Reservoirs are a major source of global greenhouse gases, scientists say - The Washington Post: "The research, said Deemer, complicates the idea that hydropower is a carbon-neutral source of energy, although she stresses that the authors aren’t saying that they’re against using large bodies of water to generate energy through dams. Rather, they’re arguing that the greenhouse gas calculus has to be included in evaluating such projects.
This problem is not an entirely new one: A major 2000 study in BioScience raised this issue, and the International Hydropower Association on its website acknowledges that “While hydropower is a very low-carbon technology, it is known that some reservoirs in certain conditions can release quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas. Reservoirs can also, in other circumstances, act as carbon sinks.”"
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Why nation-by-nation carbon emission stats are misleading
Reporting Climate Science: "It should also be noted that imports and exports of energy products have an impact on CO2 emissions in the country where fossil fuels are burned: for example if coal is imported this leads to an increase in emissions, while if electricity is imported, it has no direct effect on emissions in the importing country, as these would be reported in the exporting country where it is produced."
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Carbon capture and storage a costly, risky distraction
Greenpeace International: "To actually deliver reductions, the emissions captured and injected must stay underground permanently. If leaked back into the atmosphere, they would only make climate change worse and threaten people and animals."
Friday, September 23, 2016
Ten Reasons Intermittent Renewables (Wind and Solar PV) are a Problem
Our Finite World: "what happens to world CO2 emissions when we ramp up intermittent renewables? As far as I can tell, it tends to raise CO2 emissions. One way this happens is by ramping up China’s economy, through the additional business it generates in the making of wind turbines, solar panels, and the mining of rare earth minerals used in these devices. The benefit China gets from its renewable sales is leveraged several times, as it allows the country to build new homes, roads, and schools, and businesses to service the new manufacturing. In China, the vast majority of manufacturing is with coal."
Friday, September 2, 2016
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 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. "
Friday, July 22, 2016
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."
Saturday, June 11, 2016
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.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.
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."
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
