The dark side of renewable energy

Eco-Business: "Rare earth metals, hard-to-find materials, with unfamiliar names such as lanthanum, neodymium and europium, are used in wind and solar energy projects, but dwindling supplies could hinder a roll-out of low carbon technologies and slow China’s shift away from coal power.

These compounds, which are highly toxic when mined and processed, also take a heavy environmental toll on soil and water, posing a conundrum for policymakers in China, the world’s biggest producer and consumer of rare earths.   "

These Clean Energy Projects Pollute More Than Coal Power Plants

Bloomberg: "Gurmat, a developer based in Ankara, is studying how to inject the CO2 it produces back into the ground, according to Ali Karaduman, the company’s general manager. It’s also considering selling the gas to greenhouses, which can use it to stimulate plant growth. All the CO2 from its five plants is now released into the atmosphere."

Turning air into stone? Seriously? More magical thinking

The Economist: "Whether CarbFix-like schemes will work at the scale required for fossil-fuel power stations remains to be seen. In these, the main additional pollutant is sulphur dioxide, which has different chemical characteristics from hydrogen sulphide. Scrubbing may therefore still be needed. Another constraint is the supply of basalt. Though this rock is common, it is found predominantly on the ocean floor. Indeed, geologically speaking, Iceland itself is a piece of ocean floor; it just happens to be above sea level. There are some large basaltic regions on dry land, but they are not necessarily in convenient places.
Nevertheless, if the will were there, pipelines from industrial areas could be built to carry exhaust gases to this basalt. It has not, after all, proved hard to do the reverse—carrying natural gas by pipeline whence it is found to where it is used. It is just a question of devising suitable sticks and carrots to assist the process. How much those sticks and carrots would cost is crucial. But Dr Matter’s proof of the principle of chemical sequestration in rock suggests it would be worth finding out."

Oh my. More magical thinking. From a magazine that can tell you current-account balances all over the world, but does not know how to factor these costs into the net-energy of fossil fuels. Clean-up costs are rarely included in net-energy figures. In many cases these costs take the net-energy below zero.
That brings up the question, why would humans use energy that costs more than it yields? Answer, because costs can be deferred by allowing carbon emissions or postponed by increasing debt. What will be the result? The bill is coming due now.

Solar panel roads? Seriously? Think again.

TreeHugger: "Solar Roadways is engineering PV panels to withstand 40-ton vehicles going 80 miles an hour over them day and night for decades. How much more does it cost to make solar panels-already a bit pricey-totally indestructible? We're guessing a lot. And this all so we can avoid putting them someplace sensible, like on all those empty rooftops in America's sunnier climes, where cars and trucks don't drive and where there also happens to be an existing electrical grid for them to hook into.

We do expect a few angry comments about how we're misguided and don't really get the idea. But then again, the company has gotten lots of friendly press pick-up and a big pile of tax dollars for a totally batshit crazy plan, so we figure they've earned a bit of ribbing ."

It's not the type of cars that is annoying it's any car... @carfreecities

The Washington Post: "Battery-powered and driverless cars do not affect this situation to any great degree. They still demand too much street space for their movement and use too much energy. The movement of significant numbers of cars through the streets will always damage streets’ social use, regardless of how quiet and safe the cars may be. Only when people can stop in the middle of the street to talk without fearing what may be bearing down on them will we have fully restored the social function of streets."

New study: fully automating self-driving cars could actually be worse for carbon emissions

Vox: "Right now, driving involves a cost, in time, attention, and stress. Automation could reduce or eliminate that cost, leaving "drivers" free to do whatever they want. When the cost of a service declines, demand rises (this is known as the "rebound effect")."



'via Blog this'

Capitalism's crazy schemes to reduce CO2. They will try anything but #freetransit and #degrowth

The suddenly urgent quest to remove carbon dioxide from the air - The Washington Post: "“If you want to balance the books at this point, I don’t think you have a choice but to pull CO2 back that has already made it out,” Lackner said. “Or is about to make it out, because we are not overnight shutting down all the coal plants.”

But that turns out to be very hard to do. There are a wide variety of ideas for getting carbon out of the air — from little boxes like Lackner’s to specialized power plants that burn renewable biomass and stow the carbon away. But they all have costs and downsides — and they’re all part of a race to see whether any such technology can really be big enough, and cheap enough, to make a difference."