Tag Archives: Green Energy.

THE BEADY ASK’S: IS GREEN ENERGY REALLY GREEN?

15 Wednesday Jul 2020

Posted by in Green Energy., Renewable Energy., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASK’S: IS GREEN ENERGY REALLY GREEN?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read) 

If you thought that governments’ new energy grants are going to solve all our energy woes think again. 

One of the greatest problems with green energy like fossil energy is that it is controlled by the energy giants. The very term Carbon Footprint was introduced by BP.  

If green energy had the ability to produce electricity and placing it in the hands of the people rather than those of oil, gas, coal, and utility companies, we would than see its benefits.

It could also lead to some fundamental changes in the way we consume energy.

Electricity access is essential to people’s lives but cost equals pollution.

We need to start shifting our use of energy to when it is there and available rather than shifting the energy production to match our use.

There is already solar technology that allows the establishment of Solar-powered mini-grids, and it is essentially mini-grids are independent, decentralized electricity networks that can function separately from a national grid.

They can generate electricity for local consumption.

When combined with efficient and environmentally sustainable battery storage, solar mini-grids present a compelling economic case.

By 2050 we will still be getting 75% of our energy from fossil fuels’ – it is

estimated that by 2040, the world’s energy consumption will have increased

by almost 50% so watch this video below and tell me is to days rush to move

to alternative renewable energies, such as biomass, geothermal, tidal or

wave, solar, anaerobic digestion really green?

By then with climate change, the demands for cooling will outstrip the demands for heating.

There can be no doubt that implementing a shift in where we get our energy from is one of the grand challenges facing our planet today.Since commercial oil drilling began, we have sucked over 135 billion tonnes of crude oil to drive our cars, fuel our power stations and heat our homes (Credit: Getty Images)

 
In the two videos below, you will see growing evidence of the non-inclusion of social conscience in the name of renewable energy development, as well as severe environmental damage, with fossil, fuel investment unmasked, exposing the dark side of renewables.

The question is:  Are we all been taken for suckers when we hear that renewable energy is clean, that electric cars will save the world by not contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

How to quantify the overall environmental impact of energy technologies has actually been a subject of the academic literature for some time.

Engineers use a process called life cycle assessment to count up all of the interactions between a complete energy system and the environment.

For example, life cycle assessments of electricity generation typically consider power plant raw materials extraction, plant construction, fuel extraction, fuel processing, fuel delivery, fuel combustion, electricity transmission, and other upstream and downstream processes in order to paint a complete picture of the energy and emissions required to produce and deliver a unit of electricity.

There is no argument that total GHG emissions from natural gas, oil, and coal electricity are far greater than those from any renewable energy technology.

Even if it takes more energy and emissions to build a solar farm than, say, a natural gas power plant, the fact that the solar farm produces zero emissions during operation causes it to be cleaner overall. The same holds for all other forms of renewable energy—and nuclear to.

The facts are out there and they clearly show natural gas, oil, and coal electricity emissions vastly exceed those from renewables and nuclear.

But the question remains.

Every day, our species chews its way through more than a million terajoules of energy.

Humanity’s hunger for energy will reach unprecedented levels.

It is estimated that since commercial oil drilling began in the 1850s, we have sucked up more than 135 billion tonnes of crude oil to drive our cars, fuel our power stations, and heat our homes.

So let’s look at six of the main contenders.  

Biomass – Recently-living natural materials like wood waste, sawdust, and combustible agricultural wastes can be converted into energy with far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum-based fuel sources. That’s because these materials, known as biomass, contain stored energy from the sun.

Biofuels – Rather than burning biomass to produce energy, sometimes these renewable organic materials are transformed into fuel. Notable examples include ethanol and biodiesel. Biofuels provided 2.7 percent of the world’s fuels for road transport in 2010, and have the potential to meet more than 25 percent of world demand for transportation fuels by 2050.

Hydropower – Also called hydroelectric power, hydropower is generated by the Earth’s water cycle, including evaporation, rainfall, tides, and the force of water running through a dam. Hydropower depends on high precipitation levels to produce significant amounts of energy.

Geothermal energy – Just under the earth’s crust are massive amounts of thermal energy, which originates from both the original formation of the planet and the radioactive decay of minerals. Geothermal energy in the form of hot springs has been used by humans for millennia for bathing, and now it’s being used to generate electricity. In North America alone, there’s enough energy stored underground to produce 10 times as much electricity as coal currently does.

Solar power – The most prevalent type of renewable energy, solar power is typically produced using photovoltaic cells, which capture sunlight and turn it into electricity. Solar energy is also used to heat buildings and water, provide natural lighting, and cook food. Solar technologies have become inexpensive enough to power everything from small hand-held gadgets to entire neighborhoods.

Wind power – Air flow on the earth’s surface can be used to push turbines, with stronger winds producing more energy. High-altitude sites and areas just offshore tend to provide the best conditions for capturing the strongest winds. According to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a network of land-based, 2.5-megawatt wind turbines in rural areas operating at just 20% of their rated capacity could supply 40 times the current worldwide consumption of energy.

Nuclear 

Its problem is the radioactive waste and its disposal. 

These energy resources are renewable, meaning they’re naturally replenished and they utilize energy sources that are readily available however I suppose that there remain three pertinent points when it comes to renewable green energy.

Availability – Cost – Sustainability.  

‘How do I know if green electricity is really green?’

Leaving aside that some renewable energy technologies might produce more overall emissions than fossil fuels because they cost so much if you don’t have control over the type of energy, and its cost it’s equivalent to the pollution with all of us condemned to global warming.  

Take Solar thermals for instance. 

Really good but if it costs twice as much as burning coal the manufacturing cost was all dirty energy to produce clean energy…If you had a solar cell that took two Joules of dirty energy to make it and it only returned one Joule of clean energy in its life—it’s a loss…

Hydropower/Dams 

Have environmental impacts, presenting social sustainability issues.

Wind and solar energy are highly dependent on the weather – and the time of day. 

Fossil fuels have one major advantage over renewable energy sources – they are very easy to store and transport. Green energy requires the energy to be transmitting over long distances and currently, there is no easy way to store the electricity produced by wind or solar energy for appreciable periods of time.

Battery technology is not yet good enough to efficiently store large amounts of energy. This is an area that is really ripe for innovation and we are really only at the start of deploying and testing potential solutions.

The supply must match the demand.

So we have a quandary, do we continue to develop super grids like large-scale wind and solar power stations in the Mongolian Gobi desert or the Sahara, in the sea, or on land not suitable for agriculture or establish Solar-powered mini-grids with power-sharing deals. 

One of the biggest challenges is how to transport electricity to people where and when it is needed (Credit: Getty Images)

Nearly a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union comes from Russia far from green. 

As new technology is developed it will shift the geopolitics of energy, It will change relationships between not just countries but cities, towns, villages, and apps. 

A major energy transition is underway, creating opportunities while increasing uncertainty and developing the need to ensure sustainability, affordability, inclusiveness, and security.

By many measures, the world is still in the early stages of a deep and profound transformation in energy and industrial and agricultural processes. This transformation will not be easy, for mobilizing meaningful economic change is rarely a simple process that proceeds without opposition. 

So where are we at the moment the vast majority of the country – nae, the world – is dependent on fossil fuels which are contributing to the destruction of the Earth’s atmosphere and ultimately our planet? 

So throughout the course of our lifetimes, we can expect some big changes.

A large amount of responsibility falls to major energy suppliers who rely heavily on policy initiatives to drive deep decarbonization. Thinking more clearly about power and stimulating that broader narrative are the purposes of this post. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

THE BEADY EYE’S ACTION PLAN. FOR A GREEN ECONOMY.

02 Saturday May 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., COVID-19, POST COVID-19., Survival., Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., VALUES, WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE’S ACTION PLAN. FOR A GREEN ECONOMY.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

At the moment we are inundated with rhetoric that the world is going to change due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Now the big question yet to be answered is how in the midst of a coming a Global economic depression to restate countries’ economies.

But the truth remains that few politicians are prepared to take substantive leadership towards changes that could alienate powerful interest groups that benefit from the current paradigm.

It appears that we have a brain drain as existing legal frameworks and regulations do not encourage improved environmental and economic practices or innovations.

However, issues that created a sense of solidarity among civil society and academia in
earlier decades are now back on the table thanks to the Pandemic.

While the rationale for change is clear even with the evidence of climate change, and the possibilities of future pandemics there are a number of barriers or challenges to making this transition.

Key issues affecting the rate of transition to a green economy include entrenched interests supporting the status quo, lack of data and information, organizational obstacles, reaching competitive levels of risk and return for financing, and the need to scale up.

It’s about getting everyone – from governments through to the business community – to work together to do things differently, and this requires a common language.

Whether that is at the international level, the national level, or within the business community. All levels need to be striving towards the same goals, and the indicators provide a common way of talking about this – allowing a better-managed with system corporate social responsibility.

Green Economics principles should be developed to meet the needs and vision of each country and each sector. The goal is not to simply arrive at a list of principles but to engage in discussions with stakeholders about the priorities and approaches to moving toward a green economy.

Environmental well-being contributes to economic well-being when the environment is
able to properly carry out its functions. For longterm prosperity through equitable distribution of economic benefits and effective management of ecological resources; it must be economically viable and resilient, self-directed, self-reliant, and pro-poor. 

The need for a convergence – that all sectors need to work together to deliver these goals.

The first thing to say is that a green economy would not have to be any different than the regular economy.

Supply and demand. 

What role does public policy play in encouraging and facilitating the green economy?

1. The green economy is a means for achieving sustainable development.
2. The green economy should create decent work and green jobs.
3. The green economy is resource and energy-efficient.
4. The green economy respects planetary boundaries or ecological limits or
scarcity.
5. The green economy uses integrated decision making.
6. The green economy measures progress beyond GDP using appropriate
indicators/metrics.
7. The green economy is equitable, fair, and just – between and within countries
and between generations.
8. The green economy protects biodiversity and ecosystems.
9. The green economy delivers poverty reduction, well‐being, livelihoods, social
protection, and access to essential services.
10. The green economy improves governance and the rule of law. It is inclusive;
democratic; participatory; accountable; transparent; and stable.
11. The green economy internalizes externalities.

Thanks to COVID-19 we’re going to see a huge amount of capital flood into sustainability.  It is already happening if at a slow pace.

The government can spark a clean energy economy by setting the rules and letting the private sector scale up.

Of course, finance will not be the only factor in this transition, but rather the forthcoming Economic Depression.

What better way to stimulate growth by securing self-efficiency in green energy (Energy production results in the emission of 80 percent of global carbon dioxide.)   

What better way to promote Tourism that depends on the environmental quality of a destination – i.e. – clean air, water, and land. It depends on the natural environment for its wide array of ecosystems, for example, beaches and coastal areas, mountains, and forests. 

What better way to stop pollution that has an impact on global warming has a potential cost from flooding and hurricane damage, low agriculture yields, and population resettlement.

What better way to realize that GDP is increasing while emissions are going down.

What better way to leave a legacy for the next generation.

What better way to engage the whole population.

What better way to make wealthy countries finally realize that the greenest investments also look like the wisest. 

What better way for the European Union to live up to its name ( Union) by Investing in the sunshine of the south with energy grants to establish solar farms. The north could manufacture them creating millions of new jobs in their economies, in Italy, Spain, Greece.  

The benefits arising from the green economy are extended to all levels of population and all countries, as well as interconnected among the features of mutual influence and common development: the more countries and companies “go green”, the more the economy grows; the more the economy grows through “green plans”, the more research and development on the green economy will be conducted. The more green economy dominates markets, the sooner the world will be a clean place after more than two hundred years of increasing.

That there is a need for a new model of economic development but unfortunately, that is what it is Rhetoric.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: LOOKING FOR AN NEW YEAR RESOLUTION. HERE IS ONE.

27 Friday Dec 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Energy

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: LOOKING FOR AN NEW YEAR RESOLUTION. HERE IS ONE.

Tags

, ,

 

(Thirty-minute read)

We all recognize that there are many problems in our world, which with our collective intelligence could be address if we did not turn them into profit-making.

The dire warnings about climate change are on the top of the list, but as we have seen the recent UN Climate Conference in Madrid shows that we once again are unable to act collectively. Instead, we opt for blindness and continue as if nothing can change the inevitable disaster awaiting us all.

Why aren’t we interested?

Because it is abstract happing over there, impossible to describe – the Amazon is burning, California is on fire, Australia is covering New Zeland with smoke.

Half the world might not believe in the science, but it’s no longer acceptable to hind the truth behind rhetoric that is saying one thing and feeling another as if deny it.

We know that there are climate refugees, that the Arctic is melting, that there is flooding, extreme weather events, droughts, famines, but the story is too complicated we do not feel immersed in it.

Because we don’t believe it we are incapable of believing, we can do something about it even if it is a solid scientific fact.

What is knowledge when our brains are unprepared to receive it?

Most of us can’t explain how our individual and collective behaviour is boosting hurricane winds.

On one hand, we have to feel it, believe it, but our brains find it difficult to imagine ourselves in the future and to plan for that future.

Therefore the question to be addressed by all of us is.

Are we even capable of believing what the scientist are telling us?

What, then, is to be done?

Greta Thunberg might be the figurehead for change, but the emphasis should be on doing.

The change required is not to wait for feeling or belief,  but to act.

Some now argue that the focus should be on the personal shifts taking the responsibility away from Governments. In my mind governments have a responsibility to oversee the conversion to green energy by ensuring that Climate Change does not become a product to be sold for a profit,

We have a colossal opportunity with climate change to do one or the other, turn it into profit-making or save what left of our planet.

The problem with profit is already here to see.

In fact, that’s exactly what Big Oil firms have just started doing. Relying on oil alone simply won’t be enough for the oil supermajors to sustain their profits.

Bio this Bio that, Wall Street Carbon Credit, Green bonds. When you some of the biggest companies on the planet decide to start spending money, we’re more than happy to get in on the action.

This is just the beginning of the trend.

Sadly externality costs of fossil fuels are shouldered not by fossil fuel producers, but rather by wider society.

After gods knows how many Climate summits and we are still unable and will remain so to agree on any practical solution or action other than rely on technology to come to the rescue.

Why is it not possible to cover every bit of unused land with Solar panels?

Because the problem is that we normally don’t use logic to make the decision which electricity source to use. We want it all.

When looking at sustainable electricity resources, we commonly identify four:

Solar, Wind, Hydro and Biomass.

Each of them is renewable, but that doesn’t necessarily make them sustainable.

Sustainability is determined by three different parameters:

Environmental sustainability, Social sustainability and Economic sustainability.

If producing a renewable energy device costs more energy than it produces during its lifetime, it’s not sustainable.

Mining coal is bad for the environment, but mining neodymium and other rare earth metals for wind turbines is equally polluting.

Let’s not close our eyes to what’s happening:

Anything that’s mined destroys complete ecosystems.

There’s one overarching aspect of social sustainability – we have one globe where we can provide enough food and energy for everyone. Using the planet’s effectively and efficiently is therefore crucial.

Economic sustainability seems easy enough to measure. If a technology can be sold without subsidies it is sustainable, right?

But in most countries, fossil fuels belong to the most heavily subsidized products.

According to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, fossil electricity is still subsidized for over $100 billion worldwide.

So, how do renewable energy technologies compete with that when subsidies for renewable sources are only one-sixth of that? And which of these can be called economically sustainable?

The one that can be purchased cheapest by consumers.

Sustainability is a very complex word and entails many aspects of which we’ve only scratched a few here to illustrate its diversity.

The question is:

How do we deal with all these aspects? Can we balance all the pros and cons? And how do we do that?

What we can do, is use the full matrix of available renewable electricity technologies and use them in the most sustainable way. Just by using logic.

Solar panels on sloped roofs that are otherwise not used,? Yes, please!

Solar panels on Dutch polders ( Low-lying land)  instead of cattle to create an “energy landscape”? No!

Wind turbines on the North Sea with high impact on nature? No!

Wind turbines on abandoned land with limited impact on nature? Yes, please!

Hydropower with dams that submerge complete villages and arable land in Brazil?! Madness!

Corn production for energy while we could produce food or feed? Of course not!

Biomass residues for electricity production? Yes, please!

Electricity production from living plants while the plant grows while producing rice on the same surface? Yes, please.

We want electricity for the whole world, at low cost, at low environmental impact, as soon as possible, with high return for the companies, with large local economic growth, with high shareholder value, easy to use for consumers, available always and everywhere.

You know what? That’s not possible.

Let’s decide what’s most important and take that as a starting point.

Starting point 1: I want cheap electricity: Here’s your coal-fired power plant. It has all the advantages of cheap electricity, but don’t complain when the Earth dies and when you’ve run out of coal.

Starting point 2: I want renewable electricity at the lowest possible price: You’ve got the choice of hydropower, wind power, solar power or biomass.

Depending on local subsidies and providers, one or more of these options will be available to you. Some of the electricity companies will provide “green electricity” and you don’t even have to choose.

Please don’t ask about the exact sustainability of your renewable electricity. It’s cheap, it’s renewable, forget about the rest.

Starting point 3: I want sustainable electricity: Now we’re talking. You’ve got the choice of hydropower, wind power, solar panels and biomass.

Let’s check what can be combined with other applications at the same land and what has the lowest impact on nature and people in the long run. You might have to pay a bit more than you’re used to, but at least you’ll be assured of a long-term solution and availability of electricity without hampering the access to other resources for yourself or others.

If we all chose starting point 1 nothing will change, we won’t stop climate change and smog will be the number one death cause in large urban areas.

If we choose starting point 2, we’ll focus on low prices that will compete with the sustainability of the renewable energy source. We might end up using fossil resources to produce renewable technologies and not changing anything in the end.

I’ve chosen starting point three. If you do too, we might have a chance of moving towards a sustainable electricity matrix with minimal impact on nature and people.

In fact, we actually may get to a point where energy is abundant, cheap, sustainable and available to everyone everywhere.

Where are we at this point of any time?

At this point, it’s hard even to imagine what a planet that’s 3.6 degrees C hotter would be like. To put this in context, human activity has already warmed the planet by about 0.8 degrees C — enough to produce severe droughts around the world, trigger or intensify intense storms and drastically reduce the Arctic ice cap, not to mention out of control fires.

Fires that will consume the parched forests of the temperate latitudes.

The wildfires in Australia are giving all of us preview that we can’t imagine today.

All the above might be true but it does not address the main problem.

Our usage of Energy.

Industry is increasingly seen as a solution to our global environmental problems, ignoring the role of major corporations in creating the current multiple crises.

Natural resources often lie at the heart of wars and civil strife and the estimated impact of greenhouse gas emissions varies widely due to uncertainties about the future.

We don’t know what the costs of climate change are, and health costs are highly uncertain.

Many scientists have ruled out arguments that market forces and technological changes can gradually lead to a sustainable energy future.

While the investment opportunities for renewable energy continue to grow, the question is to what extent the government ought to finance such investment.

Why?

Because it is no longer efficient for the government to invest in uneconomic technologies at an early stage. This why the political headwinds currently facing the renewables sector are immense.

However, these new energy sources did not simply emerge as the result of free-market forces. Rather, the government heavily subsidized each new energy source.

As the costs of PV technology, wind turbines, energy storage, and other clean energy technology have decreased over time, they have become competitive in their own right.

So here is your new year resolution.

If your community is like many others today, most people want to offset as close as possible to 100 per cent of their consumption.

It’s no longer necessary to have 32 acres of solar power panels to meet the demands of 1,000 homes.Solar Container

The majority of solar panels are 250 watts, which means you’d need four panels to create a 1-kilowatt peak (1kWp) system, eight panels to create a 2kWp system, 12 panels to create a 3kWp system, and so on.

A large fixed-tilt photovoltaic solar power plant that produces 1,000 megawatt-hours per year requires, on average, 2.8 acres for the solar panels.

Concentrating solar power plants require an average 2.7 acres for solar collectors and other equipment per 1,000 megawatt-hours; 3.5 acres for all land enclosed within the project boundary.

A solar panel system for a family of three costs around £4,000-£6,000 in the UK.  Solar panels could reduce your monthly energy bill by nearly 50%

So switching to solar energy is a smart decision that allows you to create your own power instead of buying it from the National Grid.

Energy bill savings from solar panels ultimately depend on two things: How much electricity your solar panels produce, and how much of this electricity you use.

More than half of all new electric power worldwide came from renewables last year.

Sounds too good to be true?

Prove me wrong by trying it.

Start your own research by forming an action group.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.