Australian researchers step into new nuclear technologies

12 August 2021

The governments of Australia and the UK have signed a letter of intent (LoI) to establish a partnership on low emissions solutions including clean hydrogen and small modular reactors (SMRs). Meanwhile, the Australian Research Council (ARC) has awarded funding to a newly launched project to develop fuel for hydrogen-boron fusion which its participants say has the potential to re-establish Australia as a leader in fusion research and clean energy technology.

Kwarteng (L) and High Commissioner for Australia to the UK, George Brandis, during the signing ceremony in London (Image: @KwasiKwarteng)

Under the LoI signed on 29 July by Australia's Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor and UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Kwasi Kwarteng, cooperation between the two countries will focus on research and development across six key technologies: clean hydrogen; carbon capture and use; carbon capture and storage; SMRs including advanced nuclear designs and enabling technologies; low emissions materials including green steel; and soil carbon measurement.

The partnership is aligned with Australia's technology-led approach to reducing emissions and will help deliver on the goals of its Technology Investment Roadmap, Taylor said. "Australia is continuing to drive practical international partnerships to get new energy technologies to commercial parity with existing approaches," he said. "Getting new energy technologies to parity will enable substantial reductions in global emissions - in both developing and developed countries - and ensure countries don't have to choose between growth and decarbonisation."

Australia has a moratorium on nuclear generation, but the Technology Investment Roadmap, which was released last year by the Australian government, identifies SMRs as a "watching brief technology" - a prospective technology with transformative potential. The Australian government intends to continue to monitor international developments in such technologies "to ensure that Australian households and businesses are able to exercise consumer choice and adopt the latest technologies, where it makes sense for them to do so."

Andrew Peele, group executive for Nuclear Science and Technology at the ANSTO nuclear science and technology organisation, welcomed the announcement of the partnership with the UK. "With our existing ties to research and nuclear organisations in the UK, there is a natural opportunity for ANSTO to contribute to this work," he said. "Our expertise in SMRs and Generation IV reactors will mean that Australia has homegrown knowledge and expertise in relation to these emerging technologies."

Fusion promise

Separately, former ANSTO CEO Adi Paterson, who has joined HB11 Energy’s Scientific Advisory Board, said the joint project between Deakin University and HB11 Energy Holdings to develop advanced fuels for hydrogen-boron fusion "opens a new chapter in fusion energy research as we aim to realise the promise of fusion as a large-scale source of clean energy for the next generation."

The researchers have secured an ARC Linkage Grant of nearly AUD570,000 to support the AUD2 million (USD1.5 million) project.

Laser proton-boron fusion reactions are a radiation-free nuclear energy source, the researchers say, but have been limited by a low reaction rate due to a lack of efficient fuel materials. The project, which will be based at Deakin University's Institute for Frontier Materials in Geelong, aims to develop new fuel materials by synthesising boron-11 enriched hydrogen borides and hydrogen adsorbed boron nitride nanosheets. The expected outcomes of the research funded by the ARC grant include two new hydrogen storage nanomaterials, the associated new synthesis technologies and a clean and safe nuclear power source, which helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, HB11 said.

The fuels will be tested on various petawatt laser facilities around the world, as there are no such facilities in Australia, said HB11's Warren McKenzie, who is one of the project's chief investigators. Other collaborators come from the University of Rochester, University of Bordeaux, Queens University Belfast, University of Texas, UNSW and Macquarie University, he added.

The ARC Linkage Program promotes national and international research partnerships between researchers and business, industry, community organisations and other publicly funded research agencies.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

Policies must allow nuclear to play its vital role, says UNECE

11 August 2021

Nuclear power can be part of a broader portfolio alongside deploying other sustainable low- or zero-carbon technologies to decarbonise the global energy system and energy intensive industries, according to a new technology brief from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The publication highlights nuclear power as an important source of low-carbon energy that can contribute to attaining carbon neutrality and for policy-makers who wish to meet climate and sustainable development objectives using nuclear power should provide positive, long-term policy signals for new nuclear development.

The nuclear technology brief is one in a series of energy technology briefs published by UNECE to help mitigate climate change and accelerate deployment of low-carbon technologies. The new publication was prepared by the UNECE Task Force on Carbon Neutrality and a dedicated team of high-level international experts across the entire energy community. It reflects findings from the Workshop on the Role of Nuclear Energy to Attain Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region held on 23 November 2020, and the Subregional Workshop on Attaining Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region held on 24 November 2020.

"Nuclear power is an important source of low-carbon electricity and heat that contribute to attaining carbon neutrality," the document says. "They have played a major role in avoiding carbon dioxide emissions to date. Decarbonising energy is a significant undertaking that requires the use of all available low-carbon technologies. Analyses indicate that the world's climate objectives will not be met if nuclear technologies are excluded."

Some 292 nuclear power reactors are currently in operation in the UNECE region, accounting for 20% of total electricity generation and 43% of low-carbon generation. However, fossil fuels still account for over half of electricity generation in the UNECE region.

In the UNECE region, 20 countries currently operate power reactors, with nuclear accounting for over 30% of total electricity generation in 11 countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine). Fifteen countries have new reactors under construction or under development. Seven UNECE member States are in the process of developing nuclear power programmes for the first time.

The technology brief notes a number of countries - including Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Russia, Ukraine, the UK and the USA - have explicitly stated that nuclear power will play an important role in reducing their national emissions in the future. Belgium and Germany have announced their phase-out of the use of nuclear power, in 2025 and 2023 respectively.

Over 70 reactors have been shut down in the UNECE region since 2000, for political, economic or technical reasons. UNECE notes that, in most cases, these have been replaced at least partly by fossil-fuel power generation, therefore representing a setback for climate mitigation efforts. Preventing the premature closure of further nuclear power plants is seen by the International Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency as an urgent priority for addressing climate change.

Nuclear power has the potential to increase its integration with other low-carbon energy sources in a future decarbonised energy mix, the techology brief says. As nuclear power plants produce both low-carbon electricity and heat, they also offer opportunities to decarbonise energy intensive industries. For example, there is potential to scale up low or zero-carbon steel, hydrogen and chemical production to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors.

UNECE says nuclear power is a cost-competitive option for generating electricity in many parts of the world. Low-cost financing and market frameworks could lessen the burden of high up-front capital costs ranging from USD5-10 billion for large nuclear power plants. Future microreactors and small modular reactors (SMRs) are likely to be easier to finance and support technology interplay with variable renewable energy.

"For those countries who choose to implement this technology, nuclear power is an important source of low-carbon electricity and heat that can contribute to attaining carbon neutrality and hence help to mitigate climate change and attain the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” said UNECE Executive Secretary Olga Algayerova.

Favourable policies needed

UNECE says policy-makers who wish to meet climate and sustainable development objectives using nuclear power should: establish a level playing field for all low-carbon technologies; provide positive, long-term policy signals for new nuclear development; accelerate the development and deployment of SMRs and advanced reactor technologies; and secure the long-term operation of existing nuclear plants.

"This technology brief has been developed as part of UNECE's assessment of integrated approaches to meeting the world's climate objectives," said Scott Foster, director of UNECE's Sustainable Energy Division. "Our analyses show that our climate objectives cannot be met if technologies such as nuclear power are excluded. That reality creates an imperative for governments to put in place policy frameworks that deliver the world's social, environmental and economic objectives in an agnostic, technology-neutral way."

King Lee, vice-chair of the UNECE Group of Experts on Cleaner Electricity Systems, together with experts from nuclear and energy communities, supported the development of the brief as part of UNECE Carbon Neutrality project. Lee said: "The brief provides an overview of the important role of nuclear energy technologies - both existing large-scale reactors and innovative SMR technologies - as part of a low-carbon energy mix in providing a range of energy services, such as dispatchable electricity, district heating, high-temperature process heat and hydrogen production."

The publication of the nuclear technology brief was welcomed Sama Bilbao y León, director general of the World Nuclear Association.

"I applaud the UNECE for the publication of this technology brief on nuclear technology, which provides valuable insights for governments wishing to develop forward looking policy signals that facilitate new nuclear energy development," she said. "The thought leadership of governments and policymakers is essential to instil confidence and incentivise long-term planning and investment in nuclear energy projects, which could play a very important role helping decarbonise the entire economy in many countries."

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

What God, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Have in Common

Theories that try to explain these big metaphysical mysteries fall short, making agnosticism the only sensible stance

By John Horgan on August 14, 2021

Credit: Getty Images


In my 20s, I had a friend who was brilliant, charming, Ivy-educated and rich, heir to a family fortune. I’ll call him Gallagher. He could do anything he wanted. He experimented, dabbling in neuroscience, law, philosophy and other fields. But he was so critical, so picky, that he never settled on a career. Nothing was good enough for him. He never found love for the same reason. He also disparaged his friends’ choices, so much so that he alienated us. He ended up bitter and alone. At least that’s my guess. I haven’t spoken to Gallagher in decades.

There is such a thing as being too picky, especially when it comes to things like work, love and nourishment (even the pickiest eater has to eat something). That’s the lesson I gleaned from Gallagher. But when it comes to answers to big mysteries, most of us aren’t picky enough. We settle on answers for bad reasons, for example, because our parents, priests or professors believe it. We think we need to believe something, but actually we don’t. We can, and should, decide that no answers are good enough. We should be agnostics.

Some people confuse agnosticism (not knowing) with apathy (not caring). Take Francis Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Institutes of Health. He is a devout Christian, who believes that Jesus performed miracles, died for our sins and rose from the dead. In his 2006 bestseller The Language of God, Collins calls agnosticism a “cop-out.” When I interviewed him, I told him I am an agnostic and objected to “cop-out.”

Collins apologized. “That was a put-down that should not apply to earnest agnostics who have considered the evidence and still don’t find an answer,” he said. “I was reacting to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence.” I have examined the evidence for Christianity, and I find it unconvincing. I’m not convinced by any scientific creation stories, either, such as those that depict our cosmos as a bubble in an oceanic “multiverse.”

People I admire fault me for being too skeptical. One is the late religious philosopher Huston Smith, who called me “convictionally impaired.” Another is megapundit Robert Wright, an old friend, with whom I’ve often argued about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism. Wright once asked me in exasperation, “Don’t you believe anything?” Actually, I believe lots of things, for example, that war is bad and should be abolished.

But when it comes to theories about ultimate reality, I’m with Voltaire. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition,” Voltaire said, “but certainty is an absurd one.” Doubt protects us from dogmatism, which can easily morph into fanaticism and what William James calls a “premature closing of our accounts with reality.” Below I defend agnosticism as a stance toward the existence of God, interpretations of quantum mechanics and theories of consciousness. When considering alleged answers to these three riddles, we should be as picky as my old friend Gallagher.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Why do we exist? The answer, according to the major monotheistic religions, including the Catholic faith in which I was raised, is that an all-powerful, supernatural entity created us. This deity loves us, as a human father loves his children, and wants us to behave in a certain way. If we’re good, He’ll reward us. If we’re bad, He’ll punish us. (I use the pronoun “He” because most scriptures describe God as male.)

My main objection to this explanation of reality is the problem of evil. A casual glance at human history, and at the world today, reveals enormous suffering and injustice. If God loves us and is omnipotent, why is life so horrific for so many people? A standard response to this question is that God gave us free will; we can choose to be bad as well as good.

The late, great physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist, who died in July, slaps down the free will argument in his book Dreams of a Final Theory. Noting that Nazis killed many of his relatives in the Holocaust, Weinberg asks: Did millions of Jews have to die so the Nazis could exercise their free will? That doesn’t seem fair. And what about kids who get cancer? Are we supposed to think that cancer cells have free will?

On the other hand, life isn’t always hellish. We experience love, friendship, adventure and heartbreaking beauty. Could all this really come from random collisions of particles? Even Weinberg concedes that life sometimes seems “more beautiful than strictly necessary.” If the problem of evil prevents me from believing in a loving God, then the problem of beauty keeps me from being an atheist like Weinberg. Hence, agnosticism.

THE PROBLEM OF INFORMATION

Quantum mechanics is science’s most precise, powerful theory of reality. It has predicted countless experiments, spawned countless applications. The trouble is, physicists and philosophers disagree over what it means, that is, what it says about how the world works. Many physicists—most, probably—adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, advanced by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. But that is a kind of anti-interpretation, which says physicists should not try to make sense of quantum mechanics; they should “shut up and calculate,” as physicist David Mermin once put it.

Philosopher Tim Maudlin deplores this situation. In his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, he points out that several interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GRW model proposed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber; the pilot-wave theory of David Bohm; and the many-worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett. But here’s the irony: Maudlin is so scrupulous in pointing out the flaws of these interpretations that he reinforces my skepticism. They all seem hopelessly kludgy and preposterous.

Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. For positive perspectives on information-based interpretations, check out Beyond Weird by journalist Philip Ball and The Ascent of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf. But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information.

Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. Moreover, as far as we know, consciousness arises only in certain organisms that have existed for a brief period here on Earth. So how can quantum mechanics, if it’s a theory of information rather than matter and energy, apply to the entire cosmos since the big bang? Information-based theories of physics seem like a throwback to geocentrism, which assumed the universe revolves around us. Given the problems with all interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism, again, strikes me as a sensible stance.

MIND-BODY PROBLEMS

The debate over consciousness is even more fractious than the debate over quantum mechanics. How does matter make a mind? A few decades ago, a consensus seemed to be emerging. Philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his cockily titled Consciousness Explained, asserted that consciousness clearly emerges from neural processes, such as electrochemical pulses in the brain. Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that consciousness is generated by networks of neurons oscillating in synchrony.

Gradually, this consensus collapsed, as empirical evidence for neural theories of consciousness failed to materialize. As I point out in my recent book Mind-Body Problems, there are now a dizzying variety of theories of consciousness. Christof Koch has thrown his weight behind integrated information theory, which holds that consciousness might be a property of all matter, not just brains. This theory suffers from the same problems as information-based theories of quantum mechanics. Theorists such as Roger Penrose, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in Physics, have conjectured that quantum effects underpin consciousness, but this theory is even more lacking in evidence than integrated information theory.

Researchers cannot even agree on what form a theory of consciousness should take. Should it be a philosophical treatise? A purely mathematical model? A gigantic algorithm, perhaps based on Bayesian computation? Should it borrow concepts from Buddhism, such as anatta, the doctrine of no self? All of the above? None of the above? Consensus seems farther away than ever. And that’s a good thing. We should be open-minded about our minds.

So, what’s the difference, if any, between me and Gallagher, my former friend? I like to think it’s a matter of style. Gallagher scorned the choices of others. He resembled one of those mean-spirited atheists who revile the faithful for their beliefs. I try not to be dogmatic in my disbelief, and to be sympathetic toward those who, like Francis Collins, have found answers that work for them. Also, I get a kick out of inventive theories of everything, such as John Wheeler’s “it from bit” and Freeman Dyson’s principle of maximum diversity, even if I can’t embrace them.

I’m definitely a skeptic. I doubt we’ll ever know whether God exists, what quantum mechanics means, how matter makes mind. These three puzzles, I suspect, are different aspects of a single, impenetrable mystery at the heart of things. But one of the pleasures of agnosticism—perhaps the greatest pleasure—is that I can keep looking for answers and hoping that a revelation awaits just over the horizon.

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific America

Further Reading:

I air my agnostic outlook in my two most recent books, Mind-Body Problems, available for free online, and Pay Attention: Sex, Death, and Science.

See also my podcast “Mind-Body Problems,” where I talk to experts, including several mentioned above, about God, quantum mechanics and consciousness.
Rights & Permissions

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology. His books include The End of Science, The End of War and Mind-Body Problems, available for free at mindbodyproblems.com. For many years, he wrote the immensely popular blog Cross Check for Scientific American.

Conscious Reality Could Be A Controlled Hallucination Argues Neuroscientist


By Dr Alfredo Carpineti13 AUG 2021, 17:46

Understanding consciousness is a holy grail of science and philosophy and it underpins not just your personal experience, but every single social enterprise. We are human and we are conscious. But what is consciousness and how does it arises?

Neuroscientist Dr Anil Seth has an interesting approach in trying to explain how what we call consciousness is like. In a delightful and informative video, he argues that our brain “hallucinates” everything we sense, and that’s where consciousness comes from.

This idea is a hotly debated topic and hits at the heart of the complex quagmire of our understanding of consciousness. The first concept we have to become familiar with is qualia. Qualia are the subjective properties of experiences. The taste of a delicious pizza, the pain after you stub your toe on that darn coffee table, how blue the sky is. Those are all examples of qualia.

Dr Kai Hamburger and Katharina Graben have previously written in the journal Perception about the similarities and differences between illusion, hallucination, and indeed consciousness. From Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am) to the Matrix movie by Lana and Lilly Wachowski, consciousness and the idea of the self is unquestionable. But maybe the rest of reality is just a hallucination. One that we just happen to share with others.

Dr Seth’s approach starts right there on the definition of illusion and hallucination as well as the limitation of our perception. All the qualia boil down to electrical impulses, from our sensory organs to our central nervous system. If we consider our brain the seat of our consciousness, our experiences are not direct but mediated through the biological processes of our body.

“So perception -- figuring out what's there -- has to be a process of informed guesswork in which the brain combines these sensory signals with its prior expectations or beliefs about the way the world is to form its best guess of what caused those signals. The brain doesn't hear sound or see light. What we perceive is its best guess of what's out there in the world,” Dr Seth explains in the TED 2017 video.

They look different but the two squares marked with 'X' are actually the same color. A similar illusion is used by Dr Seth in his talk. Image Credit: Peter Hermes Furian/Shutterstock.com

The neuroscientist shows many sensorial illusions that truly make us question what is real. But it also provides us with some insight into how our brain operates. And that’s where his idea that the brain in a way hallucinates your conscious reality comes from.

“If hallucination is a kind of uncontrolled perception, then perception right here and right now is also a kind of hallucination, but a controlled hallucination in which the brain's predictions are being reined in by sensory information from the world,” Dr Seth explained in the talk. “In fact, we're all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It's just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.”

His approach is heavily based on our biological mechanism and this has three important implications. It suggests that the I think therefore I am is not as foolproof as one might think. If the external reality is conditional to our bias brain so it is our internal world. Secondly, if biology is key then we can’t just download our brain into a computer. And thirdly, our consciousness could just be a small fraction of what consciousness is truly like and the forms that might exist.

You can watch the full video below:

BIGFOOT IN CANADA Inside the hunt for proof — or at least a good photo
By Saba Aziz Global News
August 14, 2021

LONG READ

It’s been 54 years since two men captured the now-famous Bigfoot video, in which the legendary and camera-shy primate can supposedly be seen loping out of the woods in California.

Enthusiasts have been hunting for the mythical beast throughout Canada and the United States ever since. But as cameras and modern research methods have evolved, two questions still remain.

Does Bigfoot really exist? And if it does, why can’t anyone get a good photo of it?

READ MORE: ‘It’s silly’ — Director of Bigfoot movie thanks Alberta energy centre for controversy

Canadian Bigfoot hunters have been trying to answer that first question for decades. Some have devoted themselves to documenting every alleged encounter. Others have tried to find physical proof, such as hair, bones or a body. One person has even attempted to take the issue to court.


But after more than five decades, the search has yielded little more than a few blurry photos, a bunch of incredible stories and the certainty – at least among believers – that proof is right around the corner.

Here’s why some Canadians are still tracking the mythical Bigfoot, and what they need to finally put the big questions to rest.

Sasquatch watch

Todd Standing, 46, claims his first close encounter with a sasquatch (a.k.a. Bigfoot) was in 2005, and that it dramatically changed his life.

The filmmaker and wilderness guide from Edmonton says he saw a nine-foot-tall bipedal creature with a very human-like face high up in the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia. He says he saw it stand up and squat down.

His video of the sighting, posted to YouTube, has more than 300,000 views.

1:48 Bigfoot believer takes provincial government to court Aug 14, 2018

Since that initial alleged sighting, Standing claims he has shown the actual creature — in the furry flesh — to dozens of other people from all over the world on his paid guided tours. His numerous exploits have been featured on Canadian TV show Survivorman, as well as in his own 2017 documentary Discovering Bigfoot.

“Over 80 per cent of people I take out are either having a live interaction or a sighting with the sasquatch,” Standing told Global News.

“The species is clearly out here and they’re trying to communicate with us with the tree breaks and the signs that they leave behind.”

View image in full screen

Todd Standing pictured here during a sasquatch hunt in Nordegg, Alta., 2012.

Standing is not alone in his belief of the sasquatch’s existence; the story of Bigfoot is easily one of the most popular in North American folklore. The legend is rooted in Indigenous history, and the First Nations consider the creatures sacred.

Each tribe has its own set of beliefs. For the Sts’alies Nation on the West Coast, the sasquatch is a protector of their land and an entity not to be meddled with, while the Haida people view it as a supernatural being to be respected.

While most of Canada’s sasquatch sightings have been reported in B.C., there have been thousands in the territories, Manitoba and Ontario, and even a couple in Newfoundland and Labrador.



Indeed, the sasquatch “evidence” dossier is thick: there are alleged eyewitness accounts, grainy videos, audio recordings and even purported abductions, but all of it falls short of scientific proof that the sasquatch exists.

To date, the wildlife government agencies in Canada have not acknowledged the existence of sasquatch, and the mythical creature remains the stuff of campfire stories and conspiracy theorists.

Standing sought to prove otherwise, filing two lawsuits in 2018 — one in California and the other in B.C. — suing the fish and wildlife government agencies for not recognizing Bigfoot as an indigenous species. Both times he was unsuccessful in court.

“There’s just so much evidence out there. When you review the evidence, including with the DNA, it’s preposterous to think they don’t exist,” Standing said.

View image in full screen

Screengrab from alleged ‘Bigfoot’ video filmed in Radium, B.C., 2010. Photo supplied by Todd Standing

A 'big' problem

The Bigfoot saga has one big problem: There is no high-quality, airtight photographic proof.

READ 0N Bigfoot in Canada: Inside the hunt for proof — or at least a good photo - National | Globalnews.ca

Want to Slash Carbon Emissions? Start With These Power Plants

The worst 5 percent of energy producers account for almost 75 percent of the sector’s emissions.

Replacing the worst power plants with emissions-free alternatives would cut global carbon dioxide output by roughly 30 percent.PHOTOGRAPH: ALEX KRAUS/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

THE WORLD SEEMS to be simultaneously on fire and flooding, and the latest expert report indicates that we've just about run out of time to avoid even more severe climate change. All of that should have us looking for ways to cut carbon emissions as quickly and economically as possible.

Ars Technica

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica, a trusted source for technology news, tech policy analysis, reviews, and more. Ars is owned by WIRED's parent company, Condé Nast.

Some good news in that regard came via the recent release of a paper that looks at how much individual power plants contribute to global emissions. The study finds that many countries have facilities that emit carbon dioxide at rates well above either the national or global average. Shutting down the worst 5 percent of plants would immediately wipe out about 75 percent of the carbon emissions produced by electricity generation.

CARMA Revisited

It's easy to think of power generation in simple terms, like "renewables good, coal bad." To an extent, that statement is accurate. But it also compresses all power generation, from "somewhat bad" to "truly atrocious," into a single category. And it's clear from a variety of research that the situation is more complex. Depending on their vintage, different plants convert fossil fuels to power at varying degrees of efficiency. And some of the least efficient plants are only brought online during periods of very high demand; the rest of the time, they're idle and produce no emissions at all.

The interactions among these factors determine whether a given power plant is a major contributor to emissions or simply part of a country's background noise of carbon output. If we had a global inventory of emissions and production from every power plant, we could use that data to identify the worst offenders and make a target list for efficiently lowering our carbon output.

In fact, we did have one—emphasis on the past tense. Using data from 2009, someone had put together the Carbon Monitoring for Action database, or CARMA. Now, nearly a decade later, Don Grant, David Zelinka, and Stefania Mitova of the University of Colorado Boulder used 2018 data to build an update to CARMA, providing emissions data that is likely to be far more current.

The task was more difficult than it might seem. Some countries provide detailed emissions data on a per-plant level, so their data could simply be imported straight into CARMA. But many others do not. For those countries, the researchers relied on everything from production data obtained by the International Energy Agency to engineering specifications for individual plants.

When the researchers identified the largest sources of uncertainty in their data, they found that it mostly clustered in the smaller plants, which have the least impact on the overall emissions. For the large facilities that are likely to be major contributors, the data is usually very good.

The Worst of the Worst

It should surprise nobody that all the worst offenders are coal plants. But the distribution of the highest-polluting plants might include a bit of the unexpected. For example, despite its reputation as the home of coal, China has only a single plant in the top-10 worst offenders. In contrast, South Korea has three on the list, and India has two.

In general, China doesn't have many plants that stand out as exceptionally bad, in part because so many of its plants were built around the same time, during a giant boom in industrialization. As such, there's not much variance from plant to plant when it comes to efficiency. In contrast, countries like Germany, Indonesia, Russia, and the US all see a lot of variance, so they're likely to have some highly inefficient plants that are outliers.

Put a different way, the authors looked at how much of a country's pollution was produced by the worst 5 percent of its power plants, ranked by carbon emissions. In China, the worst 5 percent accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total emissions. In the US, the worst 5 percent of plants produced about 75 percent of the power sector's carbon emissions. South Korea had similar numbers, while Australia, Germany, and Japan all saw their worst 5 percent of plants account for roughly 90 percent of the carbon emissions from their power sectors.

FEATURED VIDEO
Scientist's Map Explains Climate Change


When it comes to carbon emissions, the worst 5 percent of power plants account for 73 percent of the total power sector emissions globally. That 5 percent also produces over 14 times as much carbon pollution as it would if the plants were merely average.

All Options Are Good

Obviously, finding ways to shutter the worst plants and replace them with emissions-free alternatives would cut the power sector's emissions by 73 percent and total emissions by about 30 percent. But that's not always possible, so the authors looked at several ways those plants could do better while continuing to produce electricity.

Simply boosting each plant's efficiency to the average for the country would drop power sector emissions by a quarter and up to 35 percent in countries like Australia and Germany. Switching them to natural gas, which produces less carbon dioxide per amount of energy released, would drop global emissions by 30 percent, with many countries (including the US) seeing drops of over 40 percent. Again, because China doesn't see a lot of variance among its plants, these switches would have less of an impact, being in the area of 10 percent drops in emissions.

But the big winner is carbon capture and storage. Outfitting the very worst plants with a capture system that was 85 percent efficient would cut global power sector emissions in half and total global emissions by 20 percent. Countries like Australia and Germany would see their power sector emissions drop by over 75 percent.

Overall, these are massive gains, considering that it's not unreasonable to think that the modifications could be done in less than a decade. And they show the clear value of targeting the easiest wins when it comes to lowering emissions. That could be accomplished by governmental planning, but placing a significant price on carbon could also force the private sector to plan based on emissions efficiency—something it currently has little or no incentive to do in many countries.

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.

Hydrogen hype: Climate solution or dead-end highway?

Fossil fuel-based hydrogen power is expensive, but "green" hydrogen can stimulate investment and growth in renewables

---

BY DAVID SUZUKI

Aug 11, 2021

audioundwerbung / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Around the turn of this century, hydrogen was big, especially in B.C. We were testing hydrogen fuel cell buses. Then-premier Gordon Campbell promised a “hydrogen highway” with a series of fuelling stations between Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler to enable zero-emissions bus transport – possibly extending to California by 2010.

There is no hydrogen highway. What happened? And why is hydrogen in the news again?  

Much has to do with how hydrogen is produced and used as fuel or to “carry” energy. Although it’s the simplest, most abundant element in the universe, on earth it’s only found in nature combined with other elements. It must be unlocked from sources like water (H2O = two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen) or methane (CH4 = one part carbon, four parts hydrogen). Separating hydrogen from water leaves oxygen. Separating it from methane leaves carbon and carbon dioxide.  

Most commercial hydrogen is obtained from fossil fuels using chemicals and heat, but water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen using electrolytic processes (with or without electricity from renewable energy). Researchers are also studying ways to split water with light or solar energy, and to use microbes such as bacteria and microalgae to produce hydrogen.  

As a fuel, hydrogen requires substantial new infrastructure, whereas electric vehicle charging can be facilitated easily anywhere there’s a grid. As an energy “carrier” – that is, it’s used to store or deliver energy produced from primary sources – it must be compressed or liquefied to be transported and used, which requires energy. 

Despite its drawbacks, the amount of hydrogen in methane has industry eyeing it as a potential lifeline and a way to appear “green.” Methane is a byproduct of oil and coal extraction, and “natural” gas is almost entirely methane. Industry and advocates have campaigned to convince governments and the public that fossil fuel-derived hydrogen is as good as that split from water using renewables – if carbon is removed and stored. 

That’s led to a distinction between “brown,” “grey,” “blue” and “green” hydrogen. The first is from coal. Grey is from fossil fuels without carbon capture and storage, which creates CO2 emissions. Blue is from fossil fuels with CCS. Green is split from water using renewable energy. 

Grey – mostly obtained with “steam methane reforming” – accounts for about 95 per cent of all commercially produced hydrogen worldwide. It’s inexpensive and relatively easy to produce and can use gas that would otherwise be wasted. It could become blue if the technology to store carbon byproducts were feasible and economically viable without creating additional ecological damage. 

On a large scale, electrolysis is known as “power-to-gas,” as electricity produced by renewable sources like wind and solar or fossil fuels is converted to hydrogen gas for transport and use. If renewable energy is used, only oxygen is emitted, making it green.  

Why is hydrogen used for?

Hydrogen has many applications – including energy-intensive long-haul freight, mining and industrial processes – and will likely be a key component in a decarbonized future. But we need to shift the dynamic so most or all is green. 

Even blue hydrogen is not emissions-free, as carbon capture doesn’t entirely eliminate emissions, and they’re also produced during fossil feedstock extraction, processing and transportation.  

Grey hydrogen offers no climate benefit. Hydrogen linked to costly and unproven small modular nuclear is problematic on many levels and would drive costs up.  

Green hydrogen can be produced at the renewable electricity generation site, or closer to end uses with grid infrastructure. It doesn’t require pipelines or carbon capture infrastructure, so hydrogen electrolysis plants can often be built quickly and cost-effectively. It can be used to channel large amounts of renewable energy from the power sector into those where electrification is difficult, such as transport, buildings and industry. And it can stimulate investment and growth in renewables for electrolysis and improve energy storage capabilities.  

Green hydrogen is also a better financial bet. Blue hydrogen’s costs are tied to expensive carbon capture facilities. Analysis by banking giant Morgan Stanley found plummeting wind energy prices could make government-supported green hydrogen more cost-competitive than fossil-dependent grey hydrogen by 2023.  

Canada’s Hydrogen Strategy identifies a “clean hydrogen economy” as “a strategic priority.” It’s time to recognize our competitive advantage and kick-start innovation and investment in green hydrogen. Fossil fuel-based hydrogen is an expensive dead end.  

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.            

Learn more at davidsuzuki.org. 

I Toured “The Best Damn [Natural Gas] Plant In The Fleet.” Two Years Later It Exploded.

Image courtesy of Mark Specht, UCS

Originally published by Union of Concerned Scientists, The Equation.
By, Mark Specht, Senior Energy Analyst

Two years ago, I went on a tour of the Russell City Energy Center, a natural gas power plant in California.

Two months ago, the power plant exploded, raining hunks of metal down on the surrounding neighborhood.

How did this relatively new and technologically advanced gas plant fail so catastrophically? Why is California racing to get this power plant back online? And what does this situation teach us about California’s energy challenges?

First, the tour. Then I’ll get to the explosion and its aftermath.
The tour: “the best damn plant in the fleet”

When I toured the power plant two years ago, I was impressed. For a gas plant, it was truly state-of-the-art. Built in 2013, Russell City Energy Center is a combined cycle power plant with two gas turbines and one steam turbine; the two gas turbines generate electricity by burning gas, while the steam turbine generates electricity with the waste heat from the gas turbines. The process of capturing waste heat to generate additional electricity makes the plant much more efficient, approximately 55–65% overall.

The plant is also equipped with advanced emission control technologies: low NOx burners and a selective catalytic reduction system to reduce air pollution emissions, particularly oxides of nitrogen (NOx). For a plant that burns fossil fuels, this is about as good as current technology can get; however, it’s not even close to being as clean as renewable energy.

(Don’t forget: natural gas power plants are not clean! They produce significant amounts of global warming emissions and still produce air pollution even when advanced emission control technologies are in use.)

This schematic shows how a combined cycle power plant operates. I’ll get to this later, but the part of the Russell City Energy Center that exploded and suffered significant damage was the steam turbine generator and the steam turbine (i.e. the parts around #3 on the diagram). BAAQMD

But there are a lot of combined cycle power plants out there with relatively advanced emission control technologies, so that’s not what made this plant special.

Russell City also has features that make it more flexible and more useful for the grid. For example, certain parts of the plant can be kept warm by what are essentially big electric blankets, and this makes the plant more flexible by allowing it to ramp up to higher levels of electricity generation more quickly. In addition, the power plant recently added black start capabilities, which allows the plant to start back up even when the grid is offline. (Yes, it turns out that gas plants need electricity to generate electricity, so Russell City installed backup batteries to give it the boost it would need to start on its own.)

And that’s not all. Even my wife, who is an academic specialized in water treatment systems, wanted to come along on the tour because the most advanced aspects of this power plant are actually its water systems. The plant uses up to four million gallons of water per day for cooling, but all of that water is treated wastewater, provided by the water treatment plant right next door. Russell City uses a couple additional processes to clean up the treated wastewater before using it in the power plant, then the really impressive part is that they have a zero liquid discharge system. So instead of discharging the water used by the power plant into the sensitive San Francisco Bay ecosystem, they have processes in place that essentially concentrate all the contaminants in the water then boil off the residual water until all that remains is solid waste (which is then sent to a landfill).

At the end of the tour, I stopped to take a picture of the sign at the entrance to the plant that read, “Welcome to the Best Damn Plant in the Fleet!” I also remember one of my colleagues telling me, “If we need some gas plants for a little while still, they should all be like this: the best of the best.” And while I think it’s definitely more complicated than that, I do think there’s a little bit of truth there.

But wait. This state-of-the-art gas plant, aka “the best damn plant in the fleet,” exploded two months ago … pardon my acronym, but WTF?

The explosion: cause unknown

Just before midnight on May 27, 2021, something went horribly wrong when part of the Russell City Energy Center exploded. Thankfully, no one was hurt by the explosion (or the ensuing fire) even though the explosion catapulted large hunks of metal hundreds of feet. Through sheer luck, the shrapnel didn’t hit any people or significantly disrupt the operation of critical water infrastructure right next door. However, there were some close calls: one hunk of metal pierced the roof of an unoccupied trailer at a navigation center for Hayward’s homeless residents and melted the carpet.

What caused the explosion? Multiple investigations are still underway, but initial statements from Calpine (the company that owns the power plant) pointed towards “a mechanical event inside the steam turbine generator compartment.” If that sounds like a vague and generally unhelpful explanation to you, then we’re on the same page!

But it does give us one important piece of information: the part of the plant that exploded was the part that generates additional electricity using the waste heat (in the form of high pressure steam) from the gas turbines. So, we at least know which part of the plant is broken.
The aftermath: controversy over restarting the plant

As you might have guessed, this catastrophic explosion caused extensive damage to the power plant, rendering the entire facility inoperable. However, only a week after the explosion, Calpine asked the California Energy Commission (CEC) for permission to make a few temporary modifications in order to safely restart the plant. Since the explosion apparently didn’t damage the gas turbines at all, Calpine wanted to install equipment that would allow the gas turbines to operate and completely bypass the damaged steam turbine. (For you energy nerds out there, that effectively turns what was a combined cycle power plant into a simple cycle or “peaker” power plant.)

The plan to restart the power plant was not without controversy. The power plant is located in the city of Hayward, and both the city and its community members fought back. The city argued it was premature to restart the power plant without conducting an investigation into the exact cause of the explosion and without studying the potential impacts on local air quality (which has been a controversial issue since the plant’s beginnings).

The city’s concerns about air pollution are not to be taken lightly, but it’s also by no means a simple issue. Because the plant will effectively be operating as a “peaker” plant, it seems likely that the plant will be dispatched for fewer hours, so it will run less and emit less air pollution. However, it’s also possible that the plant will start and stop more frequently, which produces more air pollution emissions than steady-state operation and could drive up emissions. All things considered (including the findings of a related analysis I conducted on power plant emissions), I suspect that overall emissions will not increase. But power plant dispatch is complicated, so it’s hard to say with certainty.

The city’s other concern was with restarting the plant before fully understanding the cause of the explosion. The city was particularly worried for the safety of the surrounding community because, as they put it, a “catastrophic explosion should not occur at such a young facility.” And I totally agree–the plant is only eight years old, so something obviously went very wrong, and it seems prudent not to restart it until we’re positive that the issue that caused the explosion in no way affects the parts of the plant that would resume operation.

But there’s another powerful force at play here.

California’s grid is currently in a precarious position, with barely enough generation capacity to get the state through the summer heat. The CAISO, the grid operator in most of California, has already had one close call, and they’ve been doing everything in their power to line up additional electricity generation for this summer.

Wanting the Russell City Energy Center back online ASAP, the CAISO threw in their support for the temporary power plant modifications that would allow the plant to come back online to provide 300-350 MW of capacity, roughly half of its 600 MW nameplate capacity. While 300-350 MW is not that much capacity in the grand scheme of things, when California experienced rotating power outages last August, the CAISO was only 500–1,000 MW short. So an extra few hundred megawatts could actually be the difference between a close call and more rotating power outages.

The CEC was faced with two bad choices: expedite the return to service of a power plant that had just exploded for reasons still unknown, OR keep the plant offline and jeopardize state-wide grid reliability. Ultimately, convinced by the prospect of more rotating power outages this summer, the CEC approved Calpine’s request to make temporary modifications that would bring the power plant back online ASAP.

Despite the unexplained explosion two months ago, the California Energy Commission voted to bring the Russell City Energy Center back online to shore up grid reliability. Photo: CEC

Some parting thoughts

California is in a bad spot right now. Because grid conditions are so tight and the state barely has enough power to get through the summer, California officials are pulling out all the stops to prevent rotating power outages from reoccurring. For example, Governor Newsom has gotten into the bad habit of waiving air pollution requirements, allowing backup generators (e.g., diesel backup generation at data centers) to run every time grid conditions get tight. Now, California regulators are rushing to get the Russell City Energy Center back online despite a massive and still unexplained explosion at the power plant only two months ago.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel: California regulators recently mandated the addition of a huge amount of clean generation capacity to the grid. When those resources come online, the state’s grid should be in a much better position. But it’s going to take at least a few years for the bulk of those resources to get built.

Until then, California is faced with nothing but bad choices. California officials are stuck choosing one of the bad options and hoping for … something better than the worst.

Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) And Hydrogen Paradises Are Fossil Fuel Delay Tactics

"Driving through Hell." Photo by Jose Pontes.


ByZachary Shahan 

CLEANTECHA

Published 2 days ago

I drafted this title before I saw the news break about a study that dismantles the “blue hydrogen” argument. In fact, a reader sent in the news within a minute or so of me drafting that title. The reason I was “inspired” to write this piece is that I keep seeing very serious people (and sometimes very humorous people) who are trying to do very good things for the future of humanity go out there and either promote carbon capture & storage (CCS) and hydrogen or at least put them on the table and treat them as parts of the puzzle. My problem with them is that I think they are very powerful and effective delay tactics, and my concern is that they have momentum on their side at the moment, especially the latter of the two.

The realm where this is a problem is not the realm of consumer technology and theoretical debates about what the future of energy looks like. The realm where this is a problem is the political and policy realm. Governments of the world have to help manage and guide major infrastructure and utilities, especially when it comes to essentials like energy and transport. Sometimes they do that well. Sometimes they make mistakes. Also, let’s be frank — not many world-leading engineers and physicists sit at the desk of great governmental power. They rely on experts for all variety of topics, including energy and infrastructure. And the problem is that a lot of nefarious, selfish, short-sighted “experts” can sneak their way into the decision-making room. So can some misguided experts who do indeed know a lot about the subject matter but somehow have a tendency to come to the wrong conclusions.

The smoke screens of CCS and hydrogen create two big problems. First of all, they are money dumps, sucking up government funding that could be used for truly helpful improvements and solutions — faster deployment of solar power, wind power, and EV charging stations; procurement of electric vehicles for governmental fleets; greater incentives for consumers to install energy efficiency, renewable energy, or electric vehicle technologies.

Secondly, both CCS and hydrogen hype tell people, “We don’t really have to change much. We can just capture the carbon and bury it. [No, it’s not that easy, and it’s also bloody expensive.] We can stick to a fuel-based transport system rather than switch to charging at home, work, and destination. [The latter is often actually more convenient, not less convenient, but don’t let that secret get out.]” The message with both is basically to not worry about anything, not do anything, and leave it to some obscure experts to solve all our problems for us in a few years. I can see why that’s tempting, but it is definitely misleading and counterproductive. Looking at it most cynically, the people who push so hard for CCS and hydrogen as our saviors could be specifically trying to delay the cleantech transition. Well, some of them no doubt are.

No matter if hydrogen and CCS pushers are lobbying for these because they are trying to delay real solutions, because they think everything should be on the table, or because they are some of the most climate-concerned citizens of the world and they’ve just been convinced that this is the magic we need, what we actually need is for people with the power to stop governments (and private investors, for that matter) from misguidedly putting billions of dollars into programs for these “solutions.” Those of us who have the power to do so also need to speak up and explain that we have cost-competitive solar, wind, battery, and pure electric car solutions that need to be deployed at the fastest pace possible — as if we are entering World War 3 and these are our weapons. We need to say that we don’t want our money wasted on faux solutions based on magical thinking that is overly complicated and not tied to economic realities.

A lot of money is going to go into climate solutions and potential climate solutions in the coming decade. Wasting a large percentage of that on fossil fuel delay tactics is not just a bad idea — it has the potential to destroy society to a level we’ve never seen.

Also, let’s remember, the absolute best things we can do are to drop fossil fuel vehicles (by biking, walking, or driving/riding in electric vehicles) and drop the use of fossil fuel generated electricity (most easily for those with their own roof, by going solar).