250 Power Saving Bonus, and Queensland’s $175 Cost of Living Rebate.

And taxpayers will bear the brunt of $1.5 billion in compensation to power plant operators following AEMO’s shutdown of the NEM in June, when it directed plants to reopen and imposed a wholesale price cap after some shut down operations on the back of soaring coal and gas prices.

These costs are direct tax breaks and extra funding Australian governments have committed to, but ignore the implicit costs of undercharging for environmental costs, such as through climate change, and foregone taxes such as would come from supporting a thriving electric vehicle industry.

The IMF counts these impacts in its fossil fuel subsidy data, which it says topped $5.9 trillion in 2020 and will continue to climb as emerging markets gain more of a share of fuel consumption.

Future costs


The OECD says consumption subsidies, like Australia’s fuel excise tax cut, are likely to continue around the world in 2022 as countries grapple with the risks of ongoing high cost of living for their citizens.

“Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has caused sharp increases in energy prices and undermined energy security. Significant increases in fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption though, while not necessarily reaching low-income households,” OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said in a statement.

“We need to adopt measures which protect consumers from the extreme impacts of shifting market and geopolitical forces in a way that helps keep us on track to carbon neutrality as well as energy security and affordability.”

While the new Labor government has committed to not extend the fuel excise reduction when it finishes in October, future subsidies include oil and gas field decommissioning costs.

Australian taxpayers will bear the $325 million cost of the first stage clean up of the abandoned Northern Endeavour oil vessel, although oil and gas producers will need to cover some of the estimated $30.44 billion in future decommissioning costs after a new levy of 48c per barrel of oil was imposed in April.

Rachel Williamson is a science and business journalist, who focuses on climate change-related health and environmental issues.

Some Maritimers want to avoid a carbon tax, others want rebate to help those on low-incomes

Stephen Wentzell
CTVNewsAtlantic.ca 
Digital Coordinator
Published Sept. 3, 2022 

Nova Scotia’s environment minister says the province has proposed an alternate solution that would set performance standards for large greenhouse gas emitters.

But if that proposal gets rejected, Nova Scotians might wind up paying the federal carbon tax.

The prospect of a carbon tax is creating concerns around affordability for many Nova Scotians, including Jeff Kanabenshuh.

“In today’s world, especially with inflation the way it is, it’s just another expense that comes out of my personal wallet,” Kanabenshuh tells CTV Atlantic.

While there are other low-emission options, Kanabenshuh says he does not have the ability to make a substantial change.

“If we do want to go to a renewable route, like an electric car, you’re paying a big premium to that which the average person just doesn’t have the capital to be able to do so,” he said.

With cooler weather soon approaching, concerns of energy affordability are top of mind in the Maritimes.

Nova Scotia’s Environment Minister Timothy Halman claims the alternative plan to the carbon tax will still meet the federal requirements, while off-setting costs for many.

“We believe it will be a system that holds Nova Scotia Power accountable and all large industries accountable,” Halman said Friday. “It will create a flexibility in the system.”

If the plan is not approved, Ottawa can implement its own carbon tax on the Atlantic provinces. While the idea has caused controversy for some, others, like the Ecology Action Centre’s Thomas Arnason McNeil, believe Nova Scotia should implement a carbon tax and use the rebate to help those on low-incomes bridge the affordability gap.

“Allowing energy consumers to pay different power rates if they are low-income,” McNeil said. “That’s something provincial governments can bring in tomorrow.”

Halman says that there is nothing he can do to off-set a carbon tax if Ottawa chooses to implement one. However, the province will control its revenues.

“As a province, we want to have that control over revenue recycling because we know Nova Scotia best,” he said.

In the meantime, there’s no solid deadline for the government to approve or reject Halman’s proposal.






Elon Musk’s long history of questionable takes on climate change

Josh Marcus
Sun, September 4, 2022 


Elon Musk, the man who topped Bloomberg’s 2021 list of “green” billionaires, recently surprised observers when he called for more fossil fuel exploration at an energy conference.

“At this time, we actually need more oil and gas, not less,” the Tesla CEO said on Monday at an event in Stavanger, Norway, adding that he didn’t want to “demonize” the fossil fuel industry.

He argued that despite various efforts to build renewable technologies, the invasion of Ukraine and resulting sanctions on Russia’s fossil fuel industry were pinching energy supplies in Europe.

"Realistically I think we need to use oil and gas in the short term, because otherwise civilization will crumble," Mr Musk continued. “In order for civilization to function, we do need oil and gas. Actually, especially these days, with the Russia sanctions, we do need to provide oil and gas to keep civilization running. I think any reasonable person would conclude that, while at the same time accelerating the advent of sustainable energy.”

The tech billionaire made a similar claim in March.

“Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately,” he wrote on Twitter. “Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil & gas exports.”

The remarks have drawn swift rebukes from some environmental observers.

“What is really needed is to cut that energy use globally by more than a half—starting with the 1% in the global North,” tweeted Peter Dynes of MEER, an environmental advocacy group, this week.

“I think his comment was overblown,” wrote journalist Fred Lambert, editor-in-chief of renewable transportation news site Electrek. “He is just pointing a simple fact, but if you want to look at it from a policy standpoint, it’s important to keep in mind that we need to incentivize new energy production to be renewable rather than from fossil fuels in order to account for the impact on the environment.”

International leaders say that investment in new fossil fuel projects needs to be halted immediately to prevent the worst of the climate crisis.

“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year,” Fatih Birol, director of the influential International Energy Agency, said in 2021. “More and more countries are coming up with net zero commitments, which is very good, but I see a huge and growing gap between the rhetoric [from governments] and the reality.”

UN Secretary General António Guterres has said that even the war in Ukraine and its effect on global energy supplies shouldn’t mean new fossil fuel investments, calling such thinking “delusional.”

“The energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine has seen a perilous doubling down on fossil fuels by the major economies,” he wrote in June. New funding for fossil fuels is delusional. It will only further feed the scourge of war, pollution and climate catastrophe.”

Musk’s debatable take on oil drilling was just the latest in a string of comments about tackling the climate crisis that environmentalists have taken issue with.

There’s no doubt Mr Musk is serious about building renewable technologies. Through his companies like Tesla and SolarCity, he has helped developed electric vehicles, solar roof panels, and renewable energy storage devices. Along the way, he’s become an influential voice in clean tech, and both policymakers and legions of online fans often follow his lead.

But that doesn’t mean he’s always right. He’s got a lengthy history of divisive opinions on the climate.
Nuclear or bust

Among the most controversial issues is Mr Musk’s embrace of nuclear power. He has described those who oppose nuclear as a renewable energy strategy as “anti-human.”

He has called for countries to increase nuclear generation, a controversial stance that has divided clean energy advocates. While some tout nuclear’s ability to consistently provide power without burning as many fossil fuels, others point to its high cost, slow rollout, and risk of disasters.

“Countries should be increasing nuclear power generation!” Mr Musk tweeted last month. “It is insane from a national security standpoint and bad for the environment to shut them down.”

Responding to Mr Musk’s calls for more nuclear, Stanford environmental engineering professor Mark Z Jacobson argued: “New nuclear is completely useless for addressing climate, pollution, energy security.”

The professor pointed to research that suggests the money needed to sustain nuclear power would be better spent on replacing it with renewable energy, which is cheaper to construct, faster to build, and emits less carbon per unit of energy generated than nuclear.

According to Jan Haverkamp, an energy expert at Greenpeace, nuclear has a record of overpromising and underdelivering. The world needs renewables, and fast, if it is to avoid the worst effects of global heating.

“We’ve never been in principle against any technology, but it is very clear, every time you start calculating, that the moment you introduce nuclear, the costs are going up and the speed of change is going down,” he told The Independent earlier this year. “That’s exactly what we can’t afford now as climate change is becoming ever more real. If you start talking about nuclear at this moment, either you’re following a fad or you’re trying to divert the attention from what really needs to be done.”

The Independent has reached out to Mr Musk for comment.
More Nuclear Families

At the event in Norway, Mr Musk also hit on another of his pet causes: population trends.

He told a crowd of reporters that because of declining birth rates, like those recorded in the United States, European Union, and China, in recent years, civilization “will die with a whimper in adult diapers.”

Last month, Mr Musk also said that demographic trends, such as the slowing birth rates in many high-income, Western countries, are a greater threat than global warming.

“Population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming,” the Tesla CEO wrote on Twitter. “Mark these words.”

Indeed, birth rates on average have declined since the mid-1900s, according to the World Bank. However, it’s likely more a function of improved public health, especially for youth, than a societal fertility crisis, demographic experts say.

"He’s better off making cars and engineering than at predicting the trajectory of the population," Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division, told CNN in August. "Yes, some countries, their population is declining, but for the world, that’s just not the case."

The global population likely won’t peak until around 2100 when it reaches 8.5-10 billion people, according to the UN.

“Virtually every developed country is below two [children per average pregnant person], and it’s been that way for 20 or 30 years," Mr Chamie added.

Even when global population peaks, the UN says, the world won’t be overrun with seniors. There will be more people under 20 than over age 70. And unlike with the novel threats of climate change, governments already have a long history of policy solutions like pensions and state-sponsored healthcare that address seniors’ needs.

Some argue such fears over declining birthrates in rich, comparatively white Western countries have a racist bent, since high birth rates can still be seen in various lower-income countries in Africa.

About a third of countries in Africa have an average birth rate of five children, especially in places with high youth mortality and low access to contraception.

“The real challenge is to address the poverty, inequity, and lack of life opportunities that high fertility and population growth characterise, improve the wellbeing of the greatest proportion of our fellow citizens, and protect ecosystems here on Earth - before indulging the space fantasies of a handful of competing billionaires,” Robin Maynard of the thinktank Population Matters, said in July.
Hyperloop — or just hype?

Mr Musk has provoked a long-running debate among climate experts over his proposals for “hyperloop” transit systems — ultra-high speed, train-like vessels that move through vacuum-chamber tunnels. The billionaire first argued for hyperloop systems in a 2013 white paper. Mr Musk claimed that if they run on renewable electricity, they are a more sustainable way to travel medium distances.

And it’s an idea that has caught on. Companies, inspired by Mr Musk’s entry into the world of transit, are working on at least 15 proposed hyperloop projects around the US.

Analysts are split on whether hyperloops would genuinely be a greener way to get around.

Early estimates suggested that they are a more carbon-efficient way to travel distances of 250 - 500 miles than a flight, according to NASA. A US Department of Transit analysis said an ideal hyperloop could be six times more efficient than air travel at certain distances.

Others, like Cleveland State University environmental engineering professor Jacqueline Jenkins, argue these systems won’t be worthwhile unless they’re paired with massive investments in green power to assure hyperloops are running on renewable energy.

"If we don’t do it sustainably, it’s probably a short-term solution," she told the news site GreenBiz in 2019.

Some doubt Mr Musk’s commitment to truly public transportation, a far more carbon-efficient way to move people than individual car ownership or long-haul flights.

Mr Musk admitted to a biographer that he got the idea for hyperloop out of a dissatisfaction with public transportation, and rooted for California to cancel a planned high-speed rail system — even though train transit is far greener than driving and often than flying too.

Despite being widely viewed as a key solution in cutting emissions, the Tesla billionaire has spoken of his general disdain for public transit.

“It’s a pain in the ass,” he told an audience in 2017. “That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of whom might be a serial killer, OK, great. And so that’s why people like individualized transport, that goes where you want, when you want.”

Tesla Canadian Gigafactory rumours are heating up

The company has recently been scouring sites in Quebec and Ontario, alongside visiting Nouveau Monde’s graphite mine and processing factory in Quebec

After Berlin and Texas, Tesla might have plans to open a Gigafactory in Quebec.

As reported first by Electrek, Tesla is looking to hire “high volume” recruiters in Quebec, which might suggest that the next Gigafactory would be somewhere in Quebec as the company has used similar language for recruiting early positions at its Berlin and Texas Gigafactories.

Adding fuel to the rumour fire, during the company’s shareholders’ meeting in July, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Canada is a potential location for the company’s next Gigafactory. A Recording of a company-wide meeting obtained by Electrek back in June also suggested that Tesla is looking at new Gigafactory sites in North America, with Canada and Mexico being prime candidates.

Additionally, the company has recently been scouring sites in Quebec and Ontario, alongside visiting Nouveau Monde’s graphite mine and processing factory in Quebec, further suggesting that Tesla is serious about opening up a factory in the nation.

If true, the company could generate 5,000 to 10,000 jobs for Canadians in the area,whichd might also result in a slight cost reduction of Tesla vehicles nationwide.

According to Musk, Tesla’s next Gigafactory location should be disclosed by the end of 2022.

Oh Canada? Tesla Hiring Recruiters In Quebec: Is Gigafactory Canada Announcement Getting Closer?


byChris Katje, Benzinga Staff Writer
September 4, 2022 5:12 PM | 3 min read

ZINGER KEY POINTS

Tesla could have 10 to 12 Gigafactories over time to help support its production goals.

Elon Musk hinted an announcement of the next location could come by the end of the year.



Tesla Inc could have its eyes set on Canada as the location for its next Gigafactory. New reports of hiring for recruiters in the country could hint that an announcement could be made soon.

What Happened: 
Speaking at a shareholder event in August, Tesla CEO Elon Musk shared hints that the next Gigafactory location could be announced by the end of the year. Musk said that Tesla could have 10 to 12 gigafactories around the world to help ramp up production of its electric vehicles.

When speaking on the potential new Gigafactory, the crowd saw fans shout out Canada as a location for the next factory.

“I’m half Canadian. Maybe I should,” Musk said.


A lobby registration by Tesla in Canada also hinted that the company could be exploring a potential factory in the country.

Tesla has posted a job listing for a high-volume recruiter in Quebec, Canada according to a report from Teslarati. The job posting for a recruiter in Montreal, Quebec is similar to wording on past recruiters used in Gigafactory locations, the report notes. High-volume recruiters have been hired in areas like Austin, Texas and Grunheide, Brandenburg, locations near other Tesla Gigafactories.

“A great recruiter stands apart by excelling at talent identification, attraction, and assessment, and by developing deep partnerships with the business and within HR. Tesla is looking for a high volume, and extraordinary recruiter that stands out by doing all of the above combined with strong business acumen, a passion for their craft and a genuine commitment to providing an unforgettable candidate experience,” the job posting says.

A report from Electrek said Tesla has visited several locations in Canada for a potential factory.

No confirmation has been made by Tesla that Canada will be the home of the new Gigafactory. New job listings could suggest the company will make Canada the home of a new Gigafactory or additional Tesla future efforts. Tesla does have existing facilities in Canada thanks to ownership of Hibar Tesla Toronto Automation and financing of lithium battery research in the country.

Related Link: Tesla Q2 Earnings Highlights: Revenue Miss, EPS Beat, Bitcoin Converted To Fiat, Automaker Predicts 'Record Breaking' Second Half

Why It’s Important: Tesla has expanded its production capabilities outside the United States, with Gigafactory locations in Shanghai and Berlin. The newer international factory locations have helped the company expand production and deliveries in regions like Europe and Asia.

A new Gigafactory location could be important to help Tesla meet its long-term goals of production and deliveries.

Tesla’s third quarter financial results will likely be reported in October, and the company has its annual AI Day coming later this month. It is unclear how and when the company will announce the location of its Gigafactory location.

The recent visits to Canada and official lobbying efforts along with the recent job posting might make Canada the clear favorite.

TSLA Price Action: Tesla shares closed the week at $270.21, dropping 3% on Friday.

Photo courtesy Steve Jurvetson on Flickr and tesla.com


Tesla looks to hire ‘high volume’ recruiters in Quebec as rumors of a factory ramp up


Fred Lambert
- Sep. 2nd 2022 


Tesla Canada Factory


Over the past few months, we have been reporting on evidence that Tesla has been looking at a potential location in Canada for its next Gigafactory.

Tesla plans to ramp up production to 20 million electric vehicles by the end of the decade, and it is expected to need about eight more Gigafactories to do it.

In June, Electrek obtained a recording of a companywide meeting held by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, during which he confirmed that Tesla is looking at sites in North America, and the CEO hinted at Canada for Tesla’s next Gigafactory, which he says should be announced by the end of the year.

Musk did it again at Tesla’s annual shareholders’ meeting last month, and the effort was confirmed through a lobbying disclosure by the automaker with the Ontario government in Canada.

Yesterday, a local report stated that Tesla had visited Vale’s nickel operations in Canada and was scouting sites for a factory in Ontario and Quebec.

We also reported that Tesla visited a graphite mining and processing company based in Quebec’s battery valley.

Quebec likely?

Now we learn that Tesla is looking to hire recruiters in Quebec for a “high volume” recruiting effort (via the job posting – hat tip to Alex Oha):

A great recruiter stands apart by excelling at talent identification, attraction, and assessment, and by developing deep partnerships with the business and within HR. Tesla is looking for a high volume, an extraordinary recruiter that stands out by doing all of the above combined with strong business acumen, a passion for their craft, and a genuine commitment to providing an unforgettable candidate experience.

Tesla has used similar language about “high volume” recruiting for early positions at Gigafactory Berlin and Gigafactory Texas. Tesla generally employs between 5,000 and 10,000 at Gigafactories, and it requires significant recruiting efforts when staffing them.

It could be a sign that Tesla is planning to build a large operation, even its next Gigafactory, in the region.

The job is based in Montreal, but it is listed as “Recruiter, Quebec,” which generally means that the position covers the whole of Quebec.
Electrek’s Take

I know I have been making the argument that the next Tesla factory could end up in Quebec for a while now, and I’m obviously biased, but this is a very strong indicator here.

Similar positions have popped up in Austin and Berlin as Tesla was planning Gigafactories there.

I am starting to like Quebec’s chances.

Where in Quebec though? Battery Valley (around Becancour-Trois-Rivieres) would make sense, but it depends if Tesla is planning a full-scale Gigafactory with vehicle production or just battery production.

If it’s the former, I think something closer to Montreal would make more sense when it comes to recruiting a workforce of up to 10,000 people. Maybe a location within about one hour of Montreal, not unlike Gigafactory Berlin is to the city of Berlin.

I could see something around Granby or Drummondville, but those are just guesses.

CLIMATE CHANGE
The US agency in charge of developing fossil fuels has a new job: cleaning them up

The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management has a new name, new leaders, and a new mandate to meet Joe Biden’s climate goals.
archive page
September 2, 2022
The Department of Energy-supported Petro Nova project in Texas was the world’s largest coal plant equipped with carbon dioxide capture equipment. It prevented millions of tons of emissions, but was shuttered in 2020.NRG

In his first month in office, US President Joe Biden signed an executive order calling for the nation to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and achieve net-zero emissions across the economy by 2050.

That move redefined the mandate of the US Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy, the research agency whose mission has been to develop more effective ways of producing fossil fuels for almost half a century.

Now it’s responsible for helping to clean up the industry.

In July the agency, which has about 600 employees and a roughly $900 million budget, added “and Carbon Management” to its name, signaling a major part of its new mission: to help develop the technology and build an industry that can prevent the release of carbon dioxide from power plants and factories, suck it out of the air, transport it, and permanently store it.


The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) continues to operate a research division focused on the production of oil, gas, and coal. But it’s now named the Office of Resource Sustainability and its central task is minimizing the impacts from the production of those fossil fuels, says Jennifer Wilcox, a carbon removal researcher, who joined the office at the start of the Biden administration. She now serves as principal deputy assistant secretary of FECM, overseeing both research and development divisions along with Brad Crabtree, the assistant secretary of the office.

FECM’s efforts will be turbocharged by a series of recent federal laws, including the Inflation Reduction Act, which significantly boosts tax subsidies for carbon capture, removal, and storage. The CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law in August, authorizes (but doesn’t actually appropriate) $1 billion for carbon removal research and development at FECM. But most notably, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that Biden enacted in late 2021 will direct some $12 billion into carbon capture and removal, including pipelines and storage facilities.

The FECM will play a key role in determining where much of the money goes.

Jennifer Wilcox, a prominent carbon removal researcher, is the principal deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.

Following the passage of the infrastructure law, the Department of Energy announced a $2.5 billion investment to accelerate and validate ways of safely storing carbon dioxide in underground formations, as well as $3.5 billion in funding for pilot and demonstration projects aimed at preventing nearly all carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power plants and industrial facilities, such as those producing cement, pulp and paper, and iron and steel. It has also moved ahead with a $3.5 billion program to develop four regional hubs for direct-air-capture projects, an effort to develop factories that can suck at least 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year.

Last week, I spoke with Wilcox and Noah Deich, deputy assistant secretary for carbon management within FECM, about the new direction at the Department of Energy, where the billions of dollars will be put to work, and how they’re striving to address concerns about carbon capture and the ongoing harms from fossil fuels.

'We need to invest today'

Wilcox and Deich face a tricky balancing act.

Many environmentalists, social justice advocates, and those in the climate community fear that government subsidies, funding and support for carbon capture will extend the life of fossil-fuel plants, slow the shift to carbon-free energy sources, and grant a social license for ongoing extraction of oil and gas. In addition, a number of carbon capture projects that the Department of Energy heavily funded in the past subsequently shut down.

But the country still relies heavily on gas and coal plants. By funding and supporting pilot and demonstration projects, Wilcox and Deich stress, FECM is striving to reduce the risks and costs of carbon capture tools that could dramatically slash the nation’s emissions and reduce rising climate dangers. The hope is that this, in turn, will get more of the private sector to take on such projects on its own. In addition, they note that the investments FECM makes across the organization will all come with rigorous requirements, including environment justice commitments laid out in an earlier document.

Wilcox says parts of the criticism are correct: carbon capture and storage at natural-gas plants “is enabling more gas production.”

“But we don’t have a choice,” she adds. “It needs to be a part of our tool kit, and we need to invest today in order for us to even have the option.”

That’s because, despite the growth of clean alternatives like solar and wind, there’s a huge existing fleet of natural-gas and coal plants across the nation, many relatively new.

“The reality is, if we don’t invest in this solution, there’s going to be power plants that will continue to emit,” she says.

She adds that carbon capture is also crucial for cleaning up many industrial processes, which rely on heat from fossil-fuel-driven furnaces and where carbon dioxide is often a byproduct of production, as in cement and steel. Here too, it’s the only way to retrofit expensive industrial plants and factories already in place.
 
Related Story

Why the carbon capture subsidies in the climate bill are good news for emissions

Critics fear carbon capture will extend the life of fossil-fuel plants. But it can drive huge emissions declines in steel, cement, fertilizer, bioenergy, and beyond.


Wilcox notes there are 91 cement plants pumping out about 70 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, many with newer generation kilns, and all delivering a product of a specific quality that’s crucial to their customers and the safety of the structures made from it.

Adding carbon capture equipment to those facilities is critical.

“This is a solution that provides minimal barriers for adoption for the industry,” she says. “It’s a retrofit to an existing facility that they’ve already invested in.”

There are emerging alternative ways of producing steel, cement, and other industrial products that may allow these sectors to address emissions directly. Deich says we need to invest in and support those solutions, but he notes it could take decades to develop them, test them, and scale them up.

“We don’t have the time to wait when we have carbon management solutions that we think can be deployed within the next few years in a technically, economically, and socially responsible way,” he says.

Adding carbon capture equipment to facilities is just one aspect of the job. Wilcox and her team are also focused on removing carbon already in the atmosphere. There are criticisms of this concept too, including fears that it creates a moral hazard, inviting governments and companies to lean on it at the expense of cutting emissions.

Wilcox, however, says that carbon removal will be a critical tool for balancing out emissions from sectors of the economy that are really difficult to decarbonize, like aviation, maritime shipping, and agriculture. Numerous studies also find that the world may need to remove billions of tons per year by around midcentury to prevent the planet from heating more than 2 ˚C beyond preindustrial levels, or to pull it back from that threshold.


FECM is working toward Biden’s climate goals in several other ways as well, including supporting the development of clean forms of hydrogen, tools to monitor methane emissions, and more sustainable ways of extracting the critical minerals that will be essential for the transition to clean energy.
Social justice concerns

Burning fossil fuels produces various pollutants beside carbon dioxide that can harm human health. These disproportionately affect the poor communities that often surround power plants and other industrial facilities, raising social justice concerns.


Wilcox notes that both natural-gas plants and cement plants will actually need to implement additional processes to reduce some pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, as a first step for the carbon capture technology to work effectively. She adds that project applicants will also need to monitor these and other pollutants.

Deich says that the funding opportunities will also require companies to engage with communities, commit to develop local workforces, and assess climate emissions across their technologies’ life cycles and supply chains. They’ll also be expected to identify and address potential harms from the projects, ensure that benefits are distributed in equitable ways, and be willing to walk away if communities reject projects.

“We’re going to make sure that these projects only go in places where communities are not pushing against them,” he says

.
Noah Deich is the deputy assistant secretary for carbon management at the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.

By supporting projects that take these issues seriously and demonstrate that the technology can dramatically cut emissions, they hope to shift the conversation on carbon capture and dispel the blanket rejection of it in some circles, he says.

Another big open question is the extent to which the power sector, oil and gas companies, and heavy industry will want to move ahead with such expensive projects, given the costs, risks, and lack of policy mandates.

Wilcox responded that they already are, pointing to projects that FECM has already funded over the last two years, which include design studies for retrofitting several cement plants. There are also dozens of planned US carbon capture projects listed in the database maintained by the Global CCS Institute, including natural-gas and ethanol facilities.

Deich says companies are already feeling growing pressure from customers who want to cut emissions across their supply chains, and that they see where the business and regulatory trend lines are pointing. Those that hope to be in business in 2050 are beginning to take steps now.

“The people who move first will gain first-mover advantages. They will have the technical and human capital to be able to build these projects, cheaper, faster, more effectively,” he says. “In the long run, it’s a smart bet.”
hide


Scientists have discovered a method of turning plastic into diamonds, in the hopes of reducing the impact of pollution. The method aims to recreate the conditions found on Neptune and Uranus, which scientists have long believed produce diamond rain.


 

It's raining diamonds across the universe, research suggests

Uranus and Neptune, ice giants where scientists believe diamond rain falls below the surface
Uranus and Neptune, ice giants where scientists believe diamond rain falls below the surface.

It could be raining diamonds on planets throughout the universe, scientists suggested Friday, after using common plastic to recreate the strange precipitation believed to form deep inside Uranus and Neptune.

Scientists had previously theorized that extremely high pressure and temperatures turn hydrogen and carbon into solid diamonds thousands of kilometers below the surface of the ice giants.

Now new research, published in Science Advances, inserted oxygen into the mix, finding that "diamond rain" could be more common than thought.

Ice giants like Neptune and Uranus are thought to be the most common form of planet outside our Solar System, which means diamond rain could be occurring across the universe.

Dominik Kraus, a physicist at Germany's HZDR research lab and one of the study's authors, said that diamond precipitation was quite different to rain on Earth.

Under the surface of the planets is believed to be a "hot, dense liquid", where the diamonds form and slowly sink down to the rocky, potentially Earth-size cores more than 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) below, he said.

There fallen diamonds could form vast layers that span "hundreds of kilometers or even more", Kraus told AFP.

While these diamonds might not be shiny and cut like a "a nice gem on a ring", he said they were formed via similar forces as on Earth.

Aiming to replicate the process, the research team found the necessary mix of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in a readily available source—PET plastic, which is used for everyday food packaging and bottles.

Kraus said that while the researchers used very clean PET plastic, "in principle the experiment should work with Coca-Cola bottles".

The team then turned a high-powered optical laser on the plastic at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in California.

"Very, very short X-ray flashes of incredible brightness" allowed them to watch the process of nanodiamonds—tiny diamonds too small to see with the naked eye—as they formed, Kraus said.

"The oxygen that is present in large amounts on those planets really helps suck away the hydrogen atoms from the carbon, so it's actually easier for those diamonds to form," he added.

New way to make nanodiamonds?

The experiment could point towards a new way to produce nanodiamonds, which have a wide and increasing range of applications including drug delivery, medical censors, non-invasive surgery and quantum electronics.

"The way nanodiamonds are currently made is by taking a bunch of carbon or diamond and blowing it up with explosives," said SLAC scientist and study co-author Benjamin Ofori-Okai.

"Laser production could offer a cleaner and more easily controlled method to produce nanodiamonds," he added.

The diamond rain research remains hypothetical because little is known about Uranus and Neptune, the most distant planets in our Solar System.

Only one spacecraft—NASA's Voyager 2 in the 1980s—has flown past the two ice giants, and the data it sent back is still being used in research.

But a NASA group has outlined a potential new mission to the planets, possibly launching next decade.

"That would be fantastic," Kraus said.

He said he is greatly looking forward to more data—even if it takes a decade or two.'Diamond rain' on giant icy planets could be more common than previously thought

More information: Zhiyu He et al, Diamond formation kinetics in shock-compressed C-H-O samples recorded by small-angle X-ray scattering and X-ray diffraction, Science Advances (2022). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abo0617. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0617

Journal information: Science Advances 

© 2022 AFP

Diamond rain on giant icy planets could be more common than previously thought: Research


An experiment that simulated the conditions on ice giant planets like Neptune and Uranus has helped researchers discover that "diamond rains" may be more common on these planets than previously thought.


By: Tech Desk
Thalassery | September 5, 2022 



A cutaway that depicts the interior of Neptune with a layer of diamonds surrounding the solid planetary core. (Image credit: Greg Stewart/SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory)

A new study has found that “diamond rain” may be more common on ice giant planets like Neptune and Uranus than previously thought. For the first time, scientists were able to observe diamond rain as it formed with their experiment designed to mimic the extreme temperatures and pressure found on those planets.

Diamond rain forms when hydrogen and carbon found in the interior of these planets are squeezed by the high pressure and form solid diamonds that sink slowly further into the interior. The research has been published in the journal Nature Astronomy.

The researchers simulated the kind of environment found inside these planets by creating shock waves in plastic using an intense laser at the Matter in Extreme Conditions (MEC) instrument at the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, California.

Also Read |Research transforming our knowledge of dementia wins science prize

In the experiment, researchers used PET plastic, often found in food packaging, plastic bottles and containers, to reproduce the composition of these planets. “PET has a good balance between carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to simulate the activity in ice planets,” said Dominik Kraus, a physicist and professor at the University of Rostock, in a press statement.

As they created shockwaves in the plastic using the laser, they observed the atoms of the material rearrange into small diamond regions. They used a method called “small-angle scattering” to measure how fast and large those regions grew. The researchers found that these diamond regions grew up to a size of a few nanometres. With the presence of oxygen in the material, the nanodiamonds were able to grow at lower pressures and temperatures than was observed in previous experiments.

The research team predicts that the diamonds on Neptune and Uranus would become much larger than the nanodiamonds produced in these experiments; maybe even weighing in millions of carats. Over thousands of years, these diamonds could have slowly sunk through the planets’ icy layers to assemble as a thick layer around the solid planetary core.

Also Read |Digging Deep: What the discovery of Ostrich fossils in Himalayas reveals about our climate

This research also opens up the potential to produce nanodiamonds using this laser-driven method. Such nanodiamonds are already included in abrasives and polishing agents and in the future, they can potentially be used for quantum sensors, medical contrast agents and reaction accelerators for renewable energy.

“The way nanodiamonds are currently made is by taking a bunch of carbon or diamond and blowing it up with explosives. This creates nanodiamonds of various sizes and shapes and is hard to control. What we’re seeing in this experiment is a different reactivity of the same species under high temperature and pressure. In some cases, the diamonds seem to be forming faster than others, which suggests that the presence of these other chemicals can speed up this process,” said SLAC scientist and collaborator Benjamin Ofori-Okai, in a press statement.

According to Ofori-Okai, this laser production method could offer a cleaner and more easily controlled method to produce nanodiamonds.

Next, the researchers envision conducting similar experiments using liquid samples containing ethanol, water and ammonia, which is what Uranus and Neptune are mostly made out of. This will help them get even closer to understanding how diamond rain forms on other planet.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

First published on: 05-09-2022 

Current and former federal ministers lash out against Premier Moe

Saskatoon / 650 CKOM
Current and former federal ministers lash out against Premier Moe


After weeks of back and forth between the federal government and the Sask. Party on accusations of federal workers going onto private farmland without permission to take water samples, Canada’s current and former environment ministers are firing back at Premier Scott Moe.

 

Former Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Canada, Catherine McKenna, took to Twitter to say Moe chooses to make up false narratives to then “slam and discredit” the federal government while eroding democracy in the process by spreading conspiracies.

These allegations came as current Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Canada, Steven Guilbeault, said Moe is politicizing water testing and that his actions are irresponsible and dangerous for federal workers who are just doing their jobs.

Guilbeault made these comments as he referenced a Leader-Post article claiming the Sask. Party knew water testing would be taking place around the province and that Moe acted in political theatre.

“I hope the Saskatchewan government will apologize to the dedicated workers in our science and tech branch that are keeping Canadians safe and healthy,” Guilbeault said online.

On Aug. 21, Saskatchewan’s minister responsible for the Water Security Agency, Jeremy Cockrill, accused federal government representatives of not requesting permission to enter private land in Saskatchewan to perform water testing.

The day before Cockrill sent that letter, an Order in Council was passed in Saskatchewan to add federal government workers as an entity to which The Trespass to Property Act applied.

Guilbeault, in his letter, called Cockrill’s letter “very public and very frank.”

The federal minister had said there are strict protocols in place that scientists must follow to make sure water sampling is done within the law.

“If a federal scientist inadvertently encroached on private land without permission, this matter can surely be handled in a mature and informed manner,” wrote Guilbeault.

Guilbeault said Environment Canada is reviewing its sampling protocol and looks forward to working with the provincial government to better understand the recent Order in Council rule change.

The back and forth between political leaders reached new heights on Saturday morning as McKenna claimed on Twitter that she has many stories regarding Moe taking the chance to discredit the federal government whenever given the opportunity,

980 CJME has reached out to the provincial government for comment on the posts being made online.

Europe is battling an energy crisis | Can nuclear energy be the saviour?

World News 
Sep 1, 2022
WION
Europe is battling a major energy crisis ahead of winter which has been caused due to shortages from a lack of Russian fuel. Governments are rethinking nuclear power.

What can Europe do to fight soaring power bills?



How Waves Could Power A Clean Energy Future

The ocean’s waves are immensely powerful. Harnessing that energy for grid-scale electricity production would be a major boon to the clean energy industry, but building durable, powerful, and cost-effective wave energy converters has proven difficult. Now though, an influx of federal funding is helping many U.S. companies gear up to test their latest wave energy technologies, giving many in the industry hope that wave power will see massive growth over the next few decades.


Will an EV-Filled World Pass The Sulfuric Acid Test?

An unexpected resource crunch over H2SO4 troubles experts

RAHUL RAO

Mounds of pelletized sulfur at the California Sulphur Company
 in Wilmington, California.
BING GUAN/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

Look at the periodic table, and think of the elements needed for a prosperous planet powered by renewable energy. Sulfur likely won’t be the first to come to mind.

It probably doesn’t help the yellow element’s noxious reputation to learn that most of the world’s sulfur comes as a byproduct of refining fossil fuels. In a net-zero future, a future where petroleum and natural gas production enter terminal decline and never return to their past carbon-spewing heights, sulfur production will fall away, too.

Therein lies the problem. Sulfur—easily turned into sulfuric acid—is a necessary tool for creating fertilizer and extracting heavy metals from their ores before they can go into batteries, wind turbines, and electric vehicle components. Even as sulfur production is set to fall, sulfuric acid demand is set to rise.

That’s a recipe for an impending crisis, researchers warn in a paper published 21 August in The Geographical Journal.

Today, the world uses 246 million tonnes of sulfuric acid in a year. The researchers project that number might increase to 400 million tonnes by 2040.

Sulfuric acid is necessary for extracting heavy metals such as nickel, cobalt, and rare earths for batteries, magnets, and other renewable energy technologies. The world’s needs are going up—from 246 million tonnes today to 400 million tonnes by 2040—but the supply could be drying out. Sulfur is most cheaply obtained as a byproduct of petroleum refineries.

That’s because, when it comes to renewable energy, sulfuric acid has a very critical use. Extracting heavy metals, such as nickel, cobalt, and rare earths, relies on chemical processes that use sulfuric acid to separate the metals from their ores. Those heavy metals are key elements in lithium-ion batteries, electric motors, and other technologies crucial for the renewable transition.

(Sulfur has other roles, too. Perhaps even more importantly than renewables, sulfuric acid is a key element in manufacturing fertilizers. Sulfuric acid goes into biofuels, and sulfur is used to vulcanize and harden rubber.)

Where does that sulfur come from, then? Decades ago, most of it came from mining. In 1894, a German chemist named Herman Frasch plotted a process of tapping a sulfur-containing mineral deposit by pumping it with superheated water. The sulfur will melt and bubble up to the surface. Sulfur miners have used the same process ever since.

The Frasch process can be tremendously damaging to the surrounding environment and mineworkers’ health. The minerals that contain sulfur often also tend to contain toxic metals like mercury, arsenic, and thallium. The process also spews out wastewater that contains hydrogen sulfide, which has similar toxic properties to carbon monoxide.

By the 1950s, the world had exhausted the most easily available sulfur deposits. Mining costs skyrocketed, rapidly inflating the element’s market price. Analysts warned of an impending “sulphur famine.”

“A lot of people, they take sulfur for granted.”
—Jean-Michel Lavoie, University of Sherbrooke

In swept the fossil fuel industry’s waste to save the day. By coincidence, sulfur’s presence in petroleum makes it harder to refine into diesel, jet fuel, and other assorted products. To sort it out, refineries have to filter out the sulfur—thereby making it available to the rest of the world. Today, more than 80 percent of the world’s sulfur comes from these acts of waste management. As dirty as it sounds, it’s actually cleaner than mining.

However, naturally, if carbon-emitting fossil fuels go, refineries like this will likely go too. It’s hard to know how quickly that will happen, but in a scenario where the world reaches net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the researchers estimate that sulfur production would drop by one-half or even more.

“It’s an eye-opener,” Jean-Michel Lavoie, a chemist at the University of Sherbrooke and Laboratoire des Technologies de la Biomasse in Québec, who was not an author of the paper. “We never really focus on trying to solve these problems, but I think we’re going to start looking into solutions.”

The world could swing back to sourcing sulfur directly from mines. That may happen if the economics favor it. But it’s costlier than getting it from petroleum, and the Frasch process carries an unacceptable ecological burden (not to mention unpleasant social impacts that disproportionately affect people in developing countries).

“Research is urgently needed to develop low-cost, low environmental impact methods of extracting large quantities of elemental sulfur,” said Mark Maslin, a geographer at Unviersity College London and one of the paper authors, in a press release.

Maslin and his colleagues believe, however, that there won’t be a single solution to a sulfur shortage. In some fields, like biofuel production, recycling sulfuric acid is quite common. A few scientists have begun tinkering with sulfuric acid substitutes—nitric acid, for example—though that’s still quite speculative.

Reducing the future need for sulfuric acid certainly wouldn’t hurt. Already, there are batteries (such as lithium iron phosphate batteries) that have lower energy-capacity-to-weight ratios, but take in less nickel, cobalt, and heavy metals, and thus need less sulfuric acid. Future research could shape batteries that deliver the best of both worlds.

What is clear is that weaning off fossil fuels may have quite a number of intended side effects—bad or good—and a sulfur shortage is just one of them.

“A lot of people, they take sulfur for granted,” says Lavoie.