Category: Energy

Categories
Australia Energy Industry Associations

 August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

On this day, 1st August 2015, the World Coal Association tried once again to distract people from coal’s civilisation and eco-system destroying nature. That’s (part of) its job, that’s what member companies expect in return for their subscription.

The World Coal Association (WCA) called on the World Bank to recognize the vital role of coal in bringing electricity to people in developing and emerging economies

Anon, 2015. WCA Calls on World Bank to Recognize Coal’s Critical Role. Engineering & Mining Journal, Volume 216; Issue 8, 26 1 August.

This has been going on for decades, of course. Smear competing technologies (nuclear, renewables), say you’re indispensable etc.

My personal favourite of the genre is Peabody’s brazen “Advanced Energy for Life” effort from the previous year. They must have been delighted when Australian wrecking ball turned Prime Minister Tony Abbott had parrotted that line (saying “coal is good for humanity”)  when opening a (what else) coal mine later that year.

This, from the Australia Institute in 2014, is useful

Energy Poverty and Coal “All Talk No Action” Australia Institute Report

“Ahead of the G-20 meeting in Australia later this week, a new report by an Australian think-tank convincingly punctures coal industry claims that coal is an essential part of the solution to lack of access to electricity in the developing world.

Zeroing in on Peabody Energy’s “Advanced Energy for Life” global public relations campaign, which contends coal-fired power is a cheap, effective way to provide power to the large impoverished areas of India, Pakistan and elsewhere that now have none, the new study by the Australia Institute states that, “Peabody’s only contribution to energy poverty is maintaining a website and social media page which promotes coal as the solution to the problem…. Despite extensive searches and contact with companies and mining lobby groups, we could not find a single example where coal companies have supported coal-powered energy poverty alleviation projects.” 

Meanwhile, billions of people need reliable cheap electricity, and if we had got on with developing decent sources of renewables, with storage, instead of allowing our “best minds” to make missiles, surveillance and marketing algorithms and assorted nonsense, we’d probably be a lot closer to that. Oh well.

As per this website, on this day the atmospheric CO2 ppm was 399.11

Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

We need remember that threatened technologies rarely go down without a fight, and that for coal, playing the “we’re indispensable” card.

What happened next?

They keep at it. Personal favourite is the recent claim that coal is a “transition” fuel in light of the war in the Ukraine sending gas prices through the roof.

Categories
Australia Energy

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

On this day, July 17, in 2006.

“in a keynote speech to business leaders [to CEDA], the Prime Minister, John Howard called for ‘realism’ on renewables. He said, ‘Renewables will play an increasing role in Australia’s energy mix, but pragmatism, rationality and flexibility also call for realistic expectations about this role for the foreseeable future. The cost of delivering low-emission electricity from renewables remains very high, with difficulties surrounding baseload power demands.’” 

(Prest, 2007: 254)

Ah yes, starve renewables of funding (MRET watered down, 2004 Energy White Paper) while throwing money at fossil fuels, make the business environment so toxic for wind power that Vestas pulls out) and then hold up your hands and then say “well, renewables can’t compete with fossil fuels” (which you’ve been busy subsidising and encouraging.

Genius. )

Why this matters. 

This word “realism,” eh? It’s like the word “practical”.

According to an incredibly brave anti-Nazi German, who parachuted behind the German lines in 1944 to gather intelligence and then get captured by advancing Allied troops, this is what praktisch actually means

“… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!” “Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”

(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)

See also the word “constructive”

“Constructive” as a codeword for “I don’t want to address your points.” See also “praktisch”

And this graphic that inspired the post

What happened next?

The Liberals and Nationals have continued to do everything they can to slow the energy transition, with a lot of success.

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

June 28,1982 – Secretary of State for Energy justifies flogging off public assets

On this day, June 28 1982 (40 years ago today) Nigel Lawson, as Secretary of State for Energy in the first government of Margaret Thatcher, gave a “landmark speech” on energy policy to the International Association of Energy Economists. I can’t find a copy of it online. Ho hum.

According to Amber Rudd, speaking more recently (18 November 2015, since you asked) –

In his seminal speech in 1982, he defined the Government’s role as setting a framework that would ensure the market, rather than the state, provided secure, cost-efficient energy.

This was driven by a desire to create a system where competition worked for families and businesses.

“The changes in prospect,” said Lawson at the time, “will help us ensure that the supplies of fuel we need are available at the lowest practicable cost.”

So, what did these fine words mean? Publicly-owned assets were flogged off and some people got even richer.

Planning became impossible. It was all “fine” (not really, but looked it to some) until we needed to think long-term and strategically about what kind of fuel sources we used to get how much energy and for what purposes. Because privately owned companies are going to want to sell more of their product, not less. This is not rocket-science.

Why this matters. 

Well, that period – late 70s, early 80s, , was probably our last best chance to do anything meaningful about climate change. Oh well.

What happened next?

With energy policy? Ha ha ha ha ha.  

We now (April 2022) have an “Energy Security Strategy” that doesn’t mention demand reduction, energy efficiency, on-shore wind. Instead it goes Full Fantasy on nuclear, CCS and hydrogen.  

Epic thread by Michael Jacobs, that ends thus –

We’re deep in the magical thinking phase, aren’t we?

Nigel Lawson? You many know him from the esteemed Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Categories
Energy Science Scientists United States of America

March 23, 1989 – cold fusion!!

On March 23 1989, cold fusion was announced by a couple of overexcited scientists. (the gory details of why they came to be releasing this when they did can be found here).

The implication in fusion (hot or cold, but especially cold) is of limitless energy, which sounds like a good idea until you start thinking about how infantile human societies would actually use that limitless energy: we would just intensify our exploitation/exploration. [Comedy fact, the Portuguese have one word that covers both of those]. 

And limitless energy would accelerate our doom in all probability without some serious wisdom in our institutions. And I see no evidence of any wisdom in our institutions. (There may have been some, but we have moron-ified ourselves over the last 40 years or more.)

But anyway, this particular bout of cold fusion was quickly debunked, and there were many articles and books about what it all “meant.” Science and Technology Studies was then a relatively new thing.

And the following day…

Categories
Australia Energy Ignored Warnings

March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

On this day in 1990, a report was released showing that Australia could reduce its carbon dioxide emissions markedly and save a lot of money through energy efficiency measures. The report was written for the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, by Deni Greene, an American consultant who had moved to Australia. 

The broader context was that Australia was discussing what emissions reductions it would commit to. Prominent among these was the so-called “Toronto target” from a June 1988 Conference, which proposed that industrialised nations go for a 20% cut on a 1988 baseline by the year 2005. This was vigorously resisted of course, by industry. Greene’s report was part of a back-and-forth set of reports trying to create/close down support for the target.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that energy efficiency has been talked about and not done for decades. If you are interested in Australian energy efficiency, you cannot go past the tireless and pain-staking work of Alan Pears. 

What happened next?

In October of that year, just ahead of the Second World Climate Climate conference, the Federal Government did commit to the Toronto Target, but with caveats so big that they rendered the whole thing pointless. Other targets have met similar fates. And here we are.

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Energy Europe Industry Associations Technophilia

Jan 19 (2015) -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

On this day, Jan 19, in 2015 “four of Europe’s biggest power utilities, represented in Brussels by Eurelectric, have decided to leave the European Commission’s CCS Technology Platform ZEP.“

The four were Germany’s RWE AG, France’s Electricite de France, Sweden’s Vattenfall AB and Spain’s Gas Natural Fenosa.

The ZEP had been set up in the mid-2000s as “a coalition of companies, scientists and environmental groups seeking ways to capture and bury heat-trapping carbon emissions mainly from the exhausts of coal, oil and gas-fired power plants.”

[On the EU’s “Zero Emissions Power Plant Programme”. See also 2011 article in Nature about Europe and CCS.]

Why? Well, money at stake. As a Bellona press release titled “Utilities feign interest in CCS to get public bail out” said

“Of the move, Bellona Europa Director Jonas Helseth said: – In their poorly concealed attempts to attain capacity payments, Europe’s utilities have misused the trust of the European Commission and Europe’s CCS community. It’s shameless how Eurelectric proudly announces the formation of a new CCS taskforce and ‘calls on policymakers to push ahead’, while simultaneously pulling out of Europe’s largest and widest coalition working on CCS.”

What happened next

Is there any CCS? 

Why this matters.

We keep assuming we can deploy these technologies at massive scale, rapidly, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of the ways we avoid looking at how much some of us are emitting.  There is trouble ahead.