Indonesia

Fossil Fuel Industry is weaker than ever. #auspol #qldpol #ClimateChange #StopAdani

Some rare good climate news: the fossil fuel industry is weaker than ever | Bill McKibben

Bill McKibbenThu 21 Jun 2018 20.00 AEST

From Wall Street to the pope, many increasingly see fossil fuels as anything but a sure bet.

That gives us reason to hope

The basic trajectory of the world away from coal and gas and oil is firmly underway.’ Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

If you’re looking for good news on the climate front, don’t look to the Antarctic. Last week’s spate of studies documenting that its melt rates had tripled is precisely the kind of data that underscores the almost impossible urgency of the moment.

And don’t look to Washington DC, where the unlikely survival of the EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, continues to prove the political power of the fossil fuel industry. It’s as if he’s on a reality show where the premise is to see how much petty corruption one man can get away with.

But from somewhat less likely quarters, there’s been reason this month for hope – reason, at least, to think that the basic trajectory of the world away from coal and gas and oil is firmly under way.

At the Vatican, the pope faced down a conference full of oil industry executives – the basic argument that fossil fuel reserves must be kept underground has apparently percolated to the top of the world’s biggest organization.

And from Wall Street came welcome word that market perceptions haven’t really changed: even in the age of Trump, the fossil fuel industry has gone from the world’s surest bet to an increasingly challenged enterprise.

Researchers at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis minced no words: “In the past several years, oil industry financial statements have revealed significant signs of strain: Profits have dropped, cash flow is down, balance sheets are deteriorating and capital spending is falling.

The stock market has recognized the sector’s overall weakness, punishing oil and gas shares over the past five years even as the market as a whole has soared.”

The IEEFA report labeled the industry “weaker than it has been in decades” and laid out its basic frailties, the first of which is paradoxical.

Fracking has produced a sudden surge of gas and oil into the market, lowering prices – which means many older investments (Canada’s tar sands, for instance) no longer make economic sense.

Fossil fuel has been transformed into a pure commodity business, and since the margins on fracking are narrow at best, its financial performance has been woeful.

The IEEFA describes investors as “shell-shocked” by poor returns.

And the third problem for the fossil fuel industry?

That would be the climate movement

The second weakness is more obvious: the sudden rise of a competitor that seems able to deliver the same product – energy – with cheaper, cleaner, better technologies.

Tesla, sure – but Volkswagen, having come clean about the dirtiness of diesel, is going to spend $84bn on electric drivetrains.

China seems bent on converting its entire bus fleet to electric power.

Every week seems to bring a new record-low price for clean energy: the most recent being a Nevada solar plant clocking in at 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour, even with Trump’s tariffs on Chinese panels.

And the third problem for the fossil fuel industry?

According to IEEFA, that would be the climate movement – a material financial risk to oil and gas companies. “In addition to traditional lobbying and direct-action campaigns, climate activists have joined with an increasingly diverse set of allies – particularly the indigenous-rights movement – to put financial pressure on oil and gas companies through divestment campaigns, corporate accountability efforts, and targeting of banks and financial institutions.

These campaigns threaten not only to undercut financing for particular projects, but also to raise financing costs for oil and gas companies across the board.”

The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, 190 miles outside Las Vegas. Photograph: Pedro Alvarez for the Observer

Hey, the movement against Kinder Morgan’s pipeline got so big, the Canadian government had to literally buy the thing in order to try and ram it through. Protesters will die, a former Bank of Canada governor predicted this week – though he added the country will have to muster the “fortitude” to kill them and get the pipeline built.

For activists, the best part of the IEEFA report is a series of recommendations for precisely how to hurt the industry the most, from creating delays that “turn a marginal project into a cancelled one” to “strategic litigation” to “changing the narrative”.

The report’s authors write: “The financial world is just beginning to understand the fundamental weakness of the fossil fuel sector, and barely acknowledges the global climate movement’s growing power and reach.

This has created a powerful opportunity to develop and foster a new storyline on Wall Street: that the oil and gas industry is an unstable financial partner just as it faces its greatest test.”

That’s work we’re capable of. If a few years of campaigning is enough to convince the pope we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, a few more quarters might finally persuade the suits that there’s more money to be made elsewhere. But speed is clearly of the essence. If massive losses of money loom over Wall Street, massive losses of polar ice loom over us all.

Bill McKibben is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and the founder of the climate campaign 350.org

This article originally appeared in The Grist

Press link for more: The Guardian

Advertisements

Future We Don’t Want: Billions at risk of climate-related heatwaves, drought, flooding, food shortages #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #ClimateChange

The Future We Don’t Want: Billions of urban citizens at risk of climate-related heatwaves, drought, flooding, food shortages and blackouts by 2050

New research reveals number of cities and citizens threatened by direct and indirect climate hazards if global greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked

Bold climate action by cities key to prevent 1.6 billion people being exposed to extreme heat; 800 million to coastal flooding and 650 million to droughts.

Download & explore the full research here.

Cape Town, South Africa (19 June 2018) — Billions of people in thousands of cities around the world will be at risk from climate-related heatwaves, drought, flooding, food shortages, blackouts and social inequality by mid-century without bold and urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, cities around the world are delivering bold climate solutions to avert these outcomes and create a healthier, safer, more equal and prosperous future for all urban citizens.

New research from C40 Cities, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, the Urban Climate Change Research Network (UCCRN) and Acclimatise predicts how many urban residents will face potentially devastating heat waves, flooding and droughts by 2050 if global warming continues on its current trajectory. The Future We Don’t Want – How climate change could impact the world’s greatest cities also looks at indirect climate impacts and estimates how climate change under a ‘business-as-usual scenario’ will impact urban food security and energy systems as well as the urban poor, who are most vulnerable to climate change.

Headline findings include that, by 2050

• 1.6 billion people living in over 970 cities, will be regularly exposed to extreme high temperatures.

• Over 800 million people, living in 570 cities, will be vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal flooding.

• 650 million people, in over 500 cities, will be at risk of water shortages due to climate change.

• 2.5 billion people will be living in over 1,600 cities where national food supply is threatened by climate change.

• The power supply to 470 million people, in over 230 cities, will be vulnerable to sea level rise.

• 215 million poor urban residents, living in slum areas in over 490 cities, will face increasing climate risks.

The Future We Don’t Want – How climate change could impact the world’s greatest cities also contains concrete examples of bold climate solutions that cities are delivering, which, if adopted at-scale, could help prevent the worst impacts of climate change. The research was launched at the Adaptation Futures conference in Cape Town, where representatives of cities around the world are sharing ideas on how to prepare and adapt their cities for the effects of climate change.

“For decades, scientists have been warning of the risks that climate change will pose from increasing global temperatures, rising sea levels, growing inequality and water, food and energy shortages. Now we have the clearest possible evidence of just what these impacts will mean for the citizens of the world’s cities, said Mark Watts, Executive Director C40 Cities. “This is the future that nobody wants. Our research should serve as a wake-up call on just how urgently we need to be delivering bold climate action.”

“For most C40 cities, the impacts of climate change are not a far off threat. From Cape Town to Houston, Mayors are seeing severe droughts, storms, fires and more,” said Antha Williams, Head of Environmental Programs at Bloomberg Philanthropies and C40 Board Member, “As this report shows, C40 mayors are on the front line of climate change, and the actions they take today–to use less energy in buildings, transition to clean transportation and reduce waste—are necessary to ensure prosperity and safety for their citizens.”

“Climate change is already happening and the world’s great cities are feeling the impact. Cape Town is facing an unprecedented drought, but thanks to the efforts of our citizens to adapt, we have averted Day Zero, when we would have had to switch off most taps,” said Patricia de Lille, Executive Mayor of Cape Town and Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy Board Member. “The lessons from Cape Town, and from this important new research is that every city must invest today in the infrastructure and policies that will protect citizens from the future effects of our changing global climate.”

Many of the solutions being delivered by cities, as well as regional governments, investors and businesses to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, will be showcased at the Global Climate Action Summit, taking place in San Francisco, September 12-14th, 2018.

Press link for more: C40.org

Coal Is Being Squeezed Out of Power by Cheap Renewables #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani

Reed Landberg19 June 2018, 10:00 pm AEST

Coal will be increasingly squeezed out of the power generation market over the next three decades as the cost of renewables plunges and technology improves the flexibility of grids globally.

That’s the conclusion of a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which estimated some $11.5 trillion of investment will go into electricity generation between now and 2050.

Of that, 85 percent, or $9.8 trillion, will go into wind, solar and other zero-emissions technologies such as hydro and nuclear, the London-based researcher said.

Better batteries, which allow grid managers to store power for times when it’s neither breezy nor sunny, will allow utilities to take advantage of plunging costs for solar panels and wind turbines.

The ability of natural gas plants to work at a few minutes notice means the fuel will become the choice for most utilities wanting guaranteed generation capacity.

“Coal emerges as the biggest loser in the long run,” said Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF. “Beaten on cost by wind and PV for bulk electricity generation, and by batteries and gas for flexibility, the future electricity system will reorganize around cheap renewables.”

The chart below shows renewables taking dominant market shares in all of the world’s biggest electricity markets by 2050, reflecting both government policies to curb emissions and improving economics for wind and solar.

Powered By Renewables

Key economies are expected to be running on at least 50% clean energy

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance

BNEF’s forecasts compare with International Energy Agency’s most optimistic scenario for electricity generation, envisioning clean energy and fossil fuels reaching parity at 50 percent of the market each in 2025. The Paris-based institution’s central forecast puts the two on par by 2040, and fossil fuels would retain about a two-thirds share of generation by then if governments make no further steps to tighten regulations, the IEA says.

BNEF’s outlook, set out in the graphs below, shows renewables are likely to end up dominating power generation by 2050, taking about the same share of the industry then that natural gas and coal enjoy now.

BNEF’s scenario, set out in a 150-page annual report drawing on the expertise of 65 analysts worldwide, is based on country-by-country modeling of how the electricity market will evolve as well as forecasts for costs of different power generation technologies.

Gas will keep much of its market share, BNEF says. The nature of plants being built in the future will shift to peaker units that utilities can switch on and off quickly and away from the baseload plants that tend to operate around the clock. The chart below shows BNEF’s forecast that utilities will burn much less coal over time.

Coal’s Decline

Power stations are predicted to burn a lot less coal in the future

The decline of coal won’t be enough to dramatically alter the picture for a gradual increase in global temperatures in excess of the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times that has become the United Nations climate target.

“Even if we decommission all the world’s coal plants by 2035, the power sector would still be tracking above a climate-safe trajectory, burning too much unabated gas,” said Matthias Kimmel, energy economist at BNEF.

Even without tighter environmental rules, renewables will be increasingly attractive to utilities if only because of their falling costs. Building wind and solar farms will become much cheaper by 2040, according to the BNEF estimates, while traditional nuclear and coal projects become more costly.

Crash Course

The cost of solar and wind power is expected to keep plummeting

With solar energy, the amount of capacity being installed is rising as overall capital costs decline, BNEF estimates.

Press link for more: Bloomberg

New report examines coal’s future outlook, and it isn’t pretty #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #ClimateChange

New Bloomberg forecast sees 17-fold rise in solar by 2050, and an $8.4 trillion investment in renewables.

Jun 20, 2018, 12:20 pm

Solar Panels and wind turbines in Palm Springs. March 2015. Connie J. Spinardi/Getty Images

The era of fossil fuel dominance in power generation “is coming to an end,” concludes Bloomberg NEF in its new forecast: “Cheap renewable energy and batteries fundamentally remake electricity systems around the world.”

Bloomberg’s 150-page New Energy Outlook (NEO) 2018 released Tuesday projects that wind and solar will combine to provide 48 percent of global power generation in 2050, while coal will slump to 11 percent. And this will happen without any new climate policies, simply because renewables are becoming the cheapest power source.

“Coal is the biggest loser,” notes Bloomberg in the new forecast. This is a complete reversal from historical trends.

Solar and wind power crush coal by 2050 in new Bloomberg forecast

The on-going revolutions in renewables and batteries are driving this reversal.

First, the stunning drop in solar and wind prices of the last three decades is expected to continue for the next three, says Bloomberg. By 2050, the cost of electricity from solar farms will drop another 71 percent, and for wind power, it will fall another 58 percent.

Stunning drops in solar, wind costs mean economic case for coal, gas is ‘crumbling’

Second, Bloomberg NEF projects that lithium-ion battery prices — which dropped  almost 80 percent since 2010, will drop another 66 percent by 2030. This is driven by a quantum leap in global electric vehicle (EV) sales, from a record 1.1 million last year to a projected 30 million in 2030.

“The economic case for building new coal and gas capacity is crumbling,” warns Bloomberg, as batteries begin to provide renewables more flexibility, including the ability to shift power to peak usage times.

Why electric cars will soon be superior to gasoline cars in every respect

The result is “coal gets squeezed out,” with total consumption in the power sector dropping by more than half in the next three decades.

Meanwhile, “gas consumption for power generation remains flat out to 2050.” But gas does play “a key role, however, in backing up renewables.”

As a result of all of these shifts, heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector are expected to remain flat for the next decade and then drop nearly 40 percent by 2050.

But despite all this, Bloomberg notes, emissions would still be much too high to keep total warming below 2°C (3.6°F), which is the point at which impacts from climate change shift rapidly from dangerous to catastrophic (see chart).

Global power sector CO2 emissions under 3 scenarios.

In fact, if the world phased-out all coal plants between 2025 to 2035, “the power sector would still be tracking above a climate-safe trajectory,” explains Bloomberg NEF energy economics analyst, Matthias Kimmel. We’d still be “burning too much unabated gas.”

Such a phase-out, would, however, keep us close to a 2-degree pathway. It would  also help ensure that the shift toward vehicles running on electricity would be accompanied by a significant reduction in CO2 emissions, too.

But the fact is that we are going to have to start phasing out natural gas by the mid-2030s. The renewable energy revolution and the battery revolution are remarkable, but they don’t replace strong national and global climate policy if we are to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.

Press link for more: Think Progress

Slamming the brakes on large-scale infrastructure projects #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #ClimateChange

Slamming the brakes on large-scale infrastructure projects

Catherine Harte | 20th June 2018

At least half of the large-scale infrastructure projects being proposed today are a bad idea, argues a leading scientist who has spent nearly forty years studying building around the world.

“And when I say ‘bad’, I don’t just mean bad for the environment,” says Distinguished Professor Bill Laurance from James Cook University in Australia. “I mean bad for economies, bad for societies, and bad for project investors.”

Professor Laurance has summarised decades of research on the costs and benefits of big infrastructure projects – such as major highways, railroads, hydropower dams and industrial mines – in an article in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

Just plain foolish

“It’s vital to understand the realities because we’re living in the most explosive era of infrastructure expansion in human history,” said Laurance.

“Most new infrastructure projects are occurring in developing nations, which direly need smart development and investment. But many proposed projects are just plain foolish.

“For starters, widespread corruption completely distorts things. Projects that should never proceed get approved because government decision-makers are being paid off by project proponents.

“And the economic benefits of big projects are often grossly unfair—a few power brokers and their cronies are becoming fabulously wealthy, while most people see little benefit or even fall behind. That’s not smart development.”

He added: “In environmental terms, we’re seeing new projects tear into the most vulnerable ecosystems on the planet.

Hidden risks

“For example, in parts of the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America, our research team is seeing Chinese-backed roads, dams, and mines happening in places that no rational investor should be touching.

“Investors assume they understand the risks and rewards of big projects. But far too often there are shoals of hidden risks, and projects that sound highly promising can turn into shipwrecks.

He concluded: “Just look around. You see big projects failing all the time. Nations are incurring big debts, investors are losing money, the environmental damage is appalling, and most of all, the average person isn’t getting ahead.

“The vital thing is to slow down the big projects. Delay them so there’s time for vital information to be disclosed and the public to debate the merits of each project.

“When the public understands what’s happening—what’s really happening—you’ll see a lot of bad projects disappear.”

This Author

Catherine Harte is a contributing editor to The Ecologist. This story is based on a news release from James Cook University, Australia.

Press link for more: The Ecologist

Health Care Without Harm praises American Medical Association divestment decision. #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #divest #ClimateChange #AirPollution

Health Care Without Harm praises American Medical Association divestment decision

News posted by nknock@hcwh.org on June 14, 2018

Health Care Without Harm congratulates the American Medical Association (AMA) on their recent commitment to divest their financial holdings from toxic fossil fuels.

AMA’s House of Delegates’ adoption of a resolution “to end all financial investments or relationships (divestment) with companies that generate the majority of their income from the exploration for, production of, transportation of, or sale of fossil fuels” is a critical step toward ensuring health care providers first do no harm.

“It is meaningful that the American Medical Association…is saying to the dirty fuels industry now just what it said to tobacco a generation ago: You are killing our patients and we will not allow it anymore,” noted Todd Sack, MD, co-author of the divestment resolution.

From extraction to combustion, fossil fuels pose a direct threat to the health of our communities.

The air pollution from fossil fuels alone causes 200,000 premature deaths each year in the United States, and the closing of coal-fired power plants has been shown to generate immediate health improvements.

Carbon pollution from fossil fuels is also the leading cause of climate change, contributing to more intense and more frequent storms, growing vector-borne diseases and heat-related illnesses, as well as increased food and water scarcity.

Health professionals have a moral obligation not to benefit financially from an industry that endangers human health.

By choosing not to invest in companies that profit from pollution, members of the American Medical Association are fulfilling their responsibility to protect the health of their patients and communities.

AMA’s decision to divest also sends a strong message to all health professionals and medical societies that, just as the health sector divested from tobacco as a matter of professional ethics, the time has come to end all investments in harmful fossil fuels.

Peter Orris, MD, Health Care Without Harm senior advisor, stated, “With the AMA joining the British Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association, and the World Medical Association in this action, we can now securely bring this unified message to health organizations, policymakers, and civic society in general throughout the world.”

Letter to the editor template for health professionals on AMA divestment

This template was created by Health Care Without Harm for health professionals to submit to their local newspaper’s Letters to the Editor section. You are encouraged to edit the text below to make it more relevant to readers in your community.

Dear Editor,

As a [physician or nurse], I was pleased to hear the news that the American Medical Association has chosen to divest from toxic fossil fuels. In doing so, the AMA is part of a growing movement that already includes the World Medical Association, British Medical Association, and Canadian Medical Association, all of which have divested their assets from fossil fuel companies. In the 1990s, leading health organizations divested their tobacco holdings to bring attention to the harm caused by smoking. Now, such organizations are committing to divest from an another industry that profits by making us sick.

From extraction to combustion, fossil fuels pose a direct threat to the health of our communities. Air pollution from fossil fuels alone causes 200,000 premature deaths each year, but the closing of coal-fired power plants has been shown to generate immediate health improvements. Carbon pollution from fossil fuels is also the leading cause of climate change, which contributes to increased insect-borne and heat-related illnesses; food and water scarcity; and injuries, deaths and mental health impacts from extreme weather events. As health care providers, we have a moral obligation not to support an industry that causes so much harm.

It is time for all health organizations to honor our responsibility to our healing mission by divesting from fossil fuels. Our policymakers must also follow the advice of medical experts and make the decision to invest in clean energy for our health and for the health of our children and future generations.

Thank you,

[your name and professional title]

Tips for getting published and making an impact:

• Be sure to read carefully the requirements for your local newspaper’s letter-to-the-editor submissions and follow the instructions, including word count limits.

• Instead of the general health effects of pollution and climate change, edit this template to include the specific impacts you see in your daily practice as a health professional in your region.

• Rather than closing with a general call to action, edit this template to include a specific recommendation. For example, name local policymakers or proposed city or state policies to increase renewable energy.

Press link for more: No Harm

The Truth About Coal #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #ClimateChange

This is the Truth About Coal

Gavin Dillingham19 Jun 2018

There has been a recent push to revive US coal-fired power plants in the name of electric power resilience and reliability.

Why is this a bad idea?

It is a bad idea for several reasons.

Following is a list of the top 4 reasons why coal is a bad idea

Electricity from Coal Plants is More Expensive

Coal requires all of us to pay more on our energy bills.

It’s expensive compared to most other forms of power from renewable energy to natural gas.

According to Lazard’s most recent report on the unsubsidized levelized cost of energy, the lowest cost coal plant is $60/MWh this is in comparison to wind at $30/MWh, gas combined cycle at $42/MWh and utility scale solar at $43/MWh.

When there is an apples to apples comparison between coal and renewable energy.

This means that we are looking at plants that produce the same amount kWh per year, coal is much higher than solar and significantly higher than solar. The facts demonstrate that coal is more expensive than most other viable options.

Keep in mind that this is unsubsidized costs, none of the “unfair” investment tax credits or production tax credits are included in this price.

Further, this does not include the social and environmental costs that come from coal.

That is covered later.

Coal Plants are a Public Health Nuisance

Speaking of social and environmental costs, coal power plants emit mercury and a variety of other greenhouse gas emissions that should be properly accounted for.

The key concern here is the amount of mercury emitted by coal plants. which can result in significant health risks.

According to a recent EPA analysis, over 42% of mercury emissions in the United States come from coal fired power plants. Overall 50% of mercury emissions comes from fossil fuel plants. This does not include all of the other dioxins and heavy metals that come from primarily coal plants. Below you can see the dispersion of mercury/toxic emitting power plants.

EPA – Toxic Rule Facilities

The problem with mercury is that it significantly increases a community’s health risk. High levels of mercury emitted from power plants can harm brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and immune systems of people of all ages. Further, mercury from power plants has been found to have a significant negative impact on a baby’s development, with particular impacts to a baby’s nervous system.

Coal Plants are not that Resilient

Coal power plants are not as resilient as some would like us to believe. Coal plants and the supply chain that gets coal to the power plants are highly susceptible to cyber, physical and climate risks. A recent study by the National Academies of Science titled Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy found that ““The rail net­works that transport the nation’s coal—like air traffic control and electric trans­mission networks—have an inherent fragility and instability common to complex networks. Because con­cerns about sabotage and terrorism were largely ignored until recently, existing networks were created with potential choke points [like some rail bridges over major rivers]…that cause vulnerabili­ty…[and] the potential for small-scale issues to become large-scale disruptions.”

Climate Change May Hurt Rail System

The Department of Energy further elaborates on the fragility of coal transport by finding  “Hardly a month goes by that delivery of Powder River Basin (PRB) coal somewhere in the supply chain is not interrupted by a derailment, freezing, flooding, or other natural occurrence.” Climate change is likely to increase heat that buckles rails, floods and storms that undermine tracks, and extreme weather that spikes electric demand. Meanwhile, utilities, having cut coal inventories threefold during 1980–2000 to save cost, keep trying to squeeze out more cost, exacerbating risk.” A recent example of coal not being that fuel secure was the Texas WA Parish plant. During Hurricane Harvey, the plant had to switch from coal to natural gas due to saturated coal piles. Those proponents for coal should also recall the Polar Vortex that resulted in frozen coal piles. You can’t burn frozen coal.

One other thing, coal or any other water-cooled power generation system can’t operate or at least not very efficiently when the water is too warm or there is not enough water to cool the plant. I covered this in a recent blog post on the power sector having a significant water problem.

Climate Change Induced Lack of Water Reduces Power Resilience

Coal Plants are Significant Greenhouse Gas Emitters

Can’t forget this one. Coal power plants emit significant greenhouse gas emissions. In the US, coal accounts for 67% of greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector. Of the total greenhouse gas emissions, 28% comes from electric power generation. Granted, overall GHG emissions have come down due to fuel switching since 1990, but not by much. This largely due to much of the switching is to natural gas, another greenhouse gas contributor, although not as large of one. Also, there have some increases in demand across parts of the country which has limited overall reduction.

Coal Power Plant’s Climate Change Problem

The current administration has not made the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. By not making this connection, that cannot see that sustaining or increasing emissions will result in a significant increase in storm intensity that will negatively impact the overall power system, i.e. hurt system resilience. Storm intensity, demonstrated by Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Harvey, Irma and Maria, the Polar Vortex, to name a few, is anticipated to significantly increase under current greenhouse gas projection scenarios. If the concern of the administration is resilience of our power system due to extreme storms, there probably should be some effort to reduce the likelihood of this intensity by reducing the cause.

To Conclude

There are four really good reasons why coal fired power plants may not be the best option for a resilient and reliable grid. This was just a high-level overview. Each of these topics could be their own posts. For the long-term resilience of our electric power system, it is key that we not look to short-term fixes to the detriment of long-term health, economic and environmental well-being.

Press link for more: 750 Astrodomes

Gorgon gas plant could wipe out a year’s worth of Australia’s solar emissions savings #auspol #qldpol #climatechange #LNG #StopAdani

How the Gorgon gas plant could wipe out a year’s worth of Australia’s solar emissions savings

By Kathryn Diss

Photo: Australia’s LNG production has jumped in recent years. (Reuters)

The combined greenhouse gas emissions saved by all of Australia’s solar panels in a year could be wiped out because of technical problems at a single oil and gas project in Western Australia.

It is just one example of a broader problem facing the nation as it tackles the massive challenge of meeting its Paris Agreement commitment to reduce 2005 emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030.

Chevron began operating its $US54 billion ($73 billion) Gorgon gas plant in the state’s north-west in 2016.

Part of its environmental agreement was to capture and store underground 40 per cent of the plant’s emissions through a sophisticated process known as geosequestration or carbon capture and storage.

This involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), typically produced by large industrial plants, before it enters the atmosphere.

It is then compressed and injected deep into rock formations for permanent storage.

Video: The Gorgon carbon capture process explained (ABC News)

Chevron predicted that process would have seen between 5.5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 injected into the ground during the plant’s first two years of production from the Gorgon field, making it one of the largest carbon abatement activities in the world.

Instead, technical problems with seals and corrosion issues in the infrastructure have delayed CO2 storage and the Federal Government, which contributed $60 million towards the green technology, is not expecting the problem to be rectified until March 2019 — about two years after production began from the Gorgon gas field.

By that point, experts including energy consultancy firm Energetics predict the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere will be roughly equivalent to the 6.2 million tonnes in emissions saved in a year by all the solar panels in the country combined — from small household rooftop systems to major commercial installations.

In the meantime, all those emissions supposed to be injected underground are being vented into the atmosphere.

Solar power gains wiped out

Almost 2 million Australian households have installed solar panels to cut their power bills while also doing their bit for the environment. Households account for most of the country’s total solar panel emission savings.

Embed: Datawrapper – Growth in solar installations

“The volume of pollution coming out of the Chevron project far outweighs the savings of carbon pollution from rooftop solar,” Climate Analytics chief executive Bill Hare said.

Dr Hare, a physicist and climate scientist of 30 years, founded Berlin-based research organisation Climate Analytics and has helped negotiate several international climate policies, including the Paris Agreement in 2015.

“Many people have proudly put solar panels on their roofs, not just to save on their power bills but to do something for the climate,” he said.

Embed: Datawrapper – Australians avoiding more carbon emissions

“I think that was a big promise, there’s a fair bit of public funding which has gone into supporting the company in developing this technology and deploying it.”

Chevron declined to comment on the comparison but reiterated it was committed to safe commissioning of the storage plant to achieve high injection rates over the life of the project.

“Our focus is on the safe commissioning and start-up of the carbon dioxide injection project and achieving a high percentage of injection over the 40-year life of the Gorgon project,” a company spokeswoman said.

“We have been keeping the relevant government agencies informed as to the progress of the commissioning of the Gorgon carbon dioxide injection project.”

Failure could cost Chevron tens of millions

Western Australia’s Environment Minister, Stephen Dawson, has ordered the state’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to investigate the delay and determine whether the company can meet the key condition that at least 80 per cent of CO2 extracted from the project’s gas reservoirs is captured over a five-year rolling average.

“There’s different views between … government and industry about when it should start,” Mr Dawson said.

“So what I’ve sought from the EPA is for them to reassess the issue and give me some definitive advice about when the start date was so we can make sure that (the) proponent is doing what they’re supposed to do.”

But industry watchers believe the target is now unachievable.

“At the end of the first five years it will have failed the environmental conditions on the project”, said Simon Holmes a Court, senior adviser at the Energy Transition Hub at Melbourne University.

“Given they’re already a year behind and likely to be two years behind, at best they will be sequestering 60 per cent. So as things stand Chevron is already planning to be breach of the ministerial statement.”

Photo: Chevron’s Gorgon gas project on Barrow Island. Date unknown. (Supplied: Chevron)

If the company doesn’t meet the requirement it is meant to find alternative offsets, but experts are worried the goalposts will be moved.

Climate change consultant Greg Bourne, the former energy adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and regional president for BP Australasia, warned governments against backing off.

“These sorts of issues can set very, very dangerous precedents,” he said.

“They should be required to purchase [carbon] offsets equivalent to the same volume they were expected to inject over the first five-year period.

“Now that’s going to be expensive, but why would they be allowed to get off scot-free?”

If put in monetary terms, offsetting that much CO2 would costs tens of millions of dollars a year in carbon credits.

A review is also underway into the emissions conditions placed on Chevron’s other major north-west WA project — Wheatstone.

Conditions imposed on that project by the WA Government were waived by the previous government of Colin Barnett when the Clean Energy Act came into effect in 2011.

But given the Act was later repealed, the WA Government is re-examining if the company should be offsetting more of its greenhouse gases.

While no other major oil and gas company operating in Australia has tackled such a complex project like carbon capture and storage, other players in the market such as Woodside, INPEX and ConocoPhillips are reducing emissions from various projects with locally generated offsets.

Press link for more: ABC.NET.AU

James Hansen: “I’m sorry we’re leaving such a f.cking mess” #auspol #qldpol #ClimateChange #StopAdani

Listening to James Hansen on Climate Change, Thirty Years Ago and Now

Elizabeth Kolbert

On June 23, 1988—a blisteringly hot day in Washington, D.C.—James Hansen told a Senate committee that “the greenhouse effect has been detected and is changing our climate now.” At the time, Hansen was the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and though his testimony was certainly not the first official warning about the “greenhouse effect”—a report to President Lyndon Johnson, in 1965, predicted “measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate” in the decades to follow—it was the first to receive national news coverage.

The Times ran the story at the top of the front page, with a graph showing a long-term rise in average global temperatures.

This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of Hansen’s testimony, and it would be hard to think of a more lugubrious milestone.

In the intervening three decades, nearly half of the Arctic ice cap has melted away, the oceans have acidified, much of the American West has burned, lower Manhattan, South Florida, Houston, and New Orleans have flooded, and average temperatures have continued to climb.

Just last week, a team of scientists reported in Nature that the rate of melt off Antarctica has tripled in the past decade; as the Washington Post put it, “If that continues, we are in serious trouble.” (Were the Antarctic ice to melt away entirely, global sea levels would rise by two hundred feet; if just the more vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea levels would rise by about ten feet.) Also last week, scientists reported that most of Africa’s oldest baobab trees have died, probably because of climate change, and last month researchers showed that rising CO2 levels were reducing the nutrient content of rice, which is probably the single most important food source for people.

Yet Washington continues to ignore the problem, or, worse still, to actively impede efforts to address it.

How can this be?

A possible answer, which seems to be the one that Hansen himself, at least in part, subscribes to, is that scientists are to blame.

Hansen is now seventy-seven and retired from NASA.

He recently told the Associated Press that he regrets not being “able to make this story clear enough for the public.”

Many climate scientists seem similarly to believe that they are not good at conveying information to lay audiences, and, as a result, dozens of Web sites and several whole organizations have been created to help them communicate better.

As someone who has interviewed a lot of climate scientists—including, on several occasions, Hansen—I can attest that, as a group, they are not particularly good at expressing themselves. (I once wrote a Profile of Hansen, and watched him lose even audiences predisposed to adore him.) But thirty years into the so-called climate debate—fifty-three years, if you go back to the report to L.B.J.—I also think it’s time to put this particular story line to rest.

Back in 1988, just about the only information available on climate change was written in the dry-as-standard-deviations style of academic science.

The following year, Bill McKibben published the first book on the subject aimed at a popular audience, “The End of Nature.” Since then, more generally accessible books have been written on the climate than even the most avid reader could possibly keep up with; these include kids’ books, comic books, and even a coloring book. Meanwhile, countless newspaper and magazine articles, television specials, and documentaries have appeared on the topic. Above all, climate change has become obvious. You don’t need to read or watch or hear about it; in many parts of the world, all you have to do is look around. The southwestern United States, for instance, is currently experiencing such a severe drought that water restrictions are in place and many national forests are closed. “Thirty years ago, we may have seen this coming as a train in the distance,” Deke Arndt, the chief of climate monitoring at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration center in Asheville, North Carolina, recently told the A.P. “The train is in our living room now.”

Instead of using this anniversary to lament the failures of climate scientists, I’d like to propose that we use it to celebrate—well, “celebrate” probably isn’t quite the right word, but maybe recognize—their successes.

Three decades ago, led by Hansen, they made a series of predictions; for the most part these have proved to be spectacularly accurate.

That we, the general public, have failed to act on these predictions says a lot more about us than it does about them.

I happened to interview Hansen last year, for a video project.

I asked him if he had a message for young people. “The simple thing is, I’m sorry we’re leaving such a fucking mess,” he said.

Could the message be any clearer than that?

Press link for more: New Yorker

Early #climatechange whistleblower never predicted nasty political climate #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani

In this May 9, 1989 file photo, Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, testifies before a Senate Transportation subcommittee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

AP Photo/Dennis Cook

WASHINGTON — When it comes to global warming, America’s (And Australia’s) political climate may have changed more than the Earth’s over the past three decades.

NASA scientist James Hansen put the world on notice about global warming on June 23, 1988.

Looking back, he says: “I was sufficiently idealistic that I thought we would have a sensible bipartisan approach to the problem.”

After all, Republicans and Democrats had worked together on an international agreement to fix the hole in the Earth’s ozone layer.

Republicans would later represent eight of the 20 co-sponsors on the first major bills to fight climate change in 1980s and 1990s.

Yet 30 years after Hansen’s initial warning, the issue is as much at the core of the nation’s political divide as abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration.

READ MORE: Albertans are least likely in Canada to believe in climate change: survey

Most Republican candidates today cannot speak the words “climate change” — let alone support policies to address it — without risking a fierce political backlash from their base, which increasingly believes that man-made climate change is a liberal fantasy.

There’s virtually no space left for a climate change advocate in the Republican Party of 2018.

Just ask Bob Inglis.

The former South Carolina Republican lost his congressional primary in 2010 after speaking out about global warming following a trip to the Arctic.

He has since dedicated his professional life to convincing conservatives that climate change must be taken seriously.

“We hit a low in the tea party,” Inglis said. “That turned out to be a false bottom because we went lower with the election of Donald Trump.”

U.S. President Trump, who once tweeted that climate change was a “Chinese hoax,” pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement — the only country to do so — and his cabinet has aggressively dismantled and dismissed government efforts to fight global warming.

“As the climate is getting worse, the politics is getting worse,” said Paul Higgins, public policy director of the American Meteorological Society.

It wasn’t always this way.

“A lot of Republicans were involved” in fighting climate change after Hansen testified, said former Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado. In 1988, two months after Hansen’s warning, George H.W. Bush vowed to fight the greenhouse effect. Even 20 years later, Republicans adopted a party platform at the 2008 convention that openly addressed the threat of climate change.

At the same time, the party’s rhetoric also began to shift dramatically, adopting former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s “Drill baby drill” catch phrase. Its embrace of fossil fuels, and rejection of climate change as a serious threat, only intensified with the 2010 rise of the tea party.

It is “a core element of Republican identity to reject climate science,” said Jerry Taylor, who for more than two decades downplayed global warming as an energy and environment analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute.

Taylor now actively tries to fight climate change as founder of the Niskanen Center, a moderate think-tank with libertarian principles.

READ MORE: Drone footage shows impact of climate change off east coast of Newfoundland

The political shifts haven’t been limited to Republicans. Many liberal Democrats have moved sharply to the left on environmental issues, ignoring nuclear energy as a necessary option to fight climate change and thinking solar and wind can do it all, when it can’t, Hansen said.

It’s not just politicians.

The 12 states with the highest per person emissions of the main heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide, voted for Trump in 2016. The 10 states with the lowest per person carbon emissions voted for Hillary Clinton.

Polling suggests that global warming is now even more polarizing than abortion, said pollster and Yale Center for Climate Communication Director Anthony Leiserowitz.

Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans — or 69 per cent — think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, Gallup found in March. Among Democrats, just 4 per cent — not even 1 out of 10 — believe the issue is exaggerated.

Academics, politicians and climate scientists say politics — and an industry campaign to shed doubt on the science — led to the public divide.

READ MORE: Limiting climate change to 1.5°C increase would save thousands of species: report

Fossil fuel industry interests seeing a threat from a 1997 international treaty that required U.S. carbon emission cuts spent a lot of money to “promote a message of confusion, a message of doubt,” said Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes, who wrote the book “Merchants of Doubt” about this and other industry efforts.

“Their goal was to prevent the United States from acting on climate,” Oreskes said. “They were much more effective getting across their message of doubt than scientists were effective in getting across their message of science.”

The fossil fuel industry “took the tobacco playbook and worked to stop climate change action by denying the science,” said Northeastern University policy and communication professor Matthew Nisbet.

“They were brutal,” Sen. Wirth said.

READ MORE: How climate change can cause depression, anxiety: ‘We will all be affected’

First-term Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania struggles to understand his party’s environmental priorities.

One of the few GOP members of the Climate Solutions Caucus with a passing grade from environmental activists, Fitzpatrick is quick to call out his Republican colleagues for “not putting their money where their mouth is” on environmental issues.

“It’s pretty obvious to me that climate change is caused in large part due to human activity,” Fitzpatrick said. “I think we all need to acknowledge that basic fact.”

READ MORE: Why China has Canada spooked about the world’s plastic waste crisis

The newly formed American Conservation Coalition is working across two dozen states to convince Republicans to return to their pro-environment roots. Yet the group’s website doesn’t mention the words “climate change” because it would alienate conservatives, said the organization’s Benjamin Barker.

“I hope that in the next decade, or hopefully a lot sooner, we can have a discussion about climate change where it’s not so partisan,” Barker said.

Press link for more: Global News