Fuel for thought 27(1) Early November to end of 2015 (All dates refer to 2015/2016 unless stated otherwise)

Context

The world is entering a third stage of a rolling debt crisis, this time centred on emerging markets. In contrast to credit booms in America and Europe where household were the main borrowers, three-quarters of the private debt burden in emerging markets is shouldered by businesses. Corporate debt is now almost 75%. (The Economist 14 November)

Science

El Niño Advisory Synopsis: there is an approximately 95% chance that El Niño will continue through Northern Hemisphere winter 2015–2016, gradually weakening through spring 2016. (WUWT 11 September)

Emissions

UNEP chief scientist J. McGlade told AP that earlier assessments (of CO₂) weren’t wrong, based on emissions scenarios that were “no longer realistic.” The new analysis assumes that emissions cuts will drop faster after 2030 than was assumed in previous reports. Critics said the change reflects political pressure to show the 2° goal is still feasible for Paris. (Paul Homewood 10 November) comment-reply@wordpress.com

Finance

Crude $41.40 a barrel; Brent $44.64 ab; (FT 21/22 November); $40.68 and 43.91. (4 December)

Policy

By 1 October, 113 countries had submitted national plans for GHG reduction covering 80% of global emissions according to the News Agency Climate Home. (Acid News October)

Technology

Greenpeace claims that 100% renewable energy for All (up from 80%) can be achieved by 2050 and is the only way to avoid ‘descent into catastrophic climate change’ without carbon fuels or nuclear. All that is needed is political will. (Acid News October)

Carbon fuels and nuclear

9 November: Crude (Texas) $44.49; Brent $47.82 a barrel (FT).

The VW saga so far

German regulators had approved the fixes for about 90% of the engines caught up in the first NO_x scandal which affected 11 million cars worldwide. Investors reacted positively. Audi, Porsche and VW have used ‘defeat devices’. VW also stand accused of having fiddled CO₂ emissions. (FT 28/29 October)

Nigeria’s Central bank imposes currency controls

This was done to defend the naira as Nigeria faces a deepening economic crisis, not unlike that of 1983. Oil provided three-quarters of Nigeria’s budget, and the economy is growing at its slowest fro in a decade, down to 2.4% from 6%. On 11 November, a former investment banker became finance minister, and importers are now denied access to foreign exchange for a wide range of imports. Currency reserves must be conserved says new minister. Yet, capital flight has not yet abated. Other measures have hurt the bank’s liquidity and delayed decision making, especially for the power sector Nigeria where $2.5bn in private capital for six generating companies and 11 distributing companies has been raised but ‘momentum has slowed.’ Many hope for a new era of more responsible government, but investors and business leaders are still waiting. NNPC could suffer a drop of $1.8bn in cash flow and billions of dollars from oil sales ‘have gone missing.’ Reform in the energy sector is more urgent that ever. Theft of crude oil has cost the state billions. But war against corruption is not an economic policy. (Investing in Nigeria FT 25 November)

Tax-credit cuts for solar in USA?

The debate over solar tax credit cuts in USA intensifies, with smaller companies (and jobs) being the most likely losers. The tax credit is 30% and has helped to make solar power much more competitive, but the industry has had ‘ample time’ to prepare. The average panel price has dropped from $3.50 in 2007 to 75 cents; other costs have also fallen. Solar is now often the lowest cost available power, and hence is competitive with gas. The industry hope to extend the tax break by moving to a master limited partnership (MLP) structure which does not pay corporate tax but investors are taxed instead on their share of the profits. (FT 1 December)

NB: Solar installations slowed down in 2014 compared to previous years, says IEA, total installed capacity is now 1% of global electricity demand. Japan and USA drove growth in 2014. (Energy World December)

The new investment conundrum: Financial pain will continue

The pressure to divest from ‘polluting’ companies (inverted commas added) – especially those that deal with fossil fuels is intense and is the pressure to maintain investment returns. Energy companies are doing badly tend to be excluded from S&P Indices. Reducing carbon footprints is likely to become more costly, or ‘painful’, once oil prices rise again. Help is at hand with an index that will exclude the worst carbon emitters in each sector and possibly all coal mines. Providers are offering their services: MSCIs has a low-carbon version of its ALL COUNTRY WOLRD INDEX. Goldman Sachs Asset Management is also designing an index which ‘would exclude or reduce investments in companies that are large contributors to carbon emission’ … other investment platforms are interested, such as GSAM which uses data from CDP, once known as the Carbon Disclosure Project. One issue is ‘how to account for reserves that remain underground’. They do not contribute to emissions, but if will stay underground as long as the oil price remains low. ‘Whatever happens to the oil price, the efforts to reduce carbon emissions without financial pain will continue’. (John Authers FT 10 December) john.authers@ft.com

Paris and investors: Triumph and jubilation

Investors were celebrating today after a ‘historic’ climate change agreement was hammered out in Paris, marking a new dawn for clean technologies and low-carbon investors.

Following two weeks of tense negotiations, the first global climate change agreement was agreed at the UN summit on Saturday, in a move widely welcomed by many in the business and financial communities. “We think the adopted agreement is a historic milestone that signals a global commitment to transition towards a low-carbon economy and embeds resilience to the consequences of climate change,” said analysts at HSBC’s climate change centre of excellence in a report. “We think the Paris Agreement represents a clear signal that nations take the threat of climate change seriously, taking steps to address the problem.” The agreement, which comes after more than two decades of failed negotiations, was greeted by tears from many at the Le Bourget site, followed by celebrations. “Champagne sold out in many central Paris bars on Saturday night,” one market player told Environmental Finance. The key points of the deal are:

It aims to restrict global temperature rises to ‘well below’ 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to restrict them to 1.5°C

Post-ethical investment

‘Active ownership’ will be the new term for post-ethical investment, meaning that companies will be urged to reform their behaviour on ‘issues’. Asset managers are the main target, and the issues are ‘environmental, social and governance’ as defined by NGOs. The University of Cambridge and the LSE are active advocates. [Does this mean the state has abdicated the definition of the public good to the market?] (John Authers FT 17 December)

Gas versus electricity prices (in UK)

On the suggestion that domestic gas use would need to be phased out in order to meet decarbonisation targets, there is one further issue. As C. pointed out, electricity is much more expensive than gas in the UK. According to DECC, the price of electricity for domestic users averages 13.6 pence/KWh, compared with just 4.2 pence for gas. (These exclude standing charges) Average gas consumption is said to be 15000 KWh per household, giving an average annual gas bill of £630. If there was a like for like switch from gas to electric, annual bills would rise by £1410. Put another way, gas consumption by domestic customers amounted to 342 TWh in 2013. Switching this to electric would, in theory, cost £32bn. This does assume like for like technology – gas to electric cookers or fires, for instance. It may be that heat pumps, for instance, would use less electrical energy than a gas boiler would, for a given amount of heat. Nevertheless, it is clear that we are all in for substantially higher energy bills in a non-gas future, particularly since electricity prices are forecast to go much higher as subsidies for renewables increase even further. (PH 20 December)

Natural variability still topical

This 21st-century experience confirms the important part played by natural variability. In global warming terms what it does is to constrain climate sensitivity to the sort of number that one might have considered before the 1980s warming uptick, say in a range of 0.5 to 1.5°C. Furthermore, the record indicates an even lower sensitivity to extreme weather events than it does to the global mean temperature so policy responses should focus on strengthening adaptive measures to longstanding variability, not on sensitivities that are irreconcilable with long-term experience. I think it is important to have an alternative policy response up ones sleeve. (Max Beran 7 December)

The international geosphere biosphere programme closes

The International Geosphere Biosphere programme (IGBP), a close ally of IPCC, is winding down and making room for a new ‘integrating’ (science and social science) environmental research programme ‘the Future Earth initiative’. The funders are listed as the International Council for Science (ICSU), decision makers (governments presumably, NASA is mentioned as having played a key role) and ‘the broader global-environmental – change scientific and policy communities’, whoever this may be. No specific details are given in the editorial by new chair, James Syvitski. (Global Change Issue 84 November 2015)

On the role of CO₂ in climate change

The diagram (not shown) that shows CO₂ levels now (the current interglacial) is higher than at any of the previous interglacials. What it does not show is that mean global temperature currently is lower than it was during the previous interglacials, which means CO₂ is not a major driver of mean global temperature. (Chris de Freitas 19 December) defreitas@auckland.ac.nz

Systematic underestimate: The battle returns to acid rain!

The full study in Nature is paywalled, but the abstract essentially argues that global warming is ‘true’ but is being suppressed by other forcings. From the Press Release: “The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author.” “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.” Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide – or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change – has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7°C); the IPCCs number which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C). “If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.” (WUWT 21 December)

(https://www-nature-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2888.html)

Scientists: Climate claims ahead of UN summit ‘irrational’

  MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen : ‘Demonization of CO₂ is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial’. – ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’

Princeton Physicist Dr . Will Happer : ’Policies to slow CO₂ emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore : ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’ (Morano 20 November)

The Official Line versus Ivar Giaever (2015)

Global Warming

Ivar Giaever (2015)

Global Warming

Ivar Giaever (2015)

Global Warming

Ivar Giaever

Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. (THE OFFICIAL LINE)

A warning from France

Excerpt from a French Summary: “All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame. This is leading to all sorts of discussions, conferences and regulations, which are having an enormous impact on our economy. Every area of activity is affected: transport, housing, energy – to name just a few. Why do we need to save energy? It is quite simple: we have to reduce human impact on the planet. This is the fundamental credo. The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO₂. It is appalling. The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking: the battle against CO₂ has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational? At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the ‘good boy of Europe’, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous. But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.” http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf (A White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA.) (From Ian McQueen 25 October) mcqueen@nbnet.nb.ca

Anthony Watts on Spencer Weart’s dismissal of NIPCC

Criticism of one’s work is a healthy and necessary part of scientific research, but dismissing a four-volume series totaling more than 3000 pages of summaries of peer-reviewed climate science, with contributions by more than 50 scientists, with a single sentence and then failing even to reference the original reports, is prejudicial and unfair to both authors and readers. All four volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series are available online (for free), and individual volumes in the series have been cited nearly 100 times in peer-reviewed articles. There is indeed “a major problem in communicating climate realities to the public,” but it is not the one Weart describes in his conclusion. This is that, starting in the 1980s, “consensus by committee” replaced real science in the climate debate and interest groups exploited that transition to turn a genuine scientific puzzle into a social and political movement. The results have been tragic for science as well as for the billions of people, who now suffer adverse effects from public policies adopted at the height of this scandal.

From: Joseph L. Bast, Heartland Institute; Robert M. Carter, Emeritus Research Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne; Laurence I. Gould, past Chair (2004); Craig D. Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Fred S. Singer, University of Virginia (Emeritus), Fellow of APS; Willie Soon, Independent Scientist (WUWT 25 October)

Are corals dying from acidification?

I’ve had a long-time interest in the claimed effects that people say increased CO₂ will have on the reefs. The addition of CO₂ to the air slightly neutralizes the naturally alkaline sea water. [Note that while this is change in pH from increasing CO₂ is usually called “acidification” of the ocean, that is just alarmist terminology.

Can UNEP be trusted?

It seems the closer we get to the much-hyped climate summit in Paris, the fuzzier the numbers seem to become. The UN’s own climate chief has previously written off working towards averting 2°C of warming as compared to pre-industrial levels (a benchmark scientists have rallied around as a kind of threshold past which the effects of climate change get scarier). But a recent UN Environment Program (UNEP) report isn’t ruling that 2C target out as we head into what’s being heralded as a historic conference in Paris later this month. As the AP reports, UNEP is able to do that by backloading emissions cuts in its models. In its first four annual emissions reports in 2010–2013, the UNEP said emissions must not exceed 44 billion tons in 2020 for the world to limit global warming to 2°C (3.6 o F). But with real-world emissions rising far beyond that level, UNEP has since last year downplayed its focus on 2020 as a make-or-break year for emissions reductions. In this year’s Emissions Gap report, a summary of which was released Friday, UNEP says the world can still reach the 2-degree target with emissions of 52 billion tons by 2020, which is just slightly below today’s level. The new analysis assumes that emissions cuts will drop faster after 2030 than was assumed in previous reports. It looks a lot like UNEP is fiddling with the conditions of its climate modelling in order to produce a politically expedient result. There’s something deeply unsettling about the fact that the UN program can revive a goal that seemed to be all but dead these recent months with some behind-the-scenes tinkering. And that’s not the only bit of news out this week that will make you question our climate models. As Reuters reports, we know precious little about China’s emissions. (Moving the Climate Goalposts, The American Interest, 9 November)

The conventional basic IPCC model

This document (IPCC) focuses on the conventional basic climate model, which is used to calculate the Earth’s sensitivity to CO₂. It dates back to 1896 with Arrhenius. It is the cornerstone of the CO₂ theory of global warming. Predating computer simulations, it is the application of “basic physics” to the climate. The idea that “it’s the physics” makes the CO₂ theory impregnable in the minds of the establishment. They remain convinced that increasing CO₂ causes dangerous warming essentially because of this model, rather than because of the huge opaque computer models. They are so convinced by the basic model that, for them, it overrides empirical evidence – discordant empirical evidence is presumed to be somehow wrong. The basic model ignited concern about CO₂; without it we … . Its ideas underlie all of establishment climate science; it’s the basic mental model, so pervasive that one might overlook it because it is everywhere. One could construct the basic model just from what “every-one knows.” (David Evans 25 November) <david.evans@sciencespeak.com>

Where do emissions come from?

Much of the CO₂ emission emanates from the stratosphere although at the edges, where CO₂ is not such an active emitter/absorber, some of the emission emanates from the troposphere (hence varying CO₂ concentration will vary the emission to space). The water vapour emission comes from different altitudes depending on the local water vapour concentration. I do not accept that, other than for the most simplistic application, the emission can be adequately represented by such an equation. (W. Kininmonth, Small extract from a debate between critics of the IPCC story, 17 November)

Heretical thoughts on the origin of oil and gas

Later in his life, Tommy Gold promoted another heretical idea, that the oil and natural gas in the ground come up from deep in the mantle of the earth and have nothing to do with biology. Again the experts are sure that he is wrong, and he did not live long enough to change their minds. Just a few weeks before he died, some chemists at the Carnegie Institution in Washington did a beautiful experiment in a diamond anvil cell, (Scott et al., 2004). They mixed together tiny quantities of three things that we know exist in the mantle of the earth and observed them at the pressure and temperature appropriate to the mantle about 200 km down. The three things were calcium carbonate which is sedimentary rock, iron oxide which is a component of igneous rock, and water. These three things are certainly present when a slab of subducted ocean floor descends from a deep ocean trench into the mantle. The experiment showed that they react quickly to produce lots of methane, which is natural gas. Knowing the result of the experiment, we can be sure that big quantities of natural gas exist in the mantle 200 km. We do not know how much of this natural gas pushes its way up through cracks and channels in the overlying rock to form the shallow reservoirs of natural gas that we are now burning. If the gas moves up rapidly enough, it will arrive intact in the cooler regions where the reservoirs are found. If it moves too slowly through the hot region, the methane may be reconverted to carbonate rock and water. The Carnegie Institute experiment shows that there is at least a possibility that Tommy Gold was right and the natural gas reservoirs are fed from deep below. The chemists sent an E-mail to Tommy Gold to tell him their result, and got back a message that he had died three days earlier. Now that he is dead, we need more heretics to take his place. (Excerpt from Freeman Dyson, essay “Heretical thoughts about science and society.” From Albert Jacobs 13 December) <afjacobs@telus.net>

A problem of land management not meteorology

The number that I ask you to remember is the increase in thickness, averaged over one half of the land area of the planet of the biomass that would result if all the carbon that we are emitting by burning fossil fuels were absorbed. The average increase in thickness is one hundredth of an inch per year. The point of this calculation is the very favourable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about 10% biomass (Schlesinger, 1977) so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plough cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without ploughing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of CO₂ in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. Excerpt from Freeman Dyson, essay “Heretical thoughts about science and society.” (From Albert Jacobs 13 December) afjacobs@telus.net

UK researchers welcome Paris result and call for innovation

Professor Martin Siegert, Co-director of the Grantham Institute, Climate Change and the Environment, at Imperial College London:

This signing is obviously a significant result for action on climate change. It seems the case for change has been utterly accepted and there is now agreement on the level of the ambition required. Less clear are the details of how we will achieve what is necessary. While governments can set the conditions for the changes, those in innovation, education, finance, business and cities must now step up, plan ahead and work together to deliver our low carbon future.

Ajay Gambhir, Senior Policy Research Fellow at the Grantham Institute:

It is remarkable that a text of this ambition has been agreed by all Parties, given the much less ambitious options still on the table just three days ago. However, the gap between the agreement’s goal to limit warming to well below 2°C and the current combined level of countries’ emissions pledges – which are not nearly enough to achieve this goal - means there is considerable work to do over the coming years.

Geoffrey Maitland, Professor of Energy Engineering at Imperial, and IChemE Energy Centre: “The Paris Agreement is a major international achievement and a key step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the rapid and dramatic way we need to in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.” (Grantham Institute 15 December) <grantham@imperial.ac.uk>

Was Paris necessary?

Mr Hollande said [in Paris] that in order to achieve a deal … nations would have to agree on mechanisms to review their commitments to reducing greenhouse gases every five years. (FT 1 December)

A new IPCC chair in Paris

The New Chair of the IPCC Dr Hoesung Lee (professor of the economics of climate change, energy and sustainable development at Seoul University) wants

to interact more with the energy sector. He sees enormous values in the large-scale deployment of CCS and called for investment in this technology (abandoned in Norway several years ago) in interview and promoted it as a means for avoiding stranded assets.

Much about INDCs

Now we have most of the INDC’s (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions), i.e. climate plans, submitted in advance of Paris, we can make some reasonably accurate forecasts of what they will all mean for global CO₂ emissions. The first thing to note is that the plans all set targets in terms of all GHG, not just CO₂. However, it is not possible to compare such targets with either current emissions or baseline years, as the UNFCC does not have consistent and complete stocktaking records for each country. For instance, the last figure available for India is from 2000. This is one of the big differences in the way that the Annex 1 countries (developed) have been treated, as these are compelled to file annual data. Therefore, for this exercise, I am only looking at CO₂, and where necessary will assume this changes in line with all GHG. Secondly, I am going to ignore LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry), partly because the plans don’t always provide separate numbers for this, partly because it makes little overall difference for most countries, but mainly because its inclusion is regarded by many as controversial. There is a widespread belief that countries should not be allowed to ramp up industrial emissions, just because they can offset them against chopping down less trees. Because some plans, notably China and India’s, only target against CO₂ emissions per unit of GDP, forecasts of emissions in 2030 depend on how much economic growth is achieved. Therefore I have prepared two scenarios. The High Growth one assumes an annual rate of growth of 8% in China through to 2030, in line with the last few years, and Indian GDP in line with their govt. projections. The low growth one is probably more realistic. Chinese economic growth is in line with IMF predictions, at 6.6% per year to 2020, and 5.4% thereafter, while India is assumed to be 6%.

All of my calculations are sourced from the detailed work I have done previously. (PH 17 November)

India’s challenge, or why Paris climate pledges are meaningless

IEA predicts that India’s fossil fuel demand will more than double in the next 25 years. Optimism, however, essential for human progress can be very dangerous if misapplied or allowed to run to excess. There can be few better examples of this than the new review of India’s energy future published last week by the International Energy Agency … The paper is fascinating in its detailed description of India’s energy economy. But the forecasts are seriously over optimistic. They gloss over the challenges that even a radical modernising government in Delhi is not managing to overcome, and they ignore the very real risks of a much less happy outcome. According to the IEA’s central “new policies” forecast: Total energy demand is set to more than double by 2040, with oil use rising by 6 m barrels a day; 260 m new passenger vehicles will travel on India’s roads. Over the period, around 530 m people will gain access to electricity for the first time through new grid connections or off-grid supplies. The proportion without access will decline from 20 to 8% in 2030 and to zero by 2040. Renewable power generation – excluding hydro – will grow 12-fold to 720 terawatt hours. All this will be achieved by virtue of $2.8tn worth of investment – that is $110bn a year, 75% of which will go to the power sector for the construction of new plant and transmission lines. There will [may] be a five-fold increase in gross domestic product – at an average rate of 6.5% a year – and by around 2030 India will overtake China as the most populous country in the world, with some 1.5bn citizens. Of all these numbers I am afraid I only believe the last one. (Nick Butler FT 15 November)

NB . At the start of the Paris conference, Modi had told rich nations (not the rich in India) of their duty to lead the fight against climate change. (FT 30 November)

G20: India blocks western tactics on UN climate deal

India has blocked G20 efforts to pave the way for an ambitious climate change accord in a sign of deep divisions just two weeks before delegates from almost 200 nations meet in Paris. Through almost 20 h of talks at the G20 gathering in Turkey officials struggled to bridge a political chasm even over language suggesting a common problem required a collective solution. A senior EU official at the meeting of world leaders in Antalya said: “At certain times I was feeling that we’re not living on the same planet.” Most significantly, India and Saudi Arabia opposed the inclusion of a reference in the G20 statement to the need to discuss a “review mechanism” that the EU and many economies say must be a central feature of the accord. The accord is supposed to require all countries to volunteer pledges to cut their greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 or take other measures to tackle climate change. The EU and others say it must also contain measures requiring assessment every five years of commitments made by signatories and upgrade them if progress is deemed insufficient. India said it did not want the G20 to interfere in the Paris talks and blocked even a general reference to discussions on “periodic monitoring”. If other big economies follow suit, the weakening of the final accord would raise doubts about the UN’s ability to do anything to combat climate change … . Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said that “after long talks overnight” the world leaders agreed to include the 2 C target in the G20 statement. “But it is clear that a whole host of talks will still be necessary to make sure that we can make progress in Paris,” she said. “This has to be a success.” India has long opposed efforts to oblige all countries, not just wealthy ones, to share the burden of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that have risen steadily since UN climate talks started more than 20 years ago … After talks that stretched to 3 a.m. on Monday – rare for G20 meetings – the draft was amended to make mention of targets and some broader goals for Paris … However, a caveat was inserted stating that negotiators would have to engage “flexibly” in Paris, which some officials saw as watering down even the general G20 statement of intent made in Antalya. China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, agreed in a joint statement with France this month that there should be a five-year stocktaking assessment of national climate pledges. (FT 17 November; with headline ‘Indian stance slows progress towards climate change deal’.)

Homewood’s expected Paris outcomes

No binding agreements will be made: Developing nations have already made it absolutely clear that they will not agree to any legally binding agreements, although they expect the west to do so. As they have banded themselves into one grouping, led by China and India, there is no way individual states will be picked off one by one with either bribes or force. It is also clear that China, in particular, will not agree to any external monitoring. The EU has already indicated that its own binding targets will be reviewed unless a globally binding agreement is reached. Obama, keen to seal his “legacy,” would love to commit the US, but knows he would never get such a treaty through Congress. What is called the Umbrella Group, including countries like Russia and Japan, are ambivalent about the whole process and are certainly not willing to wreck their economies.

The ‘Villains’: BRICS

The real group that didn’t want a binding agreement were the three at the centre of the BRICS group: Russia, India and China. Vladimir Putin said a week before Paris that the global warming science was a fraud. Narendra Modi said India had bigger problems and more important priorities with people starving to worry about a low-probability temperature increase of 0.7°C over the next 60 years. Xi Jinping is President of a country with 363 coal burning plants planned for construction while opening 2 every 10 day. Besides the BRICS group with 48% of the world’s population, over 50% of UN countries and a fund already in place to challenge the IMF are working to at least offset US and western domination of the UN. (Tim Ball 18 December)

The green perspective: Insufficient political will

“1.5 degrees is possible by full decarbonization, by 100% renewable, by focusing. We believe there is sufficient technology, there is sufficient money but there is insufficient political will. We have 13 days to generate the political will” said Saleemul Huq of ICCCAD at the Climate Action Network press conference on the second day of COP21. (EER 2Dec) For what the UN wanted you to see and read and hear: http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/meeting/8926.php

More jobs for bureaucrats and consultants

 … .progress is being made on the issue of measuring, reporting and verifying greenhouse gas reductions. But on climate finance – one of the hardest nuts to crack – negotiations seem to make little progress. It is very likely the issue will be pushed to the second week when the high-level meetings at the ministerial level will take place. (EER 3 December)

Divisive issues at Paris according to FT

Timetable for emission reductions – proposed collective action not enough ‘to avert dangerous levels of warming’. Developing countries want more time. Not per capita emission today should matter but ‘historical emissions’.

Other thorny issues: Fossil fuel subsidies and temperature limit

One of the more thorny issues, climate finance, received the most attention in the first week, as many of the other discussion points are tied to funding. Meanwhile, two reports conclude that rich nations and the EU still spend far more money on fossil fuel subsidies than on climate finance.

The 1.5 C target in latest draft agreement reflects a small victory for the vulnerable countries demanding to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The number of countries supporting that goal has risen from 104 on the eve of the climate conference to 112.

(T. Renzenbrink, Editor in Chief European Energy Review 7 December who wished all bracket warriors gathered in Paris a fruitful week.) <europeanenergyreview@eimworld.com>

The outcome: The next debate

The world’s leaders are touting victory as a result of the COP21 deliberations in Paris. But victory over what, exactly? Some newspapers called the Paris deal ‘historic’. James Hansen called it ‘bullshit’. With regards to victory, ‘victory over what?’, it doesn’t seem to be victory over dangerous human caused climate change. The Huffington Post included the quote: The accord ‘saves the chance of saving the planet’. Lomborg has written prolifically from Paris over the last two weeks; the title of his op-eds at Forbes rather speaks for themselves: and 1.5 degrees target: symbolism over substance. Walter Russell Mead wrote on A manufactured success in Paris, Fred Pearce on a Landmark agreement on climate; many others see a good foundation for progress. Nick Mabey wisely compared and warned:

Climate change negotiations are too often described as a kind of environmental cold war between developed and developing countries over a zero-sum “carbon space”. But this dynamic has not held for over a decade. The implications of climate change, and its solutions, are too central to countries’ core national interests for them to base negotiating positions just on an abstract sense of “historic responsibility”. Countries’ interests are also too diverse for permanent alliances to be made simply on the basis of similar levels of per capita income. Oil producers, forest nations, high-tech trading centres, low lying or desert countries all have distinct interests to protect. Shared strategic intentions do not automatically lead to successful tactical diplomacy. A better analogy for Paris is the shifting skein of alliances, and periodic conflicts, between late 19th century powers in Europe and West Asia. At this time, the major powers had a shared interest in maintaining general stability, but struggled to reconcile this long term goal with the temptations of securing tactical advantages of power or territory. The mismanagement of these divergent short term interests led – inadvertently – to the European disasters of the early 20th century. Shared strategic intentions do not automatically lead to successful tactical diplomacy … . China fears an over constrictive agreement and intrusive monitoring of its domestic actions. Even more it wants to avoid blame for any failure in Paris. Shorn of its “big brother”, India feels more vulnerable to having a deal imposed which it fears would constrain future growth. If Paris commits countries to “ratchet” up climate action every 5 years then India knows that at the next review it will be under intense pressure to follow China’s commitment to peak emissions … . This competition for their [USA and EU] affection puts the cluster of developing country groups in a strong position. There will be a temptation to play both sides in order to maximise support for more funding and get a strong emission reduction treaty. But this is a dangerous and difficult game … . If developing country groups overplay their hand they could force an alliance to form along the final side of the triangle; where US and China come together to dictate the final deal. This would most likely result in their worst case scenario of weak mitigation rules and low financial commitments. This triangle maps the major currents which will dominate the political battlefield in Paris, but other countries will play key roles. Mexico, Colombia and Costa Rica will argue for higher ambition from emerging economies; Turkey, Russia and Ukraine for less. Saudi Arabia will try to block anything that prevents maximisation of its fossil fuel revenues. Norway and Switzerland will defend environmental integrity. Brazil as always will shape negotiations on forests, and may be a key broker of the broader deal even as its government unravels at home. (Excerpts from http://www.e3g.org/library/framing-the-paris-end-game)

There are a few good summary of more articles that spotted by Judith Curry: Carbon Brief: The legal form of the Paris climate agreement; Robert Stavins: Paris Agreement – A Good Foundation for Meaningful Progress; The Conversation: Five things you need to know about the Paris climate deal

Nick Mabey: Framing the Paris end game, see above. (From Judith Curry Climate Etc. 13 December)

Few binding commitments: From shall to should

Main commitments

Each party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contribution that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions. And

In final draft one ‘shall’ was changed to should, i.e. developed country parties should continue adopting economy-wide absolute emissions reduction targets. It was also agreed that support should be provided to developing countries, but no specific amount or timescale was mentioned. (PH 13 December)

Editor: What would happened if evidence fails to confirm the IPCC climate models predictions or there is disagreement about how to ‘measure’ (or rather calculate) the agreed global temperature rise? Whatever, there will be much to do for national and international bureaucracies. Job creation indeed.

The [normal] opt-out clause

This clause, which some suspect will reach nearly 100% participation in a decade or so. Article 28 1 says that at any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. 3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.

A legal matter: When is treaty binding? Are INDCs binding?

When is a Treaty Binding or Not? (A discussion selected from a pro emission reduction source’.

The question of legal bindingess comes into sharp focus with the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted in the run-up to Paris.

These pledges are expected to form part of to the Paris agreement, most likely not anchored to the legal text, but stored elsewhere. Perrez said that it doesn’t matter where the pledges are stored: “They can be on the moon.” Their bindingess is determined by the language anchoring them to the agreement, he explains.

For instance, Article 4 of the UN climate convention agreed in 1992 says that “all parties … shall formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change.” The EU and others, including small island states, would like the Paris agreement to go further than this, binding countries to achieve the targets laid out in their climate pledges. In an August speech, the EU climate commissioner said: Nationally determined targets must be backed by multilaterally agreed rules on transparency and accountability. Without these there will be no trust or confidence that countries will deliver what they have committed to, nor will we be able to track collective progress towards our goals … The European Union also strongly favours targets that will be internationally legally binding. In a similar vein, South Africa’s de Wet said in June: ‘For us, the heart of mitigation obligations is you have to commit to implement the measures that will bring you to honour your commitment’. However, a US source says the EU’s position is “unhelpful.” The source says: We’re not going to be able to sign an internationally legally binding commitment to reduce emissions … It’s not that the entire agreement is legally binding or not … What aspects are legally binding?.. I think there is a great deal space of around transparency and accountability provisions, but no legally binding mitigation.

The US prefers language that would require countries to have climate plans, to report on progress and to update pledges on a regular basis under a “ratchet” mechanism. It also wants binding rules on the structure and content of the contributions. These rules are currently non-binding.

 … But “specific results have rarely been achieved by obligations of conduct only”. Farhana Yamin, a legal expert and veteran of the UN climate process, tells Carbon Brief the word “implement” is “really problematic” for the US and China, though most countries think it is needed. Morgan says the US should find a way to overcome domestic political constraints on this point. … Yamin says that dropping “shall … implement” would be a backwards step from the UN climate convention, where it applies to all parties. Whether or not the Paris agreement requires countries to implement their NDCs, it is domestic policies and politics that will ultimately drive them to live up to their climate pledges.

Professor Daniel Bodansky of Arizona State said: … It is hard to see a credible deal from Paris emerging without US support. The US Senate would not ratify a treaty, but the US can still sign up to Paris under an “executive agreement” with the sole authority of the president. In terms of international law, this is equivalent to US ratification. George Washington signed the first such agreement in 1789, and thousands have been signed since, including several international environmental treaties … .Obama would be on “relatively firm legal ground” if he signs a legally binding Paris deal without Congressional approval. That’s as long as the agreement could be implemented under, and was consistent with, his existing legislative authority, such as the Clean Air Act. The scope of Obama’s powers to sign an international agreement is unclear, however, since it derives from legal precedent rather than written statute. That’s why there is argument around whether the US can accept legally binding targets, or an obligation to implement its pledge.

 … Even the EU – one of the most vocal supporters of a strong, legally binding agreement – acknowledges that the legal character of the deal is not everything. In his August speech, EU climate commissioner said: Perhaps most importantly, Paris needs to send a credible signal to the world that governments are serious about fighting climate change. Speaking to journalists at the end of October, UN climate chief Figueres said: … I would warn us against simplistic thinking that internationally legally binding means a guarantee. (Selected from http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-legal-form-of-the-paris-climate-agreement 14 December)

And they will meet again

The juggernaut grinds on – in 12 months’ time, everyone will reassemble in Morocco and venues for COPs 23 and 24 are being proposed soon – but at the same time public enthusiasm for action which might increase the cost of living or reduce energy security has ebbed. (Scientific Alliance 3 December)

Selected judgements of the supporters

WWF UK : “We have a clear vision in the strong long term goal; mechanisms to address the gap between that aspiration and the countries’ current commitments; and the foundations for financing the transition to a low-carbon future.”

Greenpeace:

The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history. There’s much in the text that has been diluted and polluted by the people who despoil our planet, but it contains a new imperative to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C.

350.org : “This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels. There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground.”

Oxfam:

This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Only the vague promise of a new future climate funding target has been made, while the deal does not force countries to cut emissions fast enough to forestall a climate change catastrophe.

Environmental Defense Fund :

The agreement will send a powerful, immediate signal to global markets that the clean energy future is open for business. It makes a moral call for dramatic action that leaves no one behind, and it moves us closer to the crucial turning point when global carbon emissions, which have been rising for more than two centuries, finally begin to decline.

Finance: Seems delighted. Long list blogs celebrating the outcome, e.g. ‘Landmark Paris agreement toasted by investors’; ‘Historic Paris agreement means much work ahead for investors’; ‘Escaping the ghosts of COPs past’; ‘Financial innovation – key to climate action’; ‘How unlocking public finance can protect forests’; ‘Enhancing mitigation and climate finance with project-based mechanisms’; ‘Banking climate principles to be launched next week’. (Selected from EF 14 December)

Some national responses

Greenland may seek UN climate deal opt-out amid emissions goal: “We still have the option of making a territorial opt-out to COP21,” the prime minister of Greenland, said during a visit to Copenhagen ..: “we have an emissions quota of 650,000 tonnes of CO₂, which is the same as a single coal-fired power plant in Denmark, or a minor Danish city.” … . Denmark would ratify the climate accord and allow Greenland and the Faroe islands to make their own decision. (Bloomberg 12 December)

The end of keystone XL

U.S. President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline … the decision will end a process that has stretched more than seven years. Not only are environmental groups achieving their goal of blocking the project but they have seemingly convinced the President to do so on climate change grounds. Environmental groups hope to parlay the success into other areas of energy development, seeking to elevate climate change criteria as a means to scrutinize all sorts of oil, gas, and coal projects. … the decision is a momentous shift from years ago when the administration had looked favourably upon the project. TransCanada’s share price dropped by more than 5%. (Oilprice.com 4 November)

Energy debts worries

A survey by U.S. regulators found that there remains significant financial exposure from major lenders to creaky energy debt. The report gave a negative rating to 9.5% of loans, or $372 billion out of $3.9 trillion in loans. A big portion of the worsening quality of loans was related to oil and gas companies. The investigation, completed by the FDIC and the Fed, found “persistent structural deficiencies found in loan underwriting.” … They went on to add, “Aggressive acquisition and exploration strategies from 2010 through 2014 led to increases in leverage, making many borrowers more susceptible to a protracted decline in commodity prices.” Increased scrutiny from federal regulators could put a chill on lending to the energy sector in the months ahead. (Oilprice.com 6 November)

Green activism growing

The allegations that ExxonMobil covered up its climate science and lied to the public about the dangers of climate change has rapidly moved from a small news story into a full-fledged scandal. That is because the New York Attorney General launched an investigation into potential wrongdoing this week. It is early days for this probe, which could widen to ensnare other oil companies that peddled climate misinformation. It will take time to fully grasp the ramifications of what might stem from this, but it is important for investors to keep an eye on it. To be sure, proving some sort of criminal wrongdoing is going to be extremely difficult, but it could balloon into a significant problem for the energy industry … . It (the green lobby) also announced a major nuclear initiative to assist in the development of a new generation of nuclear reactors that could replace fossil fuels one day. Of all climate policies, this investment in new energy technologies has most bipartisan support. Comments the FT Editorial: ‘As the remarkable progress of solar power in past decade has shown, policy and innovation can support each other’. (FT 9 November)

The climate threat to us industry, government and habitats

Kerry said in America that the climate threat was not just to habitats or butterflies … but to everything from agriculture to national security … critics worry unless there are legally binding targets a US President who is a climate sceptics (and many Republicans are) might be unwilling to take action. Mr Kerry said this was ‘definitely not going to be so. (FT 12 November)

Senate block EPA ruling

Fifty-five U.S. Senators voted to block an Environmental Protection Agency rule that would have curbed carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. Passing the resolution without a veto-proof vote (a resolution which the President had already promised not to sign) made this act of defiance symbolic only. But with the Paris climate summit just a week and a half away, it was powerful symbolism. The United States won’t sign on to a binding, enforceable GCT. So what else is there for UN delegates to work towards, if such a treaty is off the table? (American Interest/FT 12 November)

Senate to block binding climate agreement

The US Senate is sending a clear message to the world’s climate delegates … : ‘This legislative body won’t ratify any kind of binding Global Climate Treaty, so don’t even try. It will not contribute government money to a global climate fund that’s meant to spend $100 billion annually on helping poorer countries mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. This sends yet another powerful message to climate delegates. Even if negotiators stay away from a binding treaty for fear of America’s lack of participation, they won’t be able to entice the developing world to stick to national emissions reductions plans if the carrot in all of this – the climate fund – isn’t being backed by the developed world. (The American Interest, 19 November)

NB : A ‘shall’ was swapped for ‘should’. A shall could have forced Obama to seek US Senate approval, something he is unlikely to get and hence wanted to avoid. (FT 14 December)

The end of solar subsidies in California?

Changes in legislation mean that ‘rooftop solar owners are missing out on a potentially lucrative subsidy that is paid to utilities and developers of big power projects”. It also means that utility ratepayers could end up overpaying for clean electricity to meet the state’s benchmark because lawmakers, by excluding rooftop solar, left out the source of more than a third of the state’s solar power. Owners of rooftop solar systems and their advocates aren’t happy … Pressure from utilities and unions is blamed. (WUWT 3 December)

Domestic energy policy fights: Security, infrastructure and compromise

The U.S., the House of Representatives passed a sweeping energy reform package on 3 December, a bill that included a repeal on the crude oil export ban. H.R. 8, or the “North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015,” would accelerate LNG export permits and address the aging U.S. electricity infrastructure. President Obama promised to veto the package because of the language that would diminish the administration’s ability to evaluate LNG export permits. Obama had also previously opposed lifting the ban on oil exports. The bill is expected to go nowhere.  … .. While the fate of the legislation is unknown, Democrats and Republicans could negotiate a compromise that would see the removal of the oil export ban in exchange for an extension of subsidies for renewable energy. There is currently a lot of jockeying behind the scenes over a potential deal, and while agreement is far from a certainty, the two sides are closer than they have been in a long time. (Oilprice.com 4 December)

Repeal of export ban

The U.S. Congress is poised to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports. At the time of this publishing, the outcome of the vote was still not decided, as some conservative members of the House of Representatives balked at the budget and tax package because of what they see as excessive spending. On the Democratic side, some members opposed lifting the ban on environmental grounds. … Assuming the bill is passed (and subsequently clears the Senate and is signed by the President [as it was]), the removal of the ban on oil exports could permanently diminish the spread between Brent and WTI, smoothing out regional differences in oil supply and demand [as it did]. It will mark a major legislative victory for oil and gas producers, who have at times suffered from too much oil trapped within the US. Still, most analysts do not see a massive ramp up in exports in the near-to medium-term. The immediate effect on prices should be to slightly push up WTI and slightly push down Brent, but those effects are more likely to be overshadowed by other market factors, or simply broader macroeconomic trends. (OiIprice.com 18 December)

A USA view of Paris negotiations

An US under-secretary of state told the FT ‘the US was ready to help poorer countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change, but would not pay for the sweeping losses that it could cause’. This is described as opposition to providing direct support to help developing countries deal with loss and damage caused by global warming. The USA will not accept ideas of liability and compensation … the finance portion of the negotiations is one of the still controversial pieces of it.’ So far the US has pledged technical assistance as well as financing for renewable energy and initiatives such as reforestation. ‘Everybody has to bear costs’, said the under-secretary. (FT 25 November)

Government shut-down averted by energy compromise

Republicans got an end to oil export limitations and the suspension of some health care taxes, while Democrats got middle class tax breaks and continued support for renewables. [The latter is likely to be more valuable.] However, the White House ‘successfully blocked measures to hamper its climate change policies’. Those worried about US debt-mountain were not impressed, noting unfunded tax cuts of $780bn over ten years adding $2tn to current debts. The Natural Resources Defence Council regretted the action of export of crude but was relieved that climate change action had not been blocked. (B. Jopson FT 17 December)

At home in Brussels: Promoting the energy union

The EU Energy Union Would Expand Powers of Commission. Leaked documents from Brussels re the Energy Union include:

a draft version of the State of the Energy Union agreement;

The state of the union

The European Commission published its first-ever ambitiously named “State of the Energy Union” report.. … ..Progress in the EU capital tends to be measured in small steps. The Energy Union progress report, moreover, was accompanied by a stack of “supporting studies” – ranging from “guidance” for member states on their “national energy and climate plans”, an Energy Efficiency progress report, a list of high-priority infrastructure projects, a climate action progress report, an Energy Security Strategy implementation report, a study of consumer trends, and more giving the exercise a distinctly bureaucratic flavour. The main message … .is that next year is going to be “the year of delivery”, with legislative proposals to come. (Energy Post 20 November)

Back to the LCPD

Updating the Large Combustion Plant Directive defining BAT and BREF – best available technology – documents is being discussed in Brussels and voting is expected by end of this year. The current BREF is two years behind schedule. Much is made of costly health impacts derived from modelling and Greenpeace claims that the new directive will ‘deliver less than half of the {desired} reduction’ … ‘coal will have to go’, as will dirty diesel cars, which is most. High NO_x emitters must be prevented from entering the market. (Acid News October)

Security top priority: Germany undermining the dream?

“Energy security, solidarity and trust.” These simple words formed one of the headings in the European Commission’s State of the Energy Union report that came out last week. Of solidarity and trust, there seems to be a distinct lack in the EU these days. Take Nord Stream-2, the gas pipeline joint venture through the Baltic Sea that Gazprom has entered into with some of the largest European energy companies (Eon, BASF/Wintershall, Engie, OMV, Shell), with the whole-hearted support of the German government. Although this project may lead to short-term gains, it undermines most of the goals of EU energy policy, thereby undermining the dream of a European Energy Union. … [The issue with] Nord Stream-2 is perhaps not even the project itself, noted one observer, but the fact that it was agreed without any consultation with partners in the EU (neighbouring states, other companies, EU institutions). Nor does Germany seem to want any meddling” from the EU in its pipeline affairs. (Energy Post 27 November) <info@energypost.eu>

At Paris: World leader in energy transition

Here, EU policy remained ‘strongly in favour of legally binding mitigation targets’ and joined developed countries that ‘hold out against demands from poorer ones that the new accord should support them for loss and damage caused by the impacts of climate change’. (FT 3 December)

According a witness to the Paris event, energy companies should welcome the outcome. It gives them everything they need to prosper in the future: a long-term goal, but also the flexibility of carbon markets, an emerging global level playing field, and the promise of billions in subsidies and investments in renewable energy, cleantech and other low-carbon options.

What Paris means for fossil fuels and market design as well as for European energy policy is that Paris is “not a simple death knell for fossil fuels.” It will put renewed attention on CCS and on natural gas as a “transition fuel.” In addition, a crucial debate that will arise is about how to design markets and regulations in such a way as to make the energy transition possible. According to some experts, Europe has the chance to be a leader on this. “China is too centralised, the US too fragmented.” (Energy Post 18 December) info@energypost.eu

The EU ETS flagship – Lacking integrity

The EU’s main scheme for reducing CO₂ emissions is almost never enforced, according to an official report by Brussels’ own spending watchdog. Only one EU country inspected – Britain – makes on-the-spot visits to factories to check whether they are staying within their carbon limits under the scheme, the EU Court of Auditors found. Even the UK only checks 1% of sites, down from 5% before.

The auditors also said that attempts to stamp out endemic fraud in the EU’s flagship Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), from which billions of pounds of “carbon credits” have been stolen by criminals, are “not adequate” and continue to leave “significant security weaknesses.”

The verdicts will be deeply embarrassing on the eve of the United Nations climate summit in Paris, where European leaders will claim the ETS as their flagship achievement to tackle climate change.

“The truth about the ETS is that it has completely failed,” said the deputy director of the Open Europe thinktank.

It has cost business money and done nothing to reduce CO₂. It is based on a fundamentally flawed premise and as the latest report shows, all attempts to fix it are doomed. It is a hopeless case to take to Paris next week.

The ETS is supposed to discourage large industrial plants from causing CO₂ by making them buy carbon credits. Each credit gives them the right to emit one tonne of CO₂. The more a factory or plant emits, the more it is supposed to pay. Investigators found that 73% of such schemes lacked integrity. (PH 4 November/Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph)

Insecure supply OR managed demand?

The European Electricity Transmission System Operators have been studying progress on the development of electricity grids in Europe. In a landmark report earlier this month, they drew some rather alarming conclusions. Under any “decarbonisation scenario”, they said – whether dominated by fossil fuels (with carbon capture and storage) or renewables, and whether centralised or decentralised – some €10 to €20 billion in annual investments in grid infrastructure will be needed in Europe in the decades out to 2050. If this money is not forthcoming, electricity supply may become insecure, they warn. (Energy Post 20 November)

Response to the transformation of the European energy landscape

Following Eon, Germany’s RWE is to change radically by shifting its operational focus to renewables, electricity distribution and retail sales. A new company is to be set up where RWE retains a majority stake. Subsidies to renewables have depressed the wholesale price damaging profitability, leaving utilities without resources to invest, the changes in structure is to alter this. For RWE, it was probably too late to move investments into solar and wind. (FT 2 December)

NB According to Energy World, (December) projections indicate that the EU will hit a 24% reduction of you know what emissions by 2020, and with additional planned measures, a cut of 25% on 1990 level could be achieved.

Huge subsidies to ‘Green’ energy

Wholesale electricity price in Germany has halved to around €60 per MWH and green energy is supplied to the grid on a priority basis, in whatever quantity it is available with no consideration of contract prices. The photovoltaic installations connected at the beginning of the century still receive over €500 for each MWh fed into the grid under the 200 Renewable Energy Sources Act. (J. Michael in Acid News October)

More coal for Hamburg

Hamburg’s mayor Olaf Scholz, a leading figure in Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), stood alongside Magnus Hall, president of Swedish energy utility Vattenfall, and pushed a big symbolizing Vattenfall’s ceremonial opening of a 1600 Megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant that had been under construction for eight years – despite heated opposition from Germany’s greens, who want the country to exit from coal altogether. (Deutsche Welle, 19 November)

The Klima–Allianz

The Klima–Allianz Deutschland is a broad societal alliance for climate protection consisting of 100 organisations from churches, organisations concerned with development, youth, animal rights, environment and consumer protection and trade unions. Since 2012 FOS is the Rechtsträger (legal representative?) of the Klima–Allianz) (FOS 24 November)

E.On selling out

E.on, Germany’s largest electric power producer, announced that it lost over 7 billion euros in the third quarter, reports Germany’s flagship news magazine Spiegel here on 11 November. The loss stems from the writing down the value of coal and gas power generation assets by billions of euros due to the steep drop in wholesale electricity prices. The write-off was necessary in light of the dismal future the fossil industry faces. Plainly said: Germany’s Energiewende, transition to renewable energies, which mandates power companies buy up solar, wind and other green energies at exorbitant prices, and even when they are not needed, continues to rapidly erode the German base-power production. Tens of thousands of once high-paying industrial jobs are now in jeopardy. With mandated green energies, the European power market is seeing a huge oversupply of power on the market that has wholesale prices far too low to cover generation costs … ..Comments Pierre ‘The tragedy of this mandated oversupply is that low wholesale prices, which at times are even negative, are not getting passed along to the consumers. Rather next year German consumers will see new record-high electricity prices. Already poor households are reeling and electricity is becoming a luxury for the affluent only. E.on ‘will be spinning off its “entire power plant business” in the form of a new company called Uniper at the end of the year while it focusses on “renewable energies and sales”. It’s a real pity. Germany’s power companies used to be solid, high-tech companies that delivered the most stable and efficient power in the world. Now they are literally being gutted alive before our very eyes. The country is setting itself up for some terrible times, and doing so fast. (Der Spiegel in Pierre at No Tricks Zone PH 11 November)

Comments from European energy review

The residential electricity price has doubled, and reliability is stable, only because pushing the instability problems to Norway, Sweden, and Eastern Europe via Poland.

Merkel unexpected in Paris

In some of the stranger developments of the day, Angela Merkel linked the conference to standing up to terrorism – “Through our presence here today we show we are stronger than the terrorists,” in comments that were symptomatic of the fervour with which alarmists believe the battle against CO₂ must be fought. (From GWPF report 2 December).

UK Policy

Green hopes: Subsidised renewable energy lowers wholesale price

Thanks to renewables, the wholesale electricity price started falling in the UK in 2014 (as in Germany) in 2011. Data show UK catching up with the Germany [but] renewable subsidy cuts [see below] will mean the UK will further falling behind, said Prof. Barnham from the Department of Physics at Imperial. He argued that a focus on renewable power generation should be a priority during the upcoming COP21 climate summit. What is the appropriate mix of renewable technologies? This depends on the demand and the potential supply of energy types available in a country that would lead to a stable and reliable grid. … Germany has so much cheap solar and wind powered electricity that the wholesale electricity price has fallen 37%. (From Grantham Institute 10 November)

Tidal lagoon postponed or dropped

We should hear plenty about infrastructure investment in George Osborne’s Spending Review and Autumn Statement, with the High Speed 2 railway, “Northern Powerhouse” and a fleet of new nuclear stations all likely to be name-checked. But one notable omission in the Chancellor’s speech could be the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. This £1bn project is the brainchild of Gloucester-based Tidal Lagoon Power (TLP) and is backed by around £200 m of equity cheques from the Prudential and InfraRed Capital Partners. The first of its type in the world, a man-made breakwater would create power from tidal movement, with hydro-turbines generating electricity when water flows through the blades. Once operational, TLP executives hope to roll out another five of these plants along the west coast of England and Wales and generate around 8% of the UK’s electricity. The idea is unique and therefore unproven, so, unsurprisingly, it has been hit by difficulties. Planning permission was obtained in June, but the start of construction has been delayed from spring next year to 2017.

There have been protracted talks with officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change … and these could be slowed still further by the cull of 200 civil servants – one in eight of the department’s staff – as part of the settlement that Energy Secretary Amber Rudd has negotiated with the Treasury. Although the project would replace dated carbon-based power plants and so help the Government meet renewable energy targets, the DECC is nevertheless vetting some of TLP’s claims. Officials want to make sure that dumping construction materials into Swansea Bay will not have too many ill-effects on fish and the broader ecosystem, and also want to verify the private investment case for a project whose price tag has nearly doubled from the initial estimates.

Most important, they are unsure about suggestions that this technology could be Britain’s next great export, and need to be convinced that overseas governments really are interested in snapping up TLP’s intellectual property once Swansea Bay is operational and proven to work. (PH 25 November) not a lot of people know that <comment-reply@wordpress.com>

Energy security top priority

Britain will no longer pursue green energy at all costs and will instead make keeping the lights on the top priority, Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, will vow this week. Households already face paying over-the-odds for energy for years to come as a result of expensive subsidies handed out to wind and solar farms by her Labour and Lib Dem predecessors, Ms Rudd will warn. a major speech setting out a new strategy, the energy secretary is expected to say that from now on, policies will balance “the need to decarbonise with the need to keep bills as low as possible.” “Energy security has to be the first priority. It is fundamental to the health of our economy and the lives of our people,” she will say. (E. Gosden, Sunday Telegraph, 15 November)

NB: Amber Rudd will ‘give coal-fired power plants 10 years’. (FT headline). The UK is to move to gas, but difficulties here are likely to lead to millions of pounds of subsidies for highly polluting diesel generators which are cheap to build. Only one new gas plant has so far been approved. There is much debate about the ‘capacity mechanism’. Rudd had said: In the next 10 years, it’s imperative that we get new gas-fired power stations built. (FT 18 November)

Reality check: Installing diesel

Britain’s green energy barons are getting huge taxpayer subsidies to install diesel generators – exactly the kind of polluting energy source their wind and solar farms are meant to replace. Wind and solar power firms are being encouraged to install the generators, which pour out CO₂, a greenhouse gas, and toxic nitrogen dioxide, on their sites in order to provide standby generating capacity and prevent the lights going out during periods of peak demand. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is offering consumer-funded subsidies to firms that install such “short-term operating reserve” because Britain has invested so little in large new power stations that there is a risk of winter power cuts. (J. Boswell and J. Leake, Sunday Times, 22 November)

Winning the energy debate?

The GWPF applauded Amber Rudd’s explicit intention to return to Lord Lawson’s market approach of the early 1980s in order to ensure that the supply of energy the UK needs is available at the lowest practicable cost.

In a strong signal to the British public and the forthcoming UN climate conference in Paris Government has announced it will from now on prioritise energy security and affordability of energy over the climate agenda … The Secretary of State is to be commended for stressing that the Government will be pragmatic in dealing with its unilateral carbon budget which is likely to be amended if the Paris summit fails to agree legally binding CO₂ targets for all major emitters

UK’s coal plants to be replaced by nuclear and gas

This was the government’s intention, and was never in doubt; coal had to go if the country was to meet its independently set carbon budgets and agreed emissions reduction targets . … she [(Ms Rudd) made it clear that meeting climate change targets would not be at the expense of energy security:

No government should ever take a risk on security, whether it be keeping our citizens safe or building a more resilient economy. This Government is focussed on securing a better future for Britain. … Our modern society simply cannot function without power. Energy security has to be the number one priority … . the challenge we face is how we make sure that energy remains as the backbone of our economy, while we transform to a low carbon system.

The question, of course, is what we replace coal with. In this case, the Energy Secretary performs a delicate but sensible balancing act, saying

Gas is central to our energy secure future. So is nuclear. Opponents of nuclear misread the science. It is safe and reliable. The challenge, as with other low carbon technologies, is to deliver nuclear power which is low cost as well. Green energy must be cheap energy … ..

This is an important statement. For too long, policymakers have fudged the issue of whether energy security or emissions reduction were the priority, and have avoided talk about the big increase in overall system costs which result from significant levels of wind and solar generation. Here, we have a clear and straightforward analysis, which gives some confidence that the government at least has its priorities right and has a Secretary of State likely to stick to her guns. In case there was any doubt, the speech concluded with these lines:

Energy security provides the foundation of our future economic success. It is the top priority. Secure energy so people can get on with their lives. Affordable energy so the people that foot the bill, the households and businesses of Britain, get a good deal. And clean energy to safeguard our future economic security.

Rudd reprimanded for false hopes

‘Amber Rudd acknowledged this week that we needed an awful lot of new gas power capacity to be built in the next few years. Given market conditions, it is extremely unlikely that much of this will arrive in the timescale she hopes for. The government, however, is pinning its hopes on the Capacity Market Mechanism, which pays generators to provide a certain amount of standby capacity. This is fine in theory, but the first auction held last December, to supply capacity for 2018, resulted in most of the contracts being awarded to existing generators. The reason for this is simple – as they are already operational, they don’t have to worry about covering their capital and fixed costs; it is only marginal costs that matter. Only one new build CCGT that won a contract was Carlton Power’s 1520 MW project at Trafford, Manchester. The auction process is a reverse one, with all successful bidders receive the same contract rate, decided when the government has the requisite amount of capacity bid. On this occasion, all applicants, including Trafford, received £19.40/kW @2012 prices. So far so good. Unfortunately, however, since winning the auction Carlton have failed to secure investment for their scheme, putting the whole project at risk, as the Telegraph reported last month. (PH 23 November)

NB: UK industry is asking reform of the auction and subsidies system for power companies. The energy secretary was now poised to ‘take stock’. One obstacle is Brussels, but now there is concern that the rules favour diesel. (FT 7 December)

Official energy policy: Osborn’s autumn statement

The government will prioritise energy security, whilst making reforms to meet our climate goals at lower cost. The government is doubling spend on energy innovation, to boost energy security and bring down the costs of decarbonisation.” And: “As part of this, the Spending Review and Autumn Statement invests at least £250 million over the next 5 years in an ambitious nuclear research and development programme that will revive the UK’s nuclear expertise and position the UK as a global leader in innovative nuclear technologies. This will include a competition to identify the best value small modular reactor design for the UK. This will pave the way towards building one of the world’s first small modular reactors in the UK in the 2020 s.” … . The government has also withdrawn its support for the proposed demonstration project for large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS). There was fury ‘as axe falls on £1bn UK carbon capture plan’. (Scientific Alliance 27 November)

The latest capacity market auction

DECC has announced the results of this year’s capacity market auction, which is designed to contract standby electricity capacity for when renewables are not working. The Telegraph reports, (along with the obligatory “black smoke” from cooling towers picture!). Hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies will be paid to diesel generators and old coal and nuclear plants to help keep the lights on later this decade, ministers are set to confirm on Friday. National Grid is preparing to publish the results of the latest “capacity market” auction, a Government scheme that will pay energy companies to guarantee they can provide electricity in 2019–20. The company said the price of the subsidies would be £18 per kilowatt, to be paid for just over 46 gigawatts of capacity, giving a total subsidy bill of about £830 m.

What the reporter forgot to mention is that there is no new build CCGT capacity amongst the winners. As with last year’s auction, to cover the capital costs of new build, along with the loss making market conditions that gas power stations are facing because of subsidised renewables, CCGT operators need a much higher standby payment than £18/KW. In contrast, for existing power plants, such as coal and nuclear, which are already paying for fixed and depreciation costs, £18/KW is a nice bit of bunce. The only new CCGT plant is Carrington, with 810 MW already under construction and is due to start up next year. (PH 11 December) comment-reply@wordpress.com

The fifth carbon budget: Its recommendations still greener than EU

John Gummer’s Committee on Climate Change has published its recommendations for the UK’s Fifth Carbon Budget (2028–32). Under the Climate Change Act, the Committee has a duty to advise the Government on such issues. So far, the latter has adopted previous budgets without much quibble. Certainly, if the Government were to make major changes, or just ignore it, there would be a big battle politically. For this Fifth Budget, they are proposing that GHG emissions be cut by 57% from 1990 levels, to 1765 Mt CO₂e. The Fourth Carbon Budget, for 2023-27 already legislates for a cut of 50%. What needs to be borne in mind, however, is that the EU’s binding target is only for a 40% cut from 1990. Gummer proposes ‘an ever more suicidal rush to decarbonise than our competitors in Europe’, never mind the rest of the world. One reason is the need to keep track with the overall aim, set out in the Climate Change Act, for a cut of 80% by 2050. (P Homewood 6 December) https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-fifth-carbon-budget-the-next-step-towards-a-low-carbon-economy/

Goodbye to gas-cookers and boilers?

The Grantham Institute communications director suggested that gas heating and cooking would need to be rapidly phased out by the 2030s, if carbon targets were to be met. How close is he to the truth? … Gummer’s Committee on Climate Change is already pressing for a cut (see above) … Let us therefore assume a target of 63% for the next five year period; this would keep us on line for 80% decarbonisation by 2050 … . Emissions of CO₂ from coal amounted to 121 MtCO₂ in 2013. But, according to DECC, only 82% went into electricity generation. So once all coal power production is ceased, we would see a reduction of 99 MtCO₂. Currently, GHG emissions are 568 MtCO₂e, and a 63% targeted cut from 1990 levels would mean 299 MtCO₂e. Therefore eliminating coal from the mix would still leave us at 469 MtCO₂e, a long way from the target for 2035.What about electricity generated from gas? According to DECC, this only accounts for 31% of total gas consumption, implying emissions of 57 MtCO₂e. Even if we found a way of running the electricity grid without coal or gas, we would still be looking at emissions of 412 MtCO₂e, way above target. So where will the axe fall? … . This leaves transport and domestic heating. Combined GHG emissions in these two sectors totalled 194 MtCO₂e in 2013. To get from 412 to 299 MtCO₂e, this would have to fall to 81 MtCO₂e, assuming that the electricity supply system can cope with no gas fired generation, and a massive increase in demand from decarbonised transport and heating. So it looks as if we can kiss goodbye to our gas cookers and boilers, not to mention our cars! (PH 19 December)

Local coal supply finished

The last deep coal mine at Kellingley in the UK closed adding the last few to the many who lost their jobs. Coal mining employed 1.2 million people in 1920, was nationalised in 1945 and privatised in 1994. Much cheaper imports have not helped (now £39 compared to £43 a tonne from Russia, USA and Colombia.) Carbon taxes added to an unfair playing field says the union, and generators do pay more tax on this fuels than they pay for the fuel itself. The world is currently saturated with cheap coal. But coal still generated almost 30% of UK electricity. Gas and nuclear is the future, says government but also announced a £250 m subsidy for dirty diesel generators. Eggborough and Ferrybridge are to close in March 2016. Half of Drax (4000 mW) is converting to biomass, perhaps. (FT 12/13 December)

Austerity bites – More and more energy-related cuts

Osborn announced further privatisation to replenish the coffers of the state: included are the MET Office, the Green Investment Bank, the Ordinance Survey, Land Registry and Urenco (who enriches uranium) and much else. Not much left. (FT 24 November)

After Paris: The battle begins

The real battle about the implications of the Paris climate agreement has just begun. The fuzzy and essentially aspirational deal suits most governments and allows them to declare a victory. Its woolly and non-committal form, however, poses a serious challenge to the EU’s and Britain’s climate policy framework. The Government has been clear that the UK may revise the fourth carbon budget in light of developments in the EU. If member states refuse to turn the 2030 pledge into nationally binding targets, we can expect Mr Osborne to finally achieve what he has been trying for years: to revise the UK’s 2025 target to more modest commitments. (Benny Peiser, The Daily Telegraph, 14 December)

Fracking likely in future?

Halliburton may join Third Energy at a Yorkshire fracking site ‘to gain experience in the UK fracking market. A number of companies are looking for opportunities in UK. Against are: Frack-Free Rydale. (Down to Earth 92, August 2015)

Chinese Policy

How green is energy security?

Chinese scientists have published two alarming reports in a matter of weeks. Both conclude that the Himalayan glaciers and the Tibetan permafrost are succumbing to catastrophic climate change, threatening the water systems of the Yellow River, Yangtze and Mekong. The Tibetan plateau is the world’s “third pole”, the biggest reservoir of fresh water outside the Arctic and Antarctica. The area is warming at twice the global pace, making it the epicentre of global climate risk. One report was by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The other was a 900-page door-stopper from the science ministry, called the “Third National Assessment Report on Climate Change”. The latter is the official line of the Communist Party. It states that China has already warmed by 0.9–1.5 degrees over the past century – higher than the global average – and may warm by a further five degrees by 2100, with effects that would overwhelm the coastal cities of Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangzhou. The message is that China faces a civilizational threat. Whether or not you accept the hypothesis of man-made global warming is irrelevant. The Chinese Academy and the Politburo do accept it. So does President Xi Jinping, who spent his Cultural Revolution carting coal in the mining region of Shaanxi. This political fact is tectonic for the global fossil industry and the economics of energy. Until last Saturday, it was an article of faith among Western climate sceptics and some in the fossil industry that China would never sign up to the COP21 accord in Paris or accept the “ratchet” of five-year reviews. They have since fallen back to a second argument, claiming that the deal is meaningless because China will not sacrifice coal-driven growth to please the West, and without China the accord unravels since it now emits as much CO₂ as the US and Europe combined. This political judgment was perhaps plausible three or four years ago in the dying days of the Hu Jintao era. Today it is clutching at straws.

Eight of the world’s biggest solar companies are Chinese. So is the second biggest wind power group, GoldWind. China invested $90bn in renewable energy last year and is already the superpower of low-carbon industries. It installed more solar in the first quarter than currently exists in France.

The Chinese plan to build six to eight nuclear plants every year, reaching 110 by 2030. They intend to lever this into worldwide nuclear dominance, as we glimpsed from the Hinkley Point saga. Home-grown energy is central to Xi Jinping’s drive for strategic security. China’s leaders know what happened to Japan under Roosevelt’s energy embargo in the late 1930 s, and they don’t trust the sea lanes for supplies of coal and liquefied natural gas. Nor do they relish reliance on Russian gas.

(China Dialogue argues that the domestic energy shift has reached a point where Beijing has a vested commercial interest in holding the world to the Paris deal. “The Chinese think they can dominate low-carbon technologies,” she said. (Isabel Hilton https://www.chinadialogue.net/)

Africa South of the Sahara : A Future for Fossil Fuels?

Tanzania, Rwanda, Kenya, Mozambique, Angola and Nigeria have electricity generation built upon hydroelectric power. In Tanzania, Rwanda, Kenya, Mozambique and Angola, 78% of electricity comes from hydro and geothermal sources contrary to claims made by the UN. Fossil Fuels are currently of secondary importance. Kenya is the only country with significant geothermal. Geothermal seems to be an under-developed resource along the volcanic East African rift. S Africa alone has an electricity supply built on indigenous coal supplemented by nuclear power. S Africa is by far the wealthiest and most advanced of the seven nations. Inclusion of S Africa in regional statistics greatly distorts the picture. Hydroelectric generation has faltered in recent decades, I suspect down to naturally shifting rainfall patterns, and has been augmented by fossil fuels. Per capita electricity consumption in 6 of the countries is minuscule compared with S Africa and the OECD. For example compare: Tanzania 114, S Africa 4522, UK 5283 kWh per capita per annum In all countries, growth in electricity supply has to some significant extent been consumed by growth in population. For so long as rapid population growth continues to consume scarce resources it will be difficult for these countries to improve the wealth and health of individuals.

Tanzania, Rwanda and Angola have all increased per capita electricity consumption and per capita GDP in recent years. But it is unclear from the statistics alone if lack of electricity hampers economic growth in any country. Mozambique has enormous hydroelectric wealth but chooses to simply export this to S Africa instead of using this power to develop its own people and economy.

The socio economic development of many countries was shaped by momentous events in recent years: civil war in Mozambique and Angola, genocide in Rwanda, the ending of apartheid in S Africa.

Oil and gas has made Nigeria and Angola comparatively wealthy, but this wealth has not trickled down to the majority in the form of electricity consumption. Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique are on the threshold of joining the oil and gas age.

Provision of electricity in Africa should be based on merit and it is a huge mistake to exclude fossil fuels from the mix where, for example, indigenous gas offers the most secure and cheapest option. It is proposed that different models need to be developed for providing electricity in urban and rural areas. Centralised hydro, geothermal, gas or coal generation is the model that works in S Africa and throughout the OECD. The rest of Africa should not be deprived of this opportunity. In rural areas, the development of micro grids based around solar PV and battery storage may prove to be a sensible means of providing a little electricity that may go a long way to improving living standards and health. The biggest killer in Africa is disease – AIDS, respiratory infection, diarrhoea, malaria and stroke claim 3 million lives per year. Death from climate change related causes do not figure in the statistics. Disease is borne out of poverty and poverty is in part solved by provision of affordable and reliable electricity supplies.

The production and consumption figures in most African countries are so small they can be difficult to get into perspective. Some basic statistics (2012) for the UK are given below for reference purposes. Population 63.6 million; Electricity production 336 billion kWh; GDP $2.53 trillion. (Eaun Mearns, 10 November, Energy Matters, Energy in Africa: Electricity S of Sahara) euan.mearns@gmail.com

Australian Policy

Carbon pricing back?

For some strange reason carbon pricing now seems to be back on the agenda again – except this time, the major Australian Political parties may be planning to present a seamless non choice to Australian voters. According to The Guardian;

Leaders from business, welfare, the conservation movement, the electricity sector and the union movement have moved to try to fill Australia’s climate policy vacuum by starting a new slogan-free debate to help political parties find workable greenhouse policies.

Comment from WUWT: Given the dramatic Asian race for coal, driven by billions of poor people demanding a better life, it seems very likely that Australian coal production, and coal production elsewhere, will rise dramatically in the near future. Greens are in for a lot more disappointments, if they expect politicians to stand in the path of this coming deluge of new resource tax revenue.

Policy changes

The NSW government will today unveil sweeping changes to how the state’s coastline is managed, building on its insistence that local councils look at the science and evidence of individual beaches rather than blindly adopting UN predictions of climate change. Planning Minister Rob Stokes will announce what he says are world-first strategies that treat the 2007 km NSW coast not as static fixed geography but as a constantly changing and evolving phenomenon. The initiatives mark the second phase of the Coalition government’s demolition of the previous Labor government’s policy, which among other things directed local councils on the coast to enforce the climate change and sea level rise predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Ean Higgins, The Australian, 13 November)

Russian policy

Russia reports” … widespread public doubt that human activities play a significant role in global warming, a tone set by President Vladimir Putin, who has offered only vague and modest pledges of emissions cuts ahead of December’s UN climate summit in Paris.” Mr. Putin also believes that “ … there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia.” Apparently Mr. Putin’s scepticism about the causes of climate change date from the early 2000s when his staff found that any climate change is cyclical and the anthropogenic role is very limited. [Your editor can vouch for this, visiting Moscow and St Petersburg academicians at the time, many were ‘sceptical’. Environmental researcher funded from abroad were not.]

Saudi and Qatar

Saudi Arabia is, the 8th largest emitter of CO₂ in the world, and this is based on consumption, not production of energy. All they have managed to come up with is a promise of avoiding 130 million tonnes of CO₂e. This is not a reduction from current levels, simply a promise to emit less than they otherwise would have done – a figure they don’t even bother to quantify in their plan. (PH 17 November)

Indian policy

India will not agree to any proposal at the climate change negotiations that will seek to restrict the use of coal as a source of energy in the near term, a key member of the country’s negotiating team said on Wednesday. “We cannot agree to any proposal that will restrict our ability to generate energy from coal or inhibit our efforts to ensure energy access to all our people in an accelerated manner,” Ajay Mathur, director general of Bureau of Energy Efficiency, told The Indian Express. “There is no looking away from it. Coal is going to remain India’s primary source of electricity generation for some time. We cannot agree to anything that restrains us from using coal,” he said. (Amitabh Sinha, The India Express, 19 November)

Falling oil prices have been a boon for India, one of the world’s top importers of cruse helping to keep a lid on inflations and reducing pressure of government finances in what is often called the ‘fastest-growing economy in the world, speeding past a slowing China. Bout Modi suffered an unexpected defeat in Bihar and there are the ‘fears and insecurities’ of the country’s Muslims. Modi, some say, risks losing domestic and international credibility. (Time 14 December)

US shale oil production

This peaked in August and then slowed. This would have been even slower if Gulf of Mexico projects had not come on stream, and if the Bakken formation in north Dakoda and the Eagle Ford in south Texas had not been so productive. Output in the newest source region, the Permian Basin, the most recent discovery, is not likely to all either. The number of rigs drilling horizontally for shale has dropped sharply, but least in the Permian basin. Eagel Ford and Bakken are now in decline, if Permian follows ‘that could be a sign that the era of the US oil boom really is at an end.’ (Ed Crook FT 10 November)

Supply and demand decide price of oil: But for how long?

Oil prices are responding to supply and demand, not Opec, says director of Colombia University’s Centre for Global Energy Policy. With Saudis fighting Russia to sell oil to China … the geopolitical tensions that sometimes play havoc with the oil market of ‘relatively absent’ this year because Opec has abandoned quotas. The IEA says the amount of oil consumed per unit of economic output is declining even in developing world, yet there is some increase in demand say IEA which expect demand to grow this year by 1.9%, well above average of past decade of 0.9% China’s growth, however is becoming less energy intensive. And American shale oil has not responded as expected to changes in price. The shale man are resourceful bunch who understand the market as well as the Saudis. @The battle has not yet been won. The IEA is sceptical about further increase in fracking output I USA. (Economist 14 November)

OPEC’s output dipped and now rises

OPEC’s output dipped a bit as export problems in Iraq cut into shipments. Iraq’s exports fell from 4.2 million barrels per day (mb/d) to a little over 4 mb/d. Collectively, the group produced 31.38 mb/d in October, falling by 256,000 barrels per day compared to September. Despite the hiccup, OPEC reported that oil supplies from around the world are still exceeding demand. (Oilprice.com 13 November)

Goldman Sachs published yet another bearish prediction for crude oil, once again raising the possibility that oil will drop as low as $20 per barrel. With storage levels near record levels not just in the U.S., but also around the world, there is not a lot of room on the upside for prices, while there increasingly seems to be room on the downside. The Wall Street Journal estimates that 37 oil and gas companies have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection so far this year, as the financial storm from low crude prices overwhelms their ability to keep the lights on. The bankruptcy cases account for more than $13.1 billion in outstanding debt among the companies involved. Still, despite the wave of bankruptcies, the industry is not consolidating as fast as many previously anticipated, which appears to be delaying market adjustment. (OiIprice.com 20 November)

Oil news from OPEC and IEA

Last week’s OPEC decision has set off another round of crude losses, which persisted through the week. WTI is now decidedly in mid-$30s territory, with Brent breaking through the $40 per barrel threshold. The losses were once hard to imagine. The bearish voices out there (Goldman Sachs, for example) had raised eyebrows over the course of this year when they predicted oil would drop below $40 per barrel, even provoking some mockery at times. But they were right – here we are. 

Obama lifts ban of crude oil export but pays a price

US export ban of crude oil (a porous one anyway with leaks to Canada and Mexico) was lifted provides only ‘light relief’ as oil prices lowest in seven years. There will be no flood of US oil onto ‘saturated’ world markets, and prices dropped further. All this is bad news for refiners who have been making fat profits. Environmental groups ‘reacted with fury’, with 350.0 rg accusing US government of political cowardice, of a cave in to ExxonMobil and ‘their partners in crime’. Obama paid for extending tax credits for wind and solar S oil output has fallen since a peak in April when drilling was slashed in response to price plunge. (Meyer and Crooks FT 17 December)

The gloomy future for oil groups

The year 2026 is likely to be worse than 2015 as the oil industry faces cuts, restructuring, refinancing and even bankruptcy on the horizon, the share price changes demonstrate that the losses have been greatest for PetroChina and, Shell. Exploration and production, oil services and pipeline companies have also suffered, many having lost 50% or more in share price value. (FT 29 December)

Israel, Egypt and Turkey: Growing energy links

Israeli and American oilmen think they have found an oil bonanza under the Golan Heights ‘very tricky territory’. Genie Energy is involved and hopeful. (Economist 7 November)

Pipeline politics begin to link Turkey with Central Asia and Israel

Turkey’s clash with Russia may lead to a search for new partners to build planned new gas pipelines (Tanap- Trans Anatolian) to EU via Greece, the Kurdish feeder to Tanap and a link with Georgia into Southern Caucasus. It is to start delivering in in 2018. If there are interruption from Russia, Turkey needs better links with Iraq and Azerbaijan. Iraq Kurdistan is keen to export gas to Turkey. The Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline splits at Turkey–Syrian border and passes through Isis territory and has been damaged and neglected. (Investing in Turkey FT 17 December)

Ankara is also mending fences with Israel that could become an important energy supplier. It dropped all legal claims against Israel over the Mavi Marmara incident. A gas line from Leviathan to Turkey was discussed, but no final agreement reached. Russia could cut off gas supplies to Turkey. (FT 19/29 December)

Oil and coal prices

Some corners of the energy world dismissed Goldman Sachs’ prediction earlier this year that crude oil prices might fall below $30 per barrel. But no longer. The investment bank reiterated its belief that oil prices may need to fall to $20 per barrel in order to force a significant volume of supply off the market … U.S. oil production has only declined moderately thus far, down about 300,000–500,000 barrels per day since peaking at 9.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in April 2015. But with so many drillers barely hanging on, everyone is still pumping as much oil as possible in order to keep the lights on, delaying the inevitable adjustment in supply. “This rebalancing is far from achieved,” Goldman concluded this week.

The investment bank says that only prices plummeting to $20 per barrel will force a much greater volume of oil offline, a necessary development to balance oil markets. That would be extremely painful for individual drillers and for the economies (local, state and national) that depend on oil revenues, but without such a severe drop in prices, the oil markets could endure a more damaging prospect – a protracted supply overhang, which could end up being much worse for all those concerned. For now, the world is still producing somewhere around 1.5 mb/d more than it needs. Capital markets have shunned some of the most indebted drillers, but access to finance remains open for investment-grade oil drillers. In this context, unless oil prices drop another $10 to $15 per barrel, Goldman says, the necessary contraction may not take place quick enough. (OiIprice.com 18 December)

NB: Biofuels needs $70 to compete. (FT 5 November)

Bad news for gas

An El Nino weather pattern has led to unusually warm weather across the entire eastern seaboard of the United States. The warm spell comes at a very inopportune time for energy markets, depressing winter heating demand at a time of abundant supply. As a result, natural gas prices sank to 17-year lows this week. In fact, while many market watchers focus on oil inventory levels, natural gas storage levels are filled to the brim. In November, natural gas storage topped 4 trillion cubic feet, and the seasonal drawdown has gotten off to a very late start. Storage levels are still well above the running five-year average, which stems not just from record high temperatures, but also from record high production across U.S. shale gas fields this year. Natural gas markets are now decidedly suffering from a supply overhang, and Henry Hub spot prices have dipped below $1.80 per million Btu, the lowest level so far in the 21st century. That is very bad news for natural gas drillers such as Chesapeake Energy, many of which are struggling to deal with mountains of debt. (OiIprice.com 18 December)

Shell difficulties

Royal Dutch Shell announced a discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. The Kaikias field could hold 100 million barrels of oil. While the volume is not massive, the location is fortuitous. The discovery is located near several production facilities and subsea pipelines Shell already operates, which should reduce the cost of development. (OiIprice.com 24 November)

Oil difficulties continue in Brazil and Mexico

The speaker of Brazil’s lower house announced plans to open up impeachment proceedings against Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff over breaking federal accounting laws. The move by Speaker Eduardo Cunha is not as straightforward as it might seem, however. Cunha himself is suspected of involvement in the massive corruption scandal that has plagued state-owned oil company Petrobras. Prosecutors say he took millions in bribes as part of the larger Petrobras scandal. The impeachment ordeal amounts to a power struggle between rival factions of government, and will cast a dark cloud of uncertainty over Brazil’s already floundering economy. The impeachment process could take a few months. (Oilprice.com 8 December)

Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex announced that it would be willing to market oil and gas extracting from producers that win an upcoming auction in December. Mexico has opened up its energy sector and has held a few rounds auctioning off offshore tracts, but has not garnered as much interest as it would like. Pemex’s offer to market oil and gas for private producers could offer a degree of certainty to companies on the fence about bidding in the auction, providing some assurances about how to move product to market. Pemex, as a state-owned firm that held an iron grip on Mexico’s energy sector for more than seven decades, still owns or controls most of the nation’s energy infrastructure. Unlike the previous auctions, the sale in December will offer onshore tracts. That has increased the expectation of success, as many of the fields are either already producing or at least have proven reserves. A larger number of companies are expected to participate, including some smaller upstream companies. (OiIprice.com 20 November)

Venezuela: War or negotiations?

Venezuela’s financial position continues to deteriorate ahead of a December election. The situation has become so bad that some oil suppliers are requiring prepayment for selling crude or refined products to Venezuela’s state-owned firm PDVSA, knowing that offering credit means no guarantee of being paid back. PDVSA is a significant oil producer, but also needs to import different types of crude and refined products to meet domestic demand. According to Reuters, the situation is so bad that at least one trading firm says that it is limiting spot purchases because selling to PDVSA at all – including sales with prepayment – carry risks. PDVSA has promised to honour all of its debts, but revenue has dramatically shrunk while debts have piled up. Venezuela’s situation will likely get worse before it gets better. (OiIprice.com 20 November)

OPEC’s 4 December non-decision

Today is OPEC day, and as expected, the meeting in Vienna has roiled oil markets. There was little expectation of an agreement on production cuts, despite the majority of OPEC members pleading with Saudi Arabia to reverse course and cut back the cartel’s output target level, which stood at 30 million barrels per day (mb/d) heading into the meeting. There were rumours that Saudi Arabia floated the idea of agreeing to a production cut of 1 million barrels per day, but only if several major non-OPEC oil producers also agreed to restrict output. The Saudi proposal reportedly included countries like Mexico and Russia, a longshot bid to spread the burden across oil producers worldwide. It would obviously also put restrictions on output from several OPEC members that are in serious financial trouble. The proposal was probably too difficult to ever be taken seriously, but media reports of Saudi flexibility sparked a brief rally in oil prices. More news ahead of the meeting: an internal OPEC report concluded that even if the group decided to cut its production target, it probably wouldn’t be enough to significantly boost prices, due to the vast levels of oil currently in storage. The OPEC report was not made public, but was obtained by The Wall Street Journal. It illustrates the anxiety within OPEC, and its likely inability to increase prices. Only a massive cut in output levels – something that is off the table for OPEC member countries – could increase prices substantially in the short-term. 

Thus, there was little room for agreement on changing course. At the time of this publishing, it appears that OPEC emerged from its meeting with no decision on a change in the production target. Confusingly, media reports surfaced that said OPEC agreed to lifts its output target to 31.5 mb/d, a 1.5 mb/d increase over the current target. But at the OPEC press conference – delayed no doubt due to the confusion – the OPEC President said that OPEC had not agreed to a production target increase, but instead decided to leave production levels where they are. When pressed by the media, he said OPEC has agreed to current “actual” levels, not the current official target of 30 mb/d. As such, OPEC, while not officially raising the target, has acknowledged that the group is producing in excess of 30 mb/d. Current actual production levels are somewhere around 31.8 mb/d. OPEC did not come to a decision for one main reason. Iran is set to return to the market – around 500,000 to 1 mb/d could come online over the next year or so. OPEC said it would revisit the situation in the next few months to evaluate next steps. (Oilprice.com 4 December)

Canada and USA gas connections

Canada exports 2.6 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas to the U.S., almost entirely by pipeline (some LNG is delivered by truck to New England).

Canada accounts for virtually all of U.S. imported gas, most of which comes from Alberta.

More than enough oil and gas says BP technology

The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said. When taking into account all accessible forms of energy, including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group head of technology said. “Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared,” Mr Eyton said at the launch of BP’s inaugural Technology Outlook. With new exploration and technology, the resources could leap to a staggering 7.5 trillion boe, Mr Eyton said. “We are probably nearing the point where potential from additional recovery from discovered reservoir exceeds the potential for exploration.” (From The Telegraph 12 November)

Excess supply

The North American rig count continues to drop slowly and steadily while natural gas inventories have tied with a previous record set back in November 2012. (Oilprice.com 10 November)

New oil discoveries and expansions

Glencore has secured a deal to buy half of the oil that Libya is exporting, or around 150,000 barrels per day. The oil will be exported from Libya’s Hariga port in the east. Fractured from war and port closures, Libya’s oil exports have plummeted to around 400,000 barrels per day from a pre-war tally of 1.6 mb/d. 

China splits state-owned monopolies

PetroChina, China’s largest oil company is restructuring taking steps towards creating a gas pipeline monopoly. It is to sell three pipelines carrying gas from central Asia, its gas distribution business and six underground storage facilities to China Reform Holdings, a state-owned asset holding company. This is to buoy up PetroChia which has been hurt by the drop in oil prices. Most major integrated oil and gas companies do not own pipeline networks. But ‘true reform ‘ is not in its own hands (PetroChina0 but in those of the National Development and Reform Commission. (FT 27 November)

Energy markets according to the IEA 10 November 2015

The International Energy Agency released its annual World Energy Outlook (WEO), a highly anticipated report that lays down benchmarks on supply, demand, and prices for the next few decades. ..It flags a few very critical trends that are emerging: A phase out of fossil fuel subsidies in many parts of the world because of low oil prices; signs of a decoupling between economic growth and carbon emissions; China’s suddenly reduced role as a driver of energy demand as it transitions to a less energy-intensive model of growth; India taking the baton from China as the most important source of energy demand; the return of Iran to oil markets; and of course, a look at oil prices. 

The IEA predicts that the oil market “rebalances at $80/bbl in 2020, with further increases in price thereafter.” At the same time, the Paris-based energy agency says that a prolonged period of low oil prices cannot be ruled out. In this more pessimistic scenario, the IEA sees oil prices hovering around $50 per barrel through the remainder of this decade, while only gradually moving up to $85 per barrel through 2040. A dark outlook indeed, but investors should not take these long-term figures too seriously as these projections are notoriously inaccurate. (Oilprice.com 10 November)

Will the Saudi’s have the last laugh?

In November 2014, the leaders of Saudi Arabia made one of the biggest bets in history. Their strategy was flawed, and they’ve already lost. In an OPEC meeting that month, Saudi Arabia announced it would maintain high oil-production levels despite falling prices. The Saudis were betting that by keeping prices low they could protect their market share and kill America’s energy renaissance – a rebirth driven largely by Texas, which produces 37% of America’s oil and 28% of its marketed natural gas. What the Saudis and the naysayers closer to home seem to have forgotten is that the free market is the greatest incubator of technological innovation. OPEC’s gamble to kill American innovation was a short-term strategy without an endgame, and no appreciation of how the strategy would spur greater efficiencies and innovation in the U.S. Call this a gentle reminder: It is never wise to bet against capitalism, especially in Texas. (Glenn Hegar, WSJ 2 September)

Losses as well as expansion

While faring much better than coal, the IEA sees large growth opportunities for natural gas, but also several big question marks. The largest market for natural gas will be in the Middle East and Asia, but it also faces competition from renewables and energy efficiency. Plus, LNG export terminals must reduce costs in order to thrive. (Oilprice com 10 November)

Nuclear Prospects Improve

Back to nuclear: Renewables inadequate

There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world. … When President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, many critics of the decision (and even some supporters) said it was merely symbolic. Symbols matter – so even if it were, that would not necessarily be bad. But rejecting XL was a crucial step in the direction of rejecting new commitments to fossil fuel infrastructure. The key to decarbonizing our economy is to build a new energy system that does not rely on carbon-based fuels. Scientific studies show that that can be done, it can be done soon and it does not require nuclear power.

Two weeks ago in Paris, Hansen, Wigley, Caldeira and Emanuel held a press conference. Excerpt from the press release:

Four of the world’s leading climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, will issue a stark challenge to world leaders and environmental campaigners attending the COP21 climate summit at a scheduled press conference in Paris on December 3. (They) will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy. However, they will also show that renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C, and that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system this century. (1) The scientists will outline how only a combined strategy employing all the major sustainable clean energy options — including renewables and nuclear — can prevent the worst effects of climate change by 2100, such as the loss of coral reefs, severe damages from extreme weather events, and the destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide. (From Judith Curry, Climate Etc 20 December)

WNA supports decarbonisation

The COP 21 negotiations in Paris should reach an agreement that encourages a transition to a low carbon society by making better use of nuclear energy alongside other mitigation options, according to the World Nuclear Association. Director General Agneta Rising said “To implement the goals of an ambitious COP 21 agreement governments need to develop policies that encourage investment in low carbon generation, especially nuclear energy. We need 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050 to combat climate change. This will require effective regulation and markets that value low carbon emissions and reliable supplies.” The IPCC says that emissions from the electricity generation sector should fall by 80% by 2050 (1) to prevent a greater than two degrees Celsius rise in average global temperatures. (WNA 30 November)

But unhappiness in France

The French nuclear industry is unhappy about new energy law which wants to the move energy mix towards renewables and away from nuclear, reminiscent of developments in Germany. The issue is the reduction target for nuclear from 75% to 50% of total electricity output by 2025, which is linked to the target of a 40% emission reduction by 2030 and the possibility of energy output falling by a fifth by 2030 under new legislation. Spiralling cost and Fukushima are behind the change of plans. (FT 27 November)

Seeking public support for UK nuclear

The UK nuclear industry publishes its Concordat on Public Engagement. Andrew Sherry, who has led the work as part of the Nuclear Industry Council, explains why. The UK is set to embark on a new nuclear build program that is expected to see around 16 GWe added to the electricity grid over the next 10 to 15 years, effectively replacing the ageing fleet of advanced gas-cooled reactors. At the same time, the UK is delivering a program of decommissioning and waste management that will ultimately see a new geological repository built to house the legacy of higher-level nuclear waste. These large infrastructure projects provide around 40,000 direct jobs in a sector that reaches to all corners of the country. However, as with all infrastructure projects, society has a voice and the successful delivery of both new power stations and the waste repository will be dependent upon broad acceptance from the public. Currently around 40% of the UK general public expressly support the continuing use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, with around 20% opposed and the remainder undecided or uninterested. However, support can be fragile and susceptible to fluctuations depending upon media concerns and world events – for example public support for nuclear energy dropped in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident. However, in the UK public support ‘bounced back’ within six months largely due to the unceasing commitment of academic experts to engage with the media and provide open and honest commentary, often facilitated via the Science Media Centre. As someone who was at the time one of those academic experts, frequently appearing on the media, I know first-hand how much the media valued the opportunity to hear a range of informed and credible viewpoints on the industry’s challenges and plans.

As a partnership between government and industry intended to provide high-level strategic direction to the UK’s nuclear industry, the Nuclear Industry Council has therefore placed a high priority on establishing a sector-wide strategy to enhance public understanding of nuclear energy and to engage more effectively with society. The resulting strategy published in 2014, set out three priorities: First, a small, senior Steering Group of communication professionals from Council membership should develop and deliver a more detailed public engagement and communications strategy on nuclear energy. Then the Steering Group should develop a best practice ‘Charter’ on public engagement principles to be signed by CEOs across the industry. Lastly, research should be undertaken to inform the development and delivery of more effective public engagement.

The ‘Charter’ is published in its final form as the Concordat on Public Engagement with Nuclear Energy. (World Nuclear News 3 December)

Thorium research

The CEO of an energy group based in Ohio is trying to pass legislation in Maine to allow research and development in Thorium. They indicate the government shut down this project in the 1960s to protect nuclear development for weapons and reactors. The Feds actually stopped the research on purpose. If it goes ahead Thorium looks like a very inexpensive and replenishable never ending source of energy. And safe. (David Dilley from Global Weather Oscillations)

Comment: Think Thorium. Abundant, easy to handle, not bomb material, transfers heat in liquid salt, and when exhausted leaves no nasty waste. Designs exist, reactors are being built. But not here, except for research. China? (Tom Harrison 11 December)

Beijing expands nuclear ambitions abroad

In a ‘Big read essay’ in the FT, Chinese ambitions for nuclear power are outlines in some detail. China sees nuclear power as a help against air pollution. Nuclear delays in Finland (Olkiluoto) and France are seen as an incentive to be the first to build new plant, e.g. with technology and experience gained at its Taishan plant reactor a pressurised reactor designed by Areva and under construction. The French effort to build this reactor type at home and in Finland has spiralled in cost and is years behind schedule. China now hope to do ‘the ironing out’ needed for this reactor type and build it at Hinkley Point in the UK, as well as another type based on its own design, at Bradwell. China wants to convince the world that it is as expert as France in Japan. However, in the UK there are concerns, less about the reactor technology than about possible security risks should China becomes too deeply involved. On the other hand, China’s involvement is expected to bring down the considerable costs of nuclear power for the UK, but is nuclear power really safe? South Africa is another potential customer for China. (FT 30 December)

Coal – Not Only Bad News

Coal fading into history?

Investors ‘seek ethical benchmarks’, with the FT supporting divestment with pictures of protesters against Shell and asserting that the issue had moved ‘centre stage, one objective being to persuade investors to make public their carbon footprint, highlight carbon intensive stranded assets and use ‘low carbon indices’ to reduce risky portfolios in order to divest coal assets. (FTfm 16 November)

Not fading in Poland

Twelve new coal-fired power plants are being built in Poland with capacities ranging from 20 to 2000 MW; in German brown coal providing 25% of electricity and hard coal 18% (production to finish in 2018, then imports. ETS sis to limits CO₂ emissions. There will be no more new open cast mines) Germany remains the world’s largest producer of lignite a quarter world total; Greece being another major producers. Russia can now sell coal at lower prices because of currency movements. (Energy World December)

Nor in Bangladesh

Which has announced ambitious plans to increase its coal consumption for 50% of its electricity demand by 2030, you from the current 2%. LNGs is considered too expensive and nuclear unwanted. Coal technology is to be imported from Germany. It suffers from severe energy shortages and a plan developed with Japanese help in 2011 recommends the building a dozen coal plants Environmentalists fear the loss of mangrove cover Solar power is also popular for domestic use and expected to expand. The green energy lobby not pleased. (FT 30 December)

Nor globally: Good news for coal – Undermining Paris

More than 2400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal. The new plants will emit 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and undermine the efforts at the Paris climate conference to limit global warming to 2°C. China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803, according to the study by four climate change research bodies, including Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. India is building 297 and planning 149. Rich countries are also planning new coal plants. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has prompted Japan to turn back to coal, with 40 plants in the pipeline and five under construction. (Ben Webster, The Times, 2 December)

Airpocalypse in China

“Adam’s report includes another important finding: tackling CO₂ emissions would do little if anything to curb the serious air pollution – dubbed “airpocalypse” – plaguing China’s major cities. On the contrary, the measures needed to curb China’s smog of life-threatening pollutants such as nitrogen and sulphur oxides – scrubbers on power plants, for example – actually increase CO₂ emissions. “A programme to rapidly reduce pollutants harmful to human health would be at odds with a programme to reduce CO₂,” Adams states, noting that human health is unaffected by CO₂, a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas. Next to keeping its economy afloat, the biggest challenge to its credibility that the Communist leadership faces is its need to reduce smog. “I have never heard of a public protest in China against carbon dioxide emissions,” Adams states. “CO₂ is a major concern for Western NGOs with offices in Beijing but it’s a non-issue for Chinese citizens and environmentalists at the grassroots.” All that China will commit to, says the Adams report, is to continue to improve the energy efficiency of its economy as it grows – a goal it has long pursued, independent of global warming concerns. In doing so, China aims to increase its GDP along with its fossil fuel use, and by 2030 or so will depend on fossil fuels for 80% of its energy use, down from today’s 90%. When it reaches 80% 15 years hence, its energy makeup will largely resemble America’s today. (Excerpt Paul Homewood 2 December) The Adam’s Report http://www.thegwpf.org/new-report-the-truth-about-china/)

Coal in decline around Beijing

China has accepted $300 million to reduce coal use around the capital, directed against serious particulate pollution coal use in Hebei province is to be cut, the area accounts for 10% of China’s industrial output. Competition between provincial fiefdoms is one problem. Patience and faith will be needed, says Beijing’s deputy mayor. (FT 11 December).

How much longer can coal compete?

Per capita lignite production (2013/4) is largest in Greece, followed by Germany and Australia. (J Michael in Acid News October)

The war over fossil fuel subsidies heats up

US and Japan will propose a deal to cut credit agencies from financing fossil fuels, a ‘new onslaught’ on the coal industry. A proposal to this effect is to be debated in Paris at an OECD meeting next week. If agreed by other countries ‘it would probably make the vast majority of about 1000 planned coal plants in eligible for export credit agency backing. The US and UK have already agreed to rules limiting public financing abroad for coal-fired power plants Japan, the top financier of such projects, was initially opposed. Under a comprise, the most efficient plants can still receive export financing, something not supported by Australia and South Korea, which raised the issue energy welfare of developing countries. (FT 10 November)

Tackling climate change with solar power

From US to China, solar power is poised to tackle climate change and shake up the electricity industry, according to an FT headline. Photos suggest vast areas being taken up by panels. Its discover dates back to Britain in 1875. In Las Vegas, the (run down) Mandalay Hotel installed 20,000 roof top panels. Will Las Vegas be the cradle of a revolution? The UK experience in contrast shows the sectors vulnerability, and at least three solar installation companies have recently gone bankrupt. The feed-in tariff is to be cut by 87%. However, China is now ‘expected to account for 40% of the world’s growth in renewable energy over the next five years.’ The paper speaks rather glibly of an ‘energy revolution’. (FT Weekend Magazine 7/8 November)

Geothermal for Bavaria, Italy and Japan and Turkey

At present Turboden’s geothermal fleet counts 11 plants (99 MW gross), located in Turkey, Europe, the Philippines and Japan. It currently has 6 plants in Turkey, ranging from geothermal to waste to energy and biomass plants. “After the success of four Turboden geothermal projects in Bavaria, Germany, operational since 2012 with an overall power installed of 20.3 MW, of a 1 MW heat & power unit in Austria, and of a 6 MW plant in Japan, in operation since June 2015, plus a backlog of additional 71.2 MW geothermal plants under construction, we are now focused on offering solutions in the range of 20 + MW optimized for Turkish market’s demands”.

New agreements for biomass and heat recovery plants will be closed shortly. A further important step of Turboden advance in the Turkish market, according to its CEO. The first unit installed and operating near Ankara since February 2014 marked the beginning of a growth path in Turkey, with an overall power capacity of more than 20 MW. (From Turboden 1 December)

<Roberto.Carnazza@edelman.com>

Everything is possible

Renewables have become “mainstream”, as the chief of the IEA noted recently … . The question now is, how far will renewables get us, and at what cost, given the still-growing needs for energy in the world. According to a study from the prestigious Stanford University in the US, the answer is simple. The world can go 100% wind, water and sun (WWS) by 2050 – and even save money doing so. The roadmap outlines numerous benefits – millions of jobs, no impact on economic growth – and total savings from fuel costs, environment and climate damage of nearly $US5 trillion. The Stanford study estimates that total WWS conversion will save each person in the 139 countries an average of $170 a year on fuel costs, and $2,880 a year in air-pollution-damage cost and $US1,930/person/year in climate costs (2013 dollars).The authors have broken out the equipment and installations needed into each country. It appears eye watering, but Stanford says the land use requirements are minimal – just 0.29% of land area, mostly for solar PV, not including reclaimed fossil fuel plants … .. Energy efficiency and changing industrial practices will be important. The average end use load will fall by 39.2%, with 82% of this fall due to electrification and eliminating the need for mining, transport, and refining of conventional fuels. (Energy Post 4 December)

Solar fuels – The new saviour?

Bill Gates promises to bankroll clean power and opts for oil made from sunlight, i.e. producing liquid hydrocarbons from the sun and so overcoming storage and intermittency problems. Jack Ma, and Zuckerberg and assorted hedge funds are joining him. A committee should be for a global research agenda established first. UK’s Apollo Programme supporters are hopeful. A tax evasion ploy?

New promises: From battery and storage to liquid hydrogen fuel and thermoelectric powers

Progress in Battery Storage Disordered Lithium-Rich Oxyfluoride as a Stable Host for Enhanced Li⁺ Intercalation Storage is reported, including advanced cathode materials with superior energy storage capability are highly demanded for mobile and stationary applications. (Wiley e-service@wiley.com 15 December)

Attracting the rural vote by breaching the Blend Wall

The Obama administration prescribed 1.8 bn of gallon of additional ethanol use next year; oil refiners and fuels merchants are expected to pass on the costs as they are forced to blend more ethanol than earlier proposed .The new limit will ‘punch through the 10% limit on ethanol mixed with petrol sold today’. If oil refiners and fuels merchants cannot comply they can redeem authorised credits. Renewable identification numbers whose price rose sharply. Some expect the RIN (renewable identification numbers) banks to become insolvent in 2018. EPA thinks that while renewable fuel use will increase in 2016, ‘the statutory limit for total renewable fuel cannot be reached I n 2016. (FT 3 December) American corn farmers are pleased.

The hyperloop: Competitor for airlines?

‘Elon Musk famously proposed the idea of the Hyperloop a few years ago, and suggested it could be a revolutionary method for travel based on available technology today. The Hyperloop has already created extreme controversy with sceptics citing everything from the cost of land in California to the substantial g-forces that would impact passengers being accelerated from 0 to 700+ miles per hour in a short span of time. Yet while there are reasons to be cautious about the technology, the Hyperloop should also be cheered as the continuation of a long tradition of American innovation and pushing the boundaries of the human experience … .a test version of the track is nearing the construction phase. This begs an interesting question – if the Hyperloop works, how big of a disruptive force would it be for the airline industry? The Hyperloop certainly has other (arguably simpler) market opportunities than moving people, such as disrupting the air freight or trucking industry, but those are issues for another time … . Determining exactly how much power a Hyperloop would require is tricky at this stage but it’s also an important issue. One of the reasons that some previously new transportation ideas, like hovercraft, have never really gotten off the ground is their massive energy requirements. … The proposal from Musk originally envisioned a constant energy source in the form of a compressor rather than simple impulse acceleration (like a bullet). It’s not totally clear if the new test tracks will deviate from the original proposal or not, but assuming that the designers stick to roughly what Musk originally proposed, a 436 hp (325 KW) capsule motor would be required. For comparison, trains’ locomotives frequently have around 4,000 horsepower, while a typical car often has around 150 hp. The biggest challenge here is how much friction the system will face from the air around it … . Overall, the Hyperloop would use perhaps as little as 27 kW of power per passenger (assuming a very conservative 6 passengers per tube and a 30 minute travel time on the trip) … Essentially the math here suggests that a Hyperloop tube could move passengers for as little as a few dollars each in energy. The real issue that will determine feasibility then is the capital expenditure cost for the Hyperloop. More on that in a future article. (EER 12 November)

Shrinking car engines and driverless cars

The Ford Eco-boost engines, one and three cylinders delivers more power than a previous 4 cylinder 1.6 l engine and is now fitted to one in five cars sold in Europe. Many more horse powers can be extracted from a given volume of fuel: new material, turbocharging, direct fuel injection and variable valve timing better software controlling the valves and carbon coatings are making the difference and research continues. Cylinder deactivation is being explored foo small engines as well as large ones, turning some cylinders off when not needed and promising further fuel saving. (FT 19/20 December)

A future for biofuels in transport?

According to Du Pont advanced biofuel made from agricultural waste will not be competitive with conventional fuels until oil is back to $70-80 per barrel. Du Pont recently opened the world’s largest cellulosic ethanol plant, a producer of second generation biofuels in Iowa. This product is said to produce 90% fewer CO₂ than petrol and its aim is to reform the transport sector, Du Pont intends to use corn waste, but bagasse from sugar production can also be used. Activists have attacked the company for making slow progress in commercialising the technology. Advanced enzymes are needed to release sugars. Only two other plans exist using this technology, owned by Abegona of Spain and Royal DSM (Dutch), but very little has been produced so far. To remain economically feasible, the USA needs to retain its Renewable Fuel Standard; but Republicans and some Democrats say this should be scrapped. (FT 5 November)

NB: The increased growth of grain for ethanol in USA is now blamed for the decline in the bee population. (PH 21 December)

Much more in the pipeline: The golden age of material science

Material science is transforming everything, from cars to light bulbs, and will enable much improved energy efficiency. In the pipelines are new material for light emitting diodes, a new form of electronics which allows electrons to move through semi-conductors, better and faster batteries involving ‘quantum dots’; biosensors from graphene, microwave absorbers, and even ‘porous liquids that could capture ‘CO₂ emissions from factories’. Nanoparticles are at the centre of many developments in improving material. Carbon fibres, for example, will make cars safer as well as lighter. Lithium batteries are improving fast ‘yet the search for a better battery is still on.’ Graphene promises cheaper solar cells and invisible electrodes in glass, and then there is 3D ‘printing’. (New Material supplement in The Economist 5 December)

Hitler and climate change: What you always suspected

Increasing warmer temperatures throughout the world may produce a trend toward dictatorial governments in the opinion of Dr Clarence A Mills, professor of experimental medicine at the University of Cincinnati. Dr Mills believes that the rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy may be due in part to the gradual warming temperature of the world. (The Mason City Globe-Gazette, 27 March 1941) Posted by Real Science November 22, 2015

Paris will be precautionary peace conference

Michael T. Klare has, as so often, an original take. He notes that a failure to cap greenhouse gas emissions will bring on climate shocks, which are likely to lead to wars over scarce resources, most of all water. In this sense, he says, COP21 should be considered not just a climate summit but a global peace conference as well – a successor, in a way, to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Only this time, notes Klare, the Conference takes place before the wars begin, instead of after. (Energy Post 13 November) <info@energypost.eu>

Royal hypocrisy?

According to the Prince of Wales: “There’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria … was a drought that lasted for about 5 or 6 six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land.” But the UK Independence Party hit back in a statement which alluded to the fact that Prince Charles is both a hypocrite over his private jet uses and motorcades – and who should be using his influence to keep Britain safe, rather than ‘promoting the left-wing climate change agenda’. The UKIP spokesman commented: “Prince Charles will likely fly once again by private jet to Paris and be picked up by a convoy of gas guzzling motorcars in order to preach about cutting carbon emissions. “At the start of this year he and Camilla were hosted by the Saudi Royal Family to use his special relationship with the monarchy to promote British interests. Perhaps he will use those connections to encourage the oil rich Gulf States to help tackle the threat from Islamic extremism and play their part in helping refugees in the region. Links between terror cells in Saudi Arabia and Islamic State are well established, and it is documented that a vast amount of funding for extremism is also coming from inside Saudi Arabia.” (PH 24 November)

Bad news is good news: Preparing for Paris

According to the UK journalists, Exxon Mobil is still arguing that fossil fuels will account for three quarters of primary energy use even in 2040. However, the IEA responds with the threat of global warming, claiming that fossil fuels in this mix would have to fall to 60%. Climate policies, says IEA head, will affect all energy companies. Norway’s Statoil now says it expect more, perhaps, opportunities outside oil and gas than within. Enel of Italy certainly fears ‘stranded assets’ and wants to lower its carbon footprint via ‘transformation’. It is ‘decommissioning old power plants as it its future depended on it’, hoping for hydropower and wind energy. Eon is already suffering ‘impairment charges’ but no stranded assets in Latin America where Enel is also active. (Economist 14 November)

IPCC too optimistic warns UK research lobby

Professor Kevin Anderson at the University of Manchester and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has published an analysis of the ‘wildly over optimistic’ IPCC projections of future global warming. He argues that: ‘Of the 400 scenarios that have a 50% or better chance of staying below the 2°C target for global warming, 344 assume the large-scale uptake of energy technology with negative emissions. For the 56 scenarios that do not include negative emission technology, global emissions peaked around 2010. He says that IPCC claims that “global economic growth would not be strongly effected”, are unrealistic and that if we are to meet the 2C warming target wealthy and high emitting individuals will need to make dramatic cuts in the energy they use and in the material goods they consume – they will have to accept immediate and fundamental changes to their way of life – at least until the transition away from fossil fuels is complete. Professor Anderson also says that many climate scientists are censoring their own work in order for their results to be more politically palatable, something that does society a “grave disservice.” (Tyndall Centre/ PH 15 November)

Energy companies need to be investigated, says Bill McKibben

A letter reportedly being circulated among a handful of Democrats this week in the U.S. House of Representatives, calling for an investigation into energy companies’ opinions on climate change, references news reports that the letter’s authors characterize as independent journalism. But according to online records, the reports were actually financed by large foundations that oppose oil and natural gas development. Fewer than two dozen Democratic members of the U.S. House have signed on … “ that accused at least one U.S. oil and natural gas company of “financing efforts to amplify doubt about the state of climate science.” … .. As well-documented in a 2014 oversight report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund actively backs campaigns to ban oil and natural gas development, including major financing for the activist group 350.org, which environmental activist Bill McKibben co-founded. RBF’s support for 350.org and its anti-fossil fuel campaigns is significant; McKibben himself called RBF a “great ally.” (WUWT 20 November)

Was the science fiddled?

The hottest February, March, May, June, July, August, September, October and December ever recorded all occurred in the last 12 months. And this September was so abnormally hot that it shattered the old record by the biggest margin ever recorded for any month of any year. It was a biggest single leap into a hotter world in at least 135 years. (From NOAAQA data/ National Observer 22 November) But note that:

There is a “robust” cosmic ray-global temperature relationship … and thus provides further corroboration of the solar/cosmic ray theory of climate of Svensmark et al. (National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, August 2015/WUWT 4 December)

A message from the earth league: Dependable rock needed

The Earth League, a consortium of 17 [self-defined] world-leading scientists, drew up a wish list of the essential elements that should lie at the heart of the global climate deal to be agreed at the Paris 2015 UN Climate Conference (COP 21). Professor Brian Hoskins, a proud member of the League and Chair of the Grantham Institute can be quoted: ‘I like the Earth League Statement as it simply, but accurately, summarises the developing problem of climate change and what the countries of the world can and must do to limit it. It is great that so many high profile people in all walks of life are supporting it. Hopefully such a galaxy of supporters will trigger interest in some people who have not really thought about the issue before, or thought it had anything to do with them. … . I want my grandchildren to live their lives in a world in which the climate of the Earth is such that they and the natural world around them can flourish. I want the climate to provide the dependable rock on which the poorer countries of the world can build their development. I am sure that most people would go along with me on this. The climate system won’t wait for us to do what we want to now and then pay it some attention later. It needs our full attention now! An excerpt:

The Year of Opportunity for a Sustainable Future: The Zero Carbon Society

2015 is a critical year for humanity. Our civilization has never faced such existential risks as those associated with global warming, biodiversity erosion and resource depletion. Our societies have never had such an opportunity to advance prosperity and eradicate poverty. We have the choice to either finally embark on the journey towards sustainability or to stick to our current destructive “business-as-usual” pathway. Three times this year, world leaders will meet to set the course for decades to come. In July 2015, heads of state meet to discuss Financing for Development. In September 2015, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be adopted. In December 2015, nations negotiate a new Global Climate Agreement. Decisions made in this single year will be the legacy of our generation. In particular, if we do not succeed in tackling climate change, the sustainable development goals, livelihoods in many parts of the world and the wellbeing of our close and distant kin will be threatened. In 2015, a good climate future is still within reach. If we act boldly, we can safeguard human development. It is a moral obligation, and in our self-interest, to achieve deep decarbonization of the global economy via equitable effort sharing. This requires reaching a zero-carbon society by mid-century or shortly thereafter, thereby limiting global warming to below 2°C as agreed by all nations in 2010. This trajectory is not one of economic pain, but of economic opportunity … We have just embarked upon a journey of innovation, which can create a new generation of jobs and industries, whilst enhancing the resilience of communities and people around the world. (Received from Grantham Institute in November)

Removing export credits and public finance?

USA and Japan are moving towards removing export credits for coal – ‘a leading source of the GHG emissions responsible for climate change’ (FT 10 November). The ‘vast majority’ of about 1000 planned coal plants would become ineligible for export credit. This is resisted by Australia and South Korea who have produced an alternative proposal. The OECD secretariat has been hosting closed door meetings over past year ‘in an effort to finalise common rules on restricting export agency coal financing. The US and UK have already agreed to limit public financing for coal-fired plants abroad. The compromise with Japan would allow the financing of very efficient plants. (FT 11 November)

Exxon misled investors

New York Attorney-general Schneiderman is investigating Exxon over whether it had misled investors about the risk of climate change. In 2012, its CEO had observed that climate change was a ‘a manageable’ problem for which solutions could be found over time. Peabody has also received subpoenas. Under the NY State’s 1921 Martin Act which makes misleading investors a crime. Says an environmental campaign group Ceres: “It is not a crime to be a climate sceptic, but it is to mislead investors.” Comparisons with the 1998 tobacco settlement are made which involved $200bn compensation over 25 years. It will be harder to find specific individuals who have suffered from climate change, comment Crooks, Clark and Chon. The American Petroleum Institute has accused the Obama administration of following ‘a narrow political ideology driven by the upcoming climate change summit in Paris’. (FT 7/8 November)

Washington court’s survival judgement: Unwanted consequences?

A Washington State Judge has found in favour of petitioners demanding action on Climate Change.

According to one source: In what environmentalists are calling a “groundbreaking” ruling, a Washington state judge has ruled that state lawmakers have a “constitutional obligation” to the youth of the state to take action on global warming. Using some alarming language, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis R. Hill issued a ruling in favor of eight youth petitioners in a case against the Washington Department of Ecology, which will require writing carbon emission rules to protect their generation. The judge’s ruling said the youths “very survival depends upon the will of their elders to act now, decisively and unequivocally, to stem the tide of global warming … before doing so becomes first too costly and then too late.” The judge determined the state’s public trust doctrine gives the state a “mandatory duty” to act. “The state has a constitutional obligation to protect the public’s interest in natural resources held in trust for the common benefit of the people,” the ruling said. To me this judgement stinks of judicial overreach – judges are supposed to enforce laws written by elected legislators, not dictate to legislators what laws they should write. However, even if this judgement is upheld, the outcome might not be quite what activists expect. A strong case could be made that Renewables don’t work, (WUWT 20 November)

World bank bias?

In 2013, the World Bank, despite acknowledging many people’s lack of access to electricity, said that, because of climate change, it would no longer be supporting the development of coal-fired power stations. The announcement was made in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, an alliance of global institutions, civil society and businesses that wants to ‘achieve a broad-based transformation of the world’s energy systems’. But note the caveat: ‘sustainable energy for all’ is not a commitment to ‘energy for all’. (Excerpt Ben Pile, Spiked 2o November) sspiked-central@spiked-online.com

FT Joins the ‘anti-carbon chorus’

Everybody agrees that the quickest way to reduce emission would be to get rid of coal in energy generation, but it is also admitted that the fuel price slide has put motoring efficiency into reverse gear and that the coal industry is preparing its defence against environmentalism, referring to its improving efficiency z and the developments of CCS in order ‘to curb the risks of climate change’. Everybody recommends greater power station efficiency. But coal combined with CCS means that coal is no longer cheap, but it remains abundant. (FT 27 November)

More about the 97% consensus

‘After discarding the abstracts that were judged to have taken no position, Cook (2013) reported a 97% consensus that anthropogenic GHGs were causing global warming. However, three-fourths of that consensus was judged to be implied, and more than 98% of the agreement was expressed non-quantitatively. Consequently, no widespread consensus exists in these abstracts that humans are responsible for most of the global warming; only that humans are responsible for an unspecified amount of global warming. This consensus on non-quantitative attribution is too vague to be useful in developing policy – though it is relentlessly cited by nearly every Democratic policymaker including the President. The Consensus Project found 65 abstracts endorsing and 10 rejecting quantitative attribution, an “87% consensus” – assuming their ratings were accurate. The small number of abstracts involved should not be surprising. Only a few experts are doing the difficult studies needed to quantitatively distinguish between unforced variability and at least four types of forced change: anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols, solar, and volcanic. Quantitative statements about attribution don’t belong in the abstract of papers on other subjects. Abstracts exist to report key findings in context. They are not public opinion surveys. (Judith Curry Climate Etc 20 December) (Climate Etc. <donotreply@wordpress.com>

Demand destruction warning

This is latest term to frighten investors away from carbon fuels. It comes from the green pressure group Carbon Tracker (London) who warns that fossil fuel demand as predicted by large energy companies cannot be trusted because of emission policy, technological advance and note, slower economic growth and lower population growth. ‘‘Dramatic changes in demand trends are expected and investors are advised to challenge companies ignoring ‘demand destruction’. (Energy World December)

UK MET office and Paris

This week climate fanatics have given us more conclusive proof – if we ever needed it – that they have no interest in debate, or even allowing anyone to question their crushing ‘consensus’. In fact, debate was off the agenda entirely this week, after the BBC was reprimanded for having the audacity to spend taxpayers’ money questioning the climate orthodoxy. What’s the Point of the Met Office? aired in August, as part of a light-hearted Radio 4 series that takes on British institutions. It featured a number of climate-change sceptics, including two MPs, who criticised the eco-establishment – one going so far as to call climate change a ‘fiction’. Naturally, this sparked a backlash among climate scientists and members of the public who couldn’t deal with the thought of people, in the free world, questioning conventional opinion. (George Harrison SPIKED 11 December)

International

World starts up 10, shuts down eight, nuclear reactors in 4 January 2015 Global nuclear generating capacity increased slightly in 2015 as 10 new reactors began supplying electricity and eight were permanently shut down, according to WNA.

WEC sees progress in meeting energy trilemma 11 November There have been overall improvements across the three dimensions of the energy trilemma – energy security, energy equity and environmental sustainability – according to the latest Energy Trilemma Index from the WEC. However, countries face challenges in developing a balanced approach to their energy policy.

IEA sees global energy transition 10 November. There are signs of a global energy transition, with low-carbon technologies expected to generate almost half of the world’s electricity by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency. Nuclear’s share of global electricity generation is set to remain around the current level.

IAEA publishes new emergency preparedness standards 27 November. New safety requirements on nuclear emergency preparedness and response published by the International Atomic Energy Agency incorporate lessons learned and developments since 2002, including lessons from Fukushima.

Academics at Paris talks make plea for nuclear power 4 December. Four leading climate scientists called for a major expansion of nuclear power as an essential measure to avoid dangerous man-made climate change over the next century. Speaking at the COP21 climate conference in Paris, James Hansen, Tom Wigley, Ken Caldeira and Kerry Emmanuel urged world leaders to ensure that nuclear power is deployed alongside renewables.

Low-carbon market signals needed to tackle climate change 9 December Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEAE said that governments serious about nuclear power should find the right frameworks to attract investors in order to overcome the challenges of large investments in liberalised markets.

Climate conference reaches agreement 14 December. Nations meeting at the United Nations COP21 climate change conference in Paris adopted a universal agreement on actions to combat climate change to keep the increase in global temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

IAEA adopts final assessment on Iranian nuclear program 16 December. The IAEA board of governors has adopted a resolution on director general Yukiya Amano’s final assessment report on possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program, which found no credible indications of any nuclear weapons development in the country after 2009.

USA applauds Iran’s uranium shipment to Russia 29 December. US Secretary of State has described the shipment of more than 11 tonnes of low-enriched uranium materials from Iran to Russia as “one of the most significant steps” the Middle Eastern country has taken toward fulfilling its commitments under the nuclear accord it signed with world powers earlier in 2015.

Russia resumes nuclear technology exports to Iran 24 November. Russian companies can again supply products, services and funds to support Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program following President Vladimir Putin’s signing of a decree. Putin held talks with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the country’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and attended the Gas Exporting Countries Forum.

Georgia ships Breeder-1 HEU to Russia 23 December. The IAEA announced “another achievement in global nuclear non-proliferation efforts”, with the shipment of high enriched uranium from Georgia. The 1.83 kg of HEU was removed from the Breeder-1 Neutron Source at Tbilisi State University in Georgia to a secure storage facility in Russia.

China–USA cooperation agreement renewed 10 November. A new agreement formalizing nuclear cooperation between China and the USA and establishing the terms for nuclear trade has entered into force.

India–Australia agreement complete 16 November. The prime ministers of India and Australia announced a nuclear cooperation agreement.

Argentina and China sign two reactor construction agreements 16 November. This covers the construction of the Latin American country’s fourth and fifth nuclear power plants. The agreements were signed by the president of Nucleoeléctrica Argentina SA and the head of CNNC on the sidelines of the G20 summit taking place in the Turkish coastal resort of Antalya.

Russia and Korea extend cooperation in fast reactor research 6 November. Russia and Korea have signed a contract on experimental fuel rods irradiated in the BOR-60 fast research reactor. Dimitrovgrad, Russia-based RIAR’s BOR-60 is the world’s only fast research reactor in operation. Commissioned in 1969, BOR-60 is fully contracted till the end of its lifetime in December 2020.

Russia formalises deal to build Egypt’s first reactors 20 November. Russia (Rosatom) and Egypt signed an agreement to collaborate in the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant equipped with four 1200 MWe units in Dabaa.

Rolls-Royce advises Russia how to approach regulators overseas 1 December. Rolls-Royce plans to help Rosatom avoid falling foul of regulators by sharing the lessons it has learned from producing instrumentation and control systems for the nuclear power industry.

Russian nuclear engineers invite foreign suppliers 7 December. ASE Group has opportunities for foreign companies to participate in Russia’s nuclear power plant projects. The group consolidates the engineering know-how of Rosatom.

Chinese firms join forces to market Hualong One abroad 31 December. Two Chinese nuclear power companies have agreed to create a joint venture to promote China’s “third-generation” nuclear reactor design, Hualong One, in overseas markets.

Contracts for new Argentine plant ready for signing 5 November. Argentina and China have concluded negotiations on the technical and commercial contracts for the construction of Argentina’s fourth nuclear power plant. The text of a framework agreement for construction of a fifth plant has also been agreed.

Romania and China seal Cernavoda agreement 10 November. Nuclearelectrica has signed a memorandum of understanding with CGN for the development, construction, operation and decommissioning of units 3 and 4 of the Cernavoda nuclear power plant. A joint venture project company is to be established, with CGN owning at least 51% of the share capital.

Technical cooperation for South African and Chinese regulators 17 November. The national nuclear regulators of South Africa and China have signed a bilateral technical cooperation agreement.

China, Slovakia agree cooperate on nuclear fuel cycle 25 November. China and Slovakia will cooperate on the nuclear fuel cycle supply chain.

Areva deal helps fuel Energoatom’s European progress 4 November. Energoatom, Ukraine’s nuclear power plant operator, made progress in working closely with European companies and institutions since opening an office in Brussels, signing an agreement with French engineering firm Areva.

India receives first uranium shipment from Canada 4 December. The first shipment of uranium from Canada under a five-year contract signed in April has arrived in India. It marks Cameco’s first supply of uranium to India.

India, Japan reach agreement on nuclear cooperation 14 December. After many years of negotiations, India and Japan have signed a memorandum on cooperating in nuclear energy. However, certain technical and legal issues must be resolved before a final agreement can be signed.

Bangladesh, Russia in $12.65 billion plant deal 29 December. Bangladesh and Russia have reportedly agreed to invest $12.65 billion in a project to build two 1200 MWe nuclear power units at Rooppur. The agreement was signed on 25 December by Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission and Russia’s Rosatom.

North America

White House summit pledges to support nuclear development 9 November. The US Administration has underlined its vision of a strong role for nuclear in the country’s clean energy strategy. It has announced actions to sustain and finance nuclear energy, including supplements to the Department of Energy’s federal loan guarantee solicitation to support nuclear energy projects.

High-level waste transfer makes history 12 November. Five canisters of vitrified high-level waste from a former nuclear fuel reprocessing plant have been placed in long-term outdoor storage, in a first for US decommissioning.

Second lawsuit challenges Virginia uranium ban 26 November. A group led by Virginia Uranium Inc filed a second lawsuit challenging Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining.

NRC drafts guidance for 80-year 21 December. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is preparing guidance documents on licence renewal applications to extend reactor operating lives beyond 60 years. The regulator has also approved its sixth licence renewal for a dry cask storage facility for used fuel, at the Prairie Island plant.

US appropriations signed into law, boosting nuclear spending 22 December. US nuclear energy programs, including small modular reactors and the new advanced reactors, are to receive $960 million under an appropriations act signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Europe and Russia

Permission sought to expand Drigg repository 4 November. A planning application has been submitted by LLW Repository Limited for the phased construction of three new vaults for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes at the UK’s national repository for such wastes at in Cumbria.

Drigg receives revised environmental permit 3 November. A revised environmental permit has been issued to LLW Repository Limited allowing the continued disposal of low-level radioactive wastes at the UK’s national repository for such wastes.

Cold testing complete at UK vitrification plant 20 November. A demonstration plant to vitrify radioactive waste has completed initial commissioning prior to its deployment at the UK’s Sellafield site. The full-scale GeoMelt In-Container Vitrification plant is a collaboration between the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory and US radioactive waste management specialist Kurion.

Contracts for new Dounreay waste store 24 November. The planned construction of a new high-level waste storage facility at the UK’s Dounreay site is progressing with the award of three contracts. The £22 million ($33 million) facility will be an extension to the existing Cementation Plant.

UK sets aside funds for ‘ambitious’ nuclear R&D program 26 November. The UK will invest at least £250 million ($377 million) over the next five years in an “ambitious” nuclear R&D program, according to the Conservative Party-led government’s Spending Review and Autumn Statement. This is to “revive the UK’s nuclear expertise and position the UK as a global leader in innovative nuclear technologies”.

High Court trial starts over UK decommissioning claim 20 November. Energy Solutions EU and the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority met in court over the company’s claim the government agency violated its own rules last year when it awarded a contract to manage the Magnox Ltd and Research Site Restoration Ltd nuclear sites.

Fast reactor fuel arrives at Sellafield 8 December. The first batch of unused fuel for the Prototype Fast Reactor at the UK’s Dounreay site has been transported to Sellafield as part of the site’s defuelling program.

World’s last operating Magnox reactor closes 31 December. The UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority announced that Wylfa unit 1 – the world’s last operating Magnox reactor – closed on 30 December. The unit had generated electricity for five years longer than originally planned.

Areva to remove Superphénix internals 2 December. Areva has won a contract worth “tens of millions” of Euros to dismantle the vessel internals of its fast neutron reactor at Creys-Malville in France.

Areva to supply fuel assemblies for NuScale SMR 3 December. Areva Inc has signed a contract to manufacture fuel assemblies for NuScale Power LLC’s small modular reactor technology, the two companies announced. Mechanical and thermal hydraulic testing of these new fuel assemblies are underway as part of Oregon, USA-based NuScale’s design certification application, which is planned for submission to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in late 2016.

Flamanville 3 test program approved 17 December. French nuclear regulators have approved Areva’s proposed program of tests to investigate the mechanical properties of the vessel head and vessel bottom of Flamanville 3’s reactor pressure vessel.

Electrabel prepares restart of Doel 3 and Tihange 2 18 November. Belgium’s Federal Agency for Nuclear Control announced has approved the restart of the 2 nuclear power plant units.

Two oldest Doel units cleared for restart 23 December. The Belgian nuclear regulator has approved the restart of units 1 and 2 of the Doel plant. The units – which were both taken offline earlier this year in accordance with the country’s nuclear phase-out legislation – were required to meet new safety requirements in order to continue operating until 2025. German fusion reactor achieves first plasma 16 December After more than a year of technical preparations and tests, the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator has produced its first helium plasma.

Swedish repository application accepted 18 December. The application for construction of a used nuclear fuel encapsulation plant and repository in Sweden is now complete, the Land and Environment Court in Stockholm has decided.

Licence granted for Finnish used fuel repository 12 November. The Finnish government has granted a construction licence to waste management specialist Posiva for a used nuclear fuel encapsulation plant and final disposal facility at Olkiluoto.

Hungary repeats 2018 target date for Paks II project 18 November. Hungary expects to start construction of its Paks II nuclear power plant but has yet to receive confirmation from the European Commission that the project meets the bloc’s procurement rules.

Hungary faces state aid investigation over Paks II project 23 November. The EU Commission has opened an in-depth state aid investigation into Hungary’s plans to provide financing for the construction of two new nuclear power reactors in Paks. The Commission launched an infringement procedure as regards the Paks II project, because it “has concerns regarding the compatibility of the project” with EU public procurement rules.

South Ukraine 2 gets green light for life extension 10 December. The State Regulatory has approved the continued operation of unit 2 of the South Ukraine nuclear power plant until the end of 2025. The unit was shut down on 10 May, two days before the expiry of its design lifetime, for major upgrading over 300 days costing $114 million to enable a 10-year life extension. Holtec delivers first ‘dry’ storage canisters to Chernobyl site 27 November. SSE ChNPP said that the first 10 canisters for the dry interim fuel storage facility had been delivered to the site of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. ISF2 is in the final construction stage under a contract Ukraine signed with US-based Holtec International in 2007. To be completed this year, it will be used to store all the used fuel on the site for at least 100 years.

Russia seeks to broaden European supply chain 30 November. Rosatom has the strategic aim of attracting European suppliers of nuclear power equipment and services to its foreign and domestic projects, its first deputy director general, Kirill Komarov, said at a conference in Budapest. A Hungarian government official reassured potential suppliers that the Russia-backed Paks nuclear power plant expansion project meets European Commission rules.

Rostov 4 reactor vessel installed 1 December. The reactor pressure vessel has been installed at unit 4 of the Rostov nuclear power plant in Russia. The unit is expected to start operations in 2017. Russia connects BN-800 fast reactor to grid 11 December Unit 4 of the Beloyarsk nuclear power plant in the Sverdlovsk district of Russia has been connected to the national grid. The BN-800 fast neutron reactor started providing power to the Urals region at 9.21 p.m. local time on 10 December. Russia hails progress with americium in fast reactor research 22 December. Four Russian institutes have successfully conducted an experiment on the isolation and separation of americium and curium from used nuclear fuel. In a statement, Russian nuclear fuel manufacturer TVEL said this was a crucial development in work aimed at closing the fuel cycle of fast reactors. Russia’s Tenex sees $500 million rise in export revenue 30 December Russia’s Techsnabexport said that it expects the value of its exports this year to outstrip that of 2014 by $500 million. The Rosatom subsidiary’s preliminary results for 2015 indicate that its revenue from the global market will be worth about $2.7 billion.

Middle East and Asia

Grid connection for first Changjiang unit 9 November Unit 1 of the Changjiang nuclear power plant on China’s southern island province of Hainan has been connected to the electricity grid, China National Nuclear Corporation announced.

Approval for four new Chinese reactors 17 December. China’s State Council has approved the construction of two more units at each of the Tianwan and Fangchenggang nuclear power plant sites. KazAtomProm extends cooperation with Chinese firms 15 December. KazAtomProm has signed cooperation agreements with Chinese companies, including one for the development of Kazakh uranium mines and the construction of a nuclear fuel plant in Kazakhstan.

China’s Changjiang 1 enters commercial operation 30 December. Unit 1 of the Changjiang nuclear power plant on China’s southern island province of Hainan has entered commercial operation.

VHTR cooling system performance verified 12 November. The passive cooling system of the proposed Very High Temperature Reactor has successfully passed simulation verification tests, the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute has announced. The advanced reactor design could also be used to produce hydrogen.

Iran removes centrifuges from enrichment plants 19 November. Iran has removed numerous centrifuges and related infrastructure from its uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow since adopting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in October, according to the IAEA’s latest safeguards report. Japanese regulator approves full reactor licences 20 November. Three Japanese reactors have approval to operate for their full licence periods of 40 years after decisions by the Nuclear Regulation Authority. One of the units is already in operation, the other two are soon to restart. Major work required at Rokkasho for new regulations 17 November. Completion of Japan’s Rokkasho reprocessing plant and mixed-oxide fuel factory have been postponed by two years to comply with new safety requirements. Construction milestones for Barakah 2 30 November. The United Arab Emirate’s second nuclear unit has reached major construction milestones including the completion of the steel containment liner plate, placement of the upper dome, and the lifting into place of the unit’s pressurizer. Bangladesh convinced of Russian reactor safety 8 December. Bangladesh plans to “build a nuclear city” in Rooppur using Russian reactors designed with ‘post-Fukushima’ safety features, said the country’s Ministry of Science and Technology.

Southern hemisphere

Success for Namibian pilot plant 23 November. Positive results from the second phase of the Etango heap leach demonstration plant in Namibia to support the uranium project, said Bannerman Resources.

Nuclear key to South African economic growth, panel finds 30 November. Nuclear power is the only source that can provide the baseload electricity that South Africa needs to sustain its long-term economic growth while reducing its carbon emissions, according to a panel of experts from industry, civil society and academia.

Australia all set to supply uranium to the UAE 25 November. Australia has finalized its nuclear cooperation agreement with the United Arab Emirates and will supply uranium for use in the Middle Eastern country’s developing nuclear power program.

Australia repatriates radioactive waste 7 December. The first phase of a project to repatriate Australian radioactive waste (from France) has been completed, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization confirmed. Eight shipments of used nuclear fuel left Australia between 1996 and 2009 – four shipments to France, three shipments to the USA and one shipment to the UK. Waste from the UK will return in the second half of this decade, while the used fuel sent to the USA will stay there permanently, in line with US policy.

Argentina inaugurates enrichment plant 2 December. Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner led the official opening ceremony of the Pilcaniyeu uranium enrichment plant on 30 November.

South African court upholds Westinghouse appeal 10 December. South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal from Westinghouse against Eskom’s 2014 award of a contract for replacement steam generators for the Koeberg nuclear plant to Areva.

South African Cabinet approves nuclear proposal 29 December. South Africa’s Department of Energy has received Cabinet approval to issue a Request for Proposal for the country’s 9600 MWe nuclear new build program. The final funding model will be informed by the response of the market to the RFP and be submitted to Cabinet thereafter for final approval and implementation.

The benefits of CO₂

For a discussion of the benefits of carbon dioxide, see US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Report, Critical Thinking on Climate Change: Empirical Evidence to September 4, 2014. (Judith Curry 9 November Climate Etc.)

Maurice Strong’s will: Blanketing the earth

In his 2000 autobiography, Where on Earth Are We Going?, Strong projected that, in 2031, “the human tragedy” would be “on a scale hitherto unimagined.” He wrote that the brightest prospect lay in forecasts that two-thirds of the world’s already diminished population might be wiped out.

He described this as “a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration,” thus betraying a distinctly ambivalent attitude toward the humanity he claimed to be so desperate to save. Strong’s green agenda now blankets the globe, from the UN through national governments to municipalities. Paradoxically, Strong freely admitted that governments were incompetent, cumbersome and resistant to change. He also acknowledged that the UN was marked by “petty politics and small- mindedness.” And yet such people were somehow to manage “the entire system of issues.” The answer for Strong was always more power. “The single greatest weakness of the existing international legal regime,” he wrote, “is the almost total lack of capacity for enforcement.” Strong’s passing was mourned on the weekend by key figures of the movement he did so much to create. (Excerpt from Canada’s National Post 30 November)

Space security

This is the new top priority for G7 nations, argues the supreme commander of NATO. Almost every cutting–edge technology being adopted increased their dependence on undefended satellites. In the UK, the assessment is that 67% of the economy is dependent on space-based communications. In SSA at least $1.6tn of business revenues were heavily influenced by satellites. ‘As more and more countries around the world look to maximise their military advantages, space is becoming the most obvious domain t contest’. At least 200 satellites are believed to be orbiting the Earth. (FT Weekend Magazine 21/22 November) Bad news for energy research?