Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘climate’ Category

Virginia Mercury photo: Gov. Youngkin makes the announcement
  • Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) will independently finance, build, own, and operate a grid-scale fusion power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia.
  • Dominion Energy will provide non-financial collaboration, including development and technical expertise as well as leasing rights for the proposed site.
  • This pioneering plant will generate 400 MW of continuous energy on 25 acres (total site is 100 acres). By comparison, Dominion Energy’s offshore wind project, which will include 176 turbines and 3 offshore substations, will intermittently produce (on average) 1092 MW (2600 MW x 0.42 capacity factor).
  • Gov. Youngkin emphasized that the project will be financed entirely by CFS, with no costs passed on to Dominion Energy ratepayers. (Good news for us Dominion Energy customers! 😀)
Fusion technology works by combining hydrogen isotopes — deuterium extracted from water and tritium from lithium — under extreme heat and pressure, using powerful magnets to fuse the elements. The process generates heat, which boils water to create steam that spins a turbine, producing electricity. The byproduct is helium.

Why BOE, and most everyone else, likes nuclear fusion:

  • Clean and sustainable power source.
  • Unlike traditional nuclear power plants that rely on fission, fusion replicates the energy-producing process of the sun.
  • Modest space requirements.
  • Generates four times more energy per kilogram of fuel than fission and nearly four million times more energy than burning oil or coal.
  • No radioactive waste
  • Safe energy source; no risk of a meltdown event
  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that fusion technology, unlike fission, does not require a federal license.

Tempering the optimism a bit, the plant won’t be operational until the early 2030’s. As we all know, there could (will likely) be delays. CFS is currently building a demonstration plant in Massachusetts that will use their SPARC “tokamok” technology.

The implications of advanced nuclear technology, not only the holy grail of fusion energy, but also modular fission reactors, for intermittent wind and solar power are substantial. Ultradeep geothermal is on a similar timeframe, and could also supersede wind and solar.

The logic behind costly offshore wind projects is therefore questionable, and the regulators better make sure that the decommissioning of these facilities is fully funded. The most likely long-term scenario is for natural gas to continue meeting most power generation needs as the nuclear and ultradeep geothermal alternatives are phased in.

More about fusion. Most of you can start at Level 3. 😉

Read Full Post »

Seattle Times: “Don’t block the will of voters on natural gas”

Nearly 2 million residents voted to approve Initiative 2066, which aims to protect the use of natural gas as an energy source in state law and within Washington’s building codes. This month, climate advocates, joined by King County and the City of Seattle, filed suit in court to block the will of those voters.

While the courts will have final say, Gov. Jay Inslee and Democratic legislative leaders support killing off what they see as a misguided and overly broad initiative. Their view brushes aside the concerns of the majority of state voters. Those leaders fail to see a genuine fear that, during the clean energy transition, the fundamental supply of energy to homes and businesses — the basic ability to stay warm, cook food and bathe — is under threat.” 

Kudos to the Seattle Times for their common sense editorial. In addition to noting the economic and social necessity of natural gas, it would have been nice if the editorial board had also acknowledged natural gas’s environmental benefits. However, that would have probably been a bridge too far in Seattle.

The reasons for transitioning to natural gas are arguably clearer and better substantiated than the reasons for transitioning from natural gas.

Read Full Post »

Northern Endurance Partnership (bp, Equinor, and Total) has been awarded the UK’s first permit to “store” CO2 beneath the North Sea. NEP plans to begin construction in the middle of 2025 with start-up expected in 2028 (bet the over!). Climate solution or costly virtue signaling at the public’s expense?

Fortunately, from the standpoint of US consumers and taxpayers, the push for carbon disposal in the Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico has stalled, perhaps permanently. Oct.1 marked the 2 year anniversary of the 94 leases improperly acquired by Exxon at Sale 257 for carbon disposal purposes. Those leases will expire in 33 months (with the remaining 105 rogue leases expiring 1-2 years later) barring another legislative maneuver by industry advocates.

All of the previously posted questions about carbon disposal in the Gulf of Mexico remain, and most apply elsewhere. In particular, detailed cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments for these projects have not been provided. The intended permanency of offshore, subsurface carbon disposal raises complex monitoring, maintenance, liability, and decommissioning issues.

What are the carbon disposal proponents selling and why should governments be buying? If CO2 emissions are a significant threat to society (and informed opinions differ), is carbon disposal a cost effective solution? Policy decisions on subsidies for carbon disposal will be a good indication of how serious the new administration is about cutting Federal spending.

199 GoM oil and gas leases were wrongfully acquired for carbon disposal purposes. At Sale 261, Repsol acquired 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon had acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 (94) and 259 (69).

Read Full Post »

Quaise Energy, an ultradeep geothermal energy pioneer, investigated 2022 and 2023 data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to examine what the grid would look like without fossil fuels.

The full report is attached. Key points:

  • On average, solar produces full power 25% of the time, whereas wind does so 35% of the time.
  • Without fossil fuels, Texas would need to scale up its wind and solar capacity by 3.4x and energy storage by 42.4x just to meet the average hourly demand.
  • Despite these high values for renewables and 5 GW of firm nuclear power, the system only meets demand 76% of the time, equivalent to 176 days over the two-year period when generation and storage fall short.
  • Even with a 5x overbuild and corresponding 10x in storage capacity, only 88% of demand can be fully satisfied, not considering transmission challenges.
  • Just meeting the average demand, with a 3.4x capacity expansion, would require more than 50,000 km2 of land, equivalent to the size of Lake Michigan.

Read Full Post »

Vineyard Wind

Per CNBC:

GE Vernova is aiming to deploy small nuclear reactors across the developed world over the next decade, staking out a leadership position in a budding technology that could play a central role in meeting surging electricity demand and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Read Full Post »

Jens Christiansen offers this explanation for the absence of bids for wind leases offered in the recent Danish sale:

The value of offshore wind energy in Denmark has declined.

The capture price remains consistently lower than the market price throughout 2024. When the wind blows, the market saturates and the capture price drops This is why the latest offshore wind tender yielded nothing.”

A related BOE post points to the sharp decline in bids for US offshore wind leases.

Read Full Post »

Germany: Coal and gas vs. Die Dunkelflaute

Reuters

Spot-on from Bernie, a UK poster on X:

NET ZERO – I want to be clear: I am not against advancement in energy technologies. Humanity should always develop and progress.

What I oppose is bankrupting the country by gambling taxpayers’ money on the emperor’s new clothes. Because that’s what these experimental technologies are currently. The misinformation being fed to the public is a disgrace.

Technologies like carbon capture, flywheels, and large-scale battery storage are being sold to us as the future and that we can lead the world! I don’t want to gamble with my tax thanks. The only thing we will lead the world in, is being the first country to bankrupt itself on the alter of Net zero and they haven’t even given us a choice!

These experimental technologies will cost not £ billions but £ TRILLIONS and provide little benefit to the average citizen, they simply benefit global corporations and those with vested interests.

The government should have focused on upgrading the national grid as a first step. At the very least it would enable us to use the renewable energy we are creating currently, rather than paying £ billions in subsidies for providers not to supply.

Instead, we’re rushing headlong into experimental technologies that are still in test phase. We are investing in these theoretical technologies before we can even observe their real world performance, evaluate value for money, or knowing if practically they will even work! And let’s face it, installations of both fly wheels and carbon capture machines have both failed financially or practically worldwide.

The hypocrisy around emissions and claims that these new technologies are “cleaner and greener” is an outrageous lie. Whether deliberate or misguided, this misinformation is unacceptable. The British public deserves open-book transparency on costs, timelines, and actual impacts. If the government cannot provide this, they must step aside and bring in independent teams—free from vested interests—to evaluate and advise. And then the British public should be offered a vote.

The ideological, socialist pipe dream of hitting a fictitious 2030 target will bankrupt the country. Worse, it will make us entirely dependent on banks and foreign entities that will dictate our policies for decades.

And we are doing all of this whilst we have at least 200 years of domestic energy resources in the ground, the ‘emergency’ propaganda is simply untrue. But instead of bringing energy prices down in order to enable growth, which in turn would generate GDP, which in turn frees up domestic funds to invest in research, we’re sacrificing our economic stability and sovereignty for technology that will be outdated before we’ve even finished building it!.. because technology works like that!

Some people are getting very rich, some people are gaining global attention and others are simply fools. It is unacceptable to me.

Read Full Post »

Whistle Hill Beef

Read Full Post »

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton:

Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street utilized the Climate Action 100 and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative to signal their mutual intent to reduce the output of thermal coal, which predictably increased the cost of electricity for Americans across the United States. 

These firms also deceived thousands of investors who elected to invest in non-ESG funds to maximize their profits. Yet these funds pursued ESG strategies notwithstanding the defendants’ representations to the contrary.” 

Note that this litigation may also have implications for the oil and gas industry. The complete filing is attached.

Read Full Post »

The Beatrice Offshore Windfarm has become the fourth UK windfarm to have received more than £1 billion in subsidy payments. The landmark was reached in just its seventh year of operation, suggesting that it could reach £2 billion over the course of its subsidy agreement.

Block Island Wind Farm – “America’s Starting Five” (first 5 offshore turbines) – reliably generates subsidies (table below).

Projected PPA subsidies for other Atlantic wind projects:

Vom Winde verweht: Germany will pay as much as €20 billion to wind and solar operators through the end of 2024, twice what grid operators had forecast in last October.

Wind turbines in Lindenberg, Germany

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »