Our friends and neighbors are participating in a stand-out protest at the corner of Dalton and Thorndyke Ave in Pittsfield till 6pm today, bringing attention to the bad health and climate effects of peaking power plants – and the need to replace them with batteries. If you’re in the area, head over to join them, or offer a honk and supportive wave as you drive by! Meanwhile, we have breaking news about exciting developments in long-duration battery storage that carry the potential to make all fossil fuel power plants – not just peakers – obsolete within a few years. These developments highlight just how out-of-step Peabody’s proposed 55MW gas/oil peaker plant would be, even as its developer insists on moving forward.
Protests and actions are focused on big banks that finance fossil projects – raising the stakes ahead of this fall’s UN climate summit in Britain. Of course, oil and gas extraction is driven by global demand to either burn the stuff as fuel or process it into other products. A pair of articles explore how a greener economy will have to contend with the issues of consumerism and meat consumption.
This week’s climate reporting includes another stark warning from the International Energy Agency (IEA), noting that we’re failing to lower emissions at all. It spotlights the hypocrisy of wealthy governments’ “build back better” campaigns, which have so far devoted scant resources to clean energy. We also found an article explaining why Canada, a country that definitely knows better, continues to behave as if its fossil future extends forever.
Meanwhile, clean energy keeps getting cheaper, and policy negotiations around modernizing the grid are getting into the real nitty-gritty of figuring out how to allocate transmission reform costs among various stakeholders.
You’ve probably heard the Big Oil propaganda that electric vehicle emissions can be high if drivers recharge from a grid supplied by dirty fuels like coal and oil. An extensive global study resoundingly busted that myth. Turns out EVs are considerably cleaner than comparable gasoline or diesel vehicles no matter where they plug in. Even as global sales surge, General Motors seems determined to drive away its own EV customers. The company is botching its response to defects in the 2017-19 Chevy Bolt that resulted in numerous battery fires.
Carbon capture & sequestration (along with green hydrogen) are increasingly promoted as climate solutions by major fossil fuel players. By banging the drum for this unproven and expensive technology, they hope to convince policymakers that “business as usual” is on the cusp of magically going emissions free. Two articles describe this ongoing folly, and – yikes! – show how much influence it’s already exerting. We consider carbon capture to be a good thing, and support developing technologies that economically pull carbon dioxide from ambient air. It should never serve to enable or encourage continued combustion of fossil fuel.
We close with an update on a fossil fuel industry story we’ve followed for a long time – the unsustainable business model of fracking. While some shale gas production remains viable, it appears that shale oil projects are coming up dry in the hunt for investors.
— The NFGiM Team
PEAKING POWER PLANTS
Some want to stop pollution from local power plants. How does that pollution impact health?
By Danny Jin, The Berkshire Eagle
July 17, 2021
PITTSFIELD — Air pollution might not come up often in conversations between medical doctors and patients. Yet, doctors say that pollutants, including those emitted by local “peaker” power plants, can play a role in worsening heart and lung health.
Exposure to pollutants is associated with greater rates of developing asthma and other ailments that reduce lung function. Small particles known as particulate matter are especially concerning, and those levels also are linked with heightened risk for suffering a heart attack.
“Science has shown that pollutants take years off our lives,” said Dr. David Oelberg, a lung specialist with Berkshire Health Systems. “A lot of this stuff is not something that a patient is going to feel hurts them on a day-to-day basis unless they can see smog in the air. … It’s a bit of a silent killer.”
Oelberg said he only recently has become aware of peaker plants, but he since has signed a petition circulated by the Berkshire Environmental Action Team asking the owners of three local peaker plants to consider switching to less-polluting energy sources. He named carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter as harmful pollutants.
BEAT and about 20 other groups are seeking to transition the three peakers to clean energy. The coalition has had what it says are collaborative discussions with the owner of two of those plants, and it now is focusing its efforts on Pittsfield Generating, a gas-fired plant on Merrill Road, near Allendale Elementary School and the Morningside neighborhood in Pittsfield.
» Read article
Peabody utility plans to shutdown older plant
By Erin Nolan, The Salem News
July 21, 2021
PEABODY — Plans to build a 55-megawatt natural gas-powered “peaker” plant along the Waters River are forging ahead, but the Peabody Municipal Light Plant officials recently announced their decision to decommission an existing 20-megawatt fossil fuel-burning plant at the same location.
According to PMLP Manager Charles Orphanos, the decision to retire the older, less efficient plant was made after hearing the concerns of ratepayers and analyzing new census data which shows an increase in the number of “environmental justice areas” surrounding the plant.
Plans to build a new peaker plant, which would only run during periods of especially high demand for electricity, have been in the works since 2015. The plant, referred to as Project 2015A in public documents, would be owned and operated by the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC) and was previously approved to be built at PMLP’s Waters River substation, behind the Pulaski Street Industrial Park.
On May 11, MMWEC announced they were pausing the $85 million Project 2015A in order to address the environmental and health concerns of residents, seek input from stakeholders and consider alternative energy options.
Sudi Smoller, a Peabody resident and a member of the community group Breathe Clean North Shore (BCNS), said while she and other members of the group are grateful for PMLP’s decision to decommission Gas Turbine Number One, she still has additional concerns.
“We still don’t trust MMWEC or PMLP,” she said, noting all the changes which have been made over the past several weeks. “That suggests to me that we need more time to continue making improvements.”
She also noted that the two plants are not the same size, and decommissioning one plant does not change the fact the PMLP and other municipal light plants are investing in a fossil fuel resource even as climate change concerns are growing.
Smoller also said she is unhappy that MMWEC has not committed to doing an environmental impact study or comprehensive health impact study.
Jerry Halberstadt, another Peabody resident and member of BCNS, said he is also still hoping for more comprehensive environmental and health reviews.
“PMLP has promised to decommission an old, expensive peaker plant, but that does not offset the long-term harm that the new 55MW peaker plant will do,” he said in a statement. “The old plant is long past retirement age; it is a good, but not a sufficient concession. If PMLP and MMWEC were sincere in their desire to respect the concerns of citizens, they would enter into meaningful negotiations.”
» Read article
PROTESTS AND ACTIONS
‘Deadline Glasgow’: As Climate Summit Looms, Campaign Targets Complicity of Banks and Biden
Scores of groups are “calling on all financial institutions and the U.S. government to end their support for companies engaged in climate destruction and human rights abuses.”
By Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams
July 20, 2021
More than 160 organizations launched a new campaign Tuesday, ahead of a United Nations climate summit this fall, demanding that Wall Street and U.S. President Joe Biden cut off funding for companies and projects fueling the climate emergency.
The “Deadline Glasgow—Defund Climate Chaos” campaign is spearheaded by the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition, which targets asset managers, banks, and insurers for their roles in climate destruction.
However, anyone who supports the campaign’s demands can sign a petition “calling on all financial institutions and the U.S. government to end their support for companies engaged in climate destruction and human rights abuses by the start of the Glasgow climate talks.”
The campaign includes an 8:00 pm ET kickoff event featuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.); 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben; and Giniw Collective founder Tara Houska, one of the Indigenous women leading the fight against the Line 3 tar sands pipeline.
The two-week U.N. summit known as COP 26, scheduled to start on October 31 in the Scottish city, will be “the most important climate talks since the Paris agreement,” the petition says. That deal, which outlines global goals for limiting temperature rise this century, was adopted at COP 21 in late 2015.
For this year’s summit, hosted by the United Kingdom in partnership with Italy, parties to the Paris agreement are being asked to present greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets for the next decade that align with reaching net zero by 2050.
» Read article
» Sign the petition
City, county leaders join calls to stop Enbridge pipeline projects in Minnesota, Wisconsin
By Chris Hubbuch, Wisconsin State Journal
July 20, 2021
Local leaders are drafting resolutions in support of people working to stop the expansion of Enbridge Energy pipelines that transport Canadian oil across Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The Madison City Council is expected to vote on a resolution Tuesday in support of Indigenous sovereignty and calling on local, state and federal leaders to stop the reroute of Line 5 in northern Wisconsin and construction of Enbridge’s $2.9 billion Line 3 replacement in Minnesota.
The resolution, which has 13 sponsors, notes that each of the lines crosses dozens of rivers, streams and wetlands, including the Mississippi River, and cites spills in 1991 and 2010 that leaked millions of gallons of oil into rivers.
Dane County Board member Heidi Wegleitner said she plans to introduce a similar resolution later this week.
Speaking at a send-off event Monday for several protestors heading to camps along the Line 3 pipeline route through northern Minnesota, Madison City Council President Syed Abbas said people in the United States are fortunate to have clean water.
“We are blessed and we have to say thanks to the Indigenous community for that,” Abbas said. “We need to stand with them. We might tomorrow get to a similar situation where we don’t have clean water because of contamination.”
» Read article
GREENING THE ECONOMY
New Report Reveals Top Retail Shipping Polluters
By Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch
July 20, 2021
The coronavirus pandemic has left U.S. customers ever more reliant on retail goods shipped around the world to their doorsteps, but what does all of this fossil-fuel-fueled transportation cost the environment?
In a new report released Tuesday, nonprofits Pacific Environment and Stand.earth have uncovered the 15 retail giants that contribute the most both to the climate crisis and air pollution by shipping goods to the U.S. from overseas.
“These findings reveal new environmental and public health impacts of retail companies’ manufacturing and transport choices — and they are damning,” the report authors wrote.
By shipping goods, these 15 companies emitted the same amount of greenhouse gases as 1.5 million U.S. homes in 2019 alone. The same year, they also released two-billion vehicles worth of sulfur oxide pollution, 65.7 million vehicles worth of particulate matter pollution and 27.4 million vehicles worth of nitrous oxide pollution.
Walmart topped the list in terms of overall shipping emissions, followed by other familiar names Ashley, Target, Dole, Home Depot, Chiquita, Ikea, Amazon, Samsung, Nike, LG, Redbull, Family Dollar, Williams-Sonoma and Lowes.
The report notes that high shipping emissions are built into the retail business model that has been in place for decades, in which manufacturing is outsourced to other countries and shipped to the U.S. using fossil fuels. As a result, the world’s shipping fleet has quadrupled since the 1980s. Shipping now releases one billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, causes 6.4 million childhood asthma cases and contributes to 260,000 early deaths every year.
» Read article
» Read the report
Investigation: How the Meat Industry is Climate-Washing its Polluting Business Model
Growing global meat consumption threatens to derail the Paris Agreement, but that hasn’t stopped the meat industry insisting it is part of the solution to climate change.
By Caroline Christen, DeSmog Blog
July 18, 2021
In February last year, the head of a leading global meat industry body gave a “pep talk” to his colleagues at an Australian agriculture conference.
“It’s a recurring theme that somehow the livestock sector and eating meat is detrimental to the environment, that it is a serious negative in terms of the climate change discussions,” Hsin Huang, Secretary General of the International Meat Secretariat (IMS), told his audience. But the sector, he insisted, could be the “heroes in this discussion” if it wanted to.
“We cannot continue business as we have done in the past,” he went on. “If we are not proactive in helping to convince the public and policymakers in particular, who have an impact on our activities – if we are not successful in convincing them of the benefits that we bring to the table, then we will be relegated to has-beens.”
Huang’s speech points to an industry nervous about its role in a carbon-constrained future. In the face of mounting evidence of the livestock industry’s climate impacts and a growing array of meat alternatives, the sector has developed a multi-pronged PR strategy that seeks to legitimise not only the industry’s current activities but also its plans to scale up production — despite clear warnings from scientists that this could scupper efforts to meet climate targets.
» Read article
IEA Warns CO2 Emissions Set to Climb to ‘All-Time High’ as Rich Nations Skimp on Clean Energy
The Paris-based agency slammed rich governments for promising to “build back better” but refusing to “put their money where their mouth is.”
By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams
July 20, 2021
The International Energy Agency warned Tuesday that global carbon dioxide emissions are on track to soar to record levels in 2023—and continue rising thereafter—as governments fail to make adequate investments in green energy and end their dedication to planet-warming fossil fuels.
In a new report, IEA estimates that of the $16 trillion world governments have spent to prop up their economies during the coronavirus crisis, just 2% of that total has gone toward clean energy development.
Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, slammed what he characterized as the hypocrisy of rich governments that promised a green recovery from the pandemic but have thus far refused “to put their money where their mouth is.” Research published last month revealed that between January 2020 and March 2021, the governments of wealthy G7 nations poured tens of billions of dollars more into fossil fuels than renewable energy.
On top of being “far from what’s needed to put the world on a path to reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century,” Birol said that the money allocated to green energy measures thus far is “not even enough to prevent global emissions from surging to a new record.”
“Governments need to increase spending and policy action rapidly to meet the commitments they made in Paris in 2015—including the vital provision of financing by advanced economies to the developed world,” Birol continued. “But they must then go even further by leading clean energy investment and deployment to much greater heights beyond the recovery period in order to shift the world onto a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050, which is narrow but still achievable—if we act now.”
» Read article
» Read the IEA report
EXCLUSIVE: Experts Press Trudeau to Link Regulator’s Energy Planning to 1.5°C Targets
By Mitchell Beer, The Energy Mix
July 20, 2021
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is under pressure to bring the Canada Energy Regulator (CER)’s energy futures modelling in line with the Paris climate agreement, The Energy Mix has learned, just as an international agency warns that the world’s 1.5°C climate stabilization target is slipping out of reach.
The CER’s annual Energy Futures report is a critically important tool in national energy policy, used by investors and businesses to project future supply, demand, and pricing for fossil fuels. Invariably, it projects continuing growth in fossil fuel production, despite the government’s promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45% this decade and bring the country to net-zero by 2050.
Now, in a July 8 letter obtained by The Mix, nearly two dozen climate scientists, academics, and energy system modellers are urging Trudeau to instruct the CER to model an energy future that supports the “monumental task” of bringing global greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050.
So far, the regulator “has only modelled a suite of scenarios that imply the Paris Agreement’s goals will not be met, where the world does too little to reduce its production and consumption of oil, gas, and coal, and where Canada’s climate policies lack ambition and fail to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050,” the letter states.
While the CER “presents itself as the authoritative source of [Canadian] energy information”, the regulator “does not currently model scenarios where Canada’s energy sector aligns with the government’s net-zero by 2050 goal,” the letter adds. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement and a member country to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “Canada should bring its energy futures modelling into alignment with international best practice and the government’s net-zero goal.”
To make that happen, Trudeau must direct the CER to model energy futures that are “informed” by the IEA’s recent Net Zero by 2050 report, which called for an immediate end to new fossil fuel projects, the 21 signatories say. The projections in the IEA’s May 18 release were stark: the Paris-based agency foresaw global oil demand falling 75%, to 24 million barrels per day, between 2020 and 2050, gas demand dropping 55%, and remaining oil production “increasingly concentrated in a small number of low-cost producers.”
The takeaway quote from the IEA’s work: “Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required.”
» Blog editor’s note: this article illuminates the maddening disconnect between the Canadian government’s acceptance of climate science, and its refusal to formulate policies that phase out its production of fossil fuels.
» Read article
Investors pivoting to renewables as cost of energy drops and climate targets loom
By Sean Rai-Roche, PV Tech
July 19, 2021
Investors are turning away from fossil fuels and shifting into renewables because of falling costs and climate targets, with US banks lagging behind their European and Asian counterparts.
This was the message from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis’s (IEEFA) report Global Investors Move into Renewable Infrastructure, which was based on data from BloombergNEF.
It put the increasing investment down to “the inherent advantages of investment in clean energy”, such as higher risk adjusted returns and stable cashflows, along with the COVID-19 recovery packages of some governments incentivising green investment.
The report showed how in the financial year 2020, the clean energy sector received record investment, with US$501 billion committed – an increase of 9% of the previous year. Of this, the renewable energy sector received US$303 billion (60%) of total investment.
Total renewable energy installations hit 260GW last year despite COVID-19 pressures, which is 50% more than 2019. In contrast, total fossil fuel capacity dropped to 60GW in 2020 from 64GW in 2019.
A key factor here is the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for renewables versus fossil fuels. Solar PV’s LCOE has fallen 90% since 2009, according to the report, while those of coal, nuclear and gas have either increased, remained flat or dropped only slightly.
» Read article
MODERNIZING THE GRID
Cost allocation remains key challenge for FERC ahead of transmission reform, Glick says
By Catherine Morehouse, Utility Dive
July 20, 2021
As federal regulators begin the long process of tackling transmission reform, one of several outstanding challenges will be how to allocate costs, according to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Richard Glick.
Transmission reform is considered a key policy development needed to unleash gigawatts of renewables onto the U.S. power grid, experts agree. FERC last week took an initial step toward revisiting its policies, which were last updated in 2011, by opening a comment period on an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR). The commission will likely host technical conferences this fall as part of its effort to build a record before it issues a NOPR.
Glick ultimately wants to see an outcome that better prepares for future resource buildouts, expedites the interconnection process and improves cost allocation to better assess relative benefits. Cost allocation is poised to be one of the commission’s biggest challenges, but Glick said FERC’s recent joint task force with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners will help determine what allocation is appropriate.
“We know that the states play a huge role in … how transmission costs are allocated,” he said. “And because I think to the extent you can’t figure out where the costs are allocated, it’s very difficult to build the transmission facility in the first place.”
Current policy generally puts the majority of system costs for new transmission facilities onto power providers, which can cause renewables generators to back out of the interconnection queue altogether. Those withdrawals cause further delays to the already-clogged queues, according to a March report from Concentric Energy Advisors prepared for renewables industry groups. For example, a Tenaska complaint in front of FERC alleges that the Southwest Power Pool overcharged it millions of dollars in upgrade costs, which it says are not needed for its project, and would benefit other projects in the queue.
» Read article
Startup Claims Breakthrough in Long-Duration Batteries
Form Energy’s iron-air batteries could have big ramifications for storing electricity on the power grid
By Russell Gold, Wall Street Journal
Photos by Philip Keith, WSJ
July 22, 2021
A four-year-old startup says it has built an inexpensive battery that can discharge power for days using one of the most common elements on Earth: iron.
Form Energy Inc.’s batteries are far too heavy for electric cars. But it says they will be capable of solving one of the most elusive problems facing renewable energy: cheaply storing large amounts of electricity to power grids when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing.
The work of the Somerville, Mass., company has long been shrouded in secrecy and nondisclosure agreements. It recently shared its progress with The Wall Street Journal, saying it wants to make regulators and utilities aware that if all continues to go according to plan, its iron-air batteries will be capable of affordable, long-duration power storage by 2025.
Its backers include Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a climate investment fund whose investors include Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and Amazon.com Inc. founder Jeff Bezos. Form recently initiated a $200 million funding round, led by a strategic investment from steelmaking giant ArcelorMittal SA, MT 0.95% one of the world’s leading iron-ore producers.
Form is preparing to soon be in production of the “kind of battery you need to fully retire thermal assets like coal and natural gas” power plants, said the company’s chief executive, Mateo Jaramillo, who developed Tesla Inc.’s Powerwall battery and worked on some of its earliest automotive powertrains. [emphasis added]
On a recent tour of Form’s windowless laboratory, Mr. Jaramillo gestured to barrels filled with low-cost iron pellets as its key advantage in the rapidly evolving battery space. Its prototype battery, nicknamed Big Jim, is filled with 18,000 pebble-size gray pieces of iron, an abundant, nontoxic and nonflammable mineral.
For a lithium-ion battery cell, the workhorse of electric vehicles and today’s grid-scale batteries, the nickel, cobalt, lithium and manganese minerals used currently cost between $50 and $80 per kilowatt-hour of storage, according to analysts.
Using iron, Form believes it will spend less than $6 per kilowatt-hour of storage on materials for each cell. Packaging the cells together into a full battery system will raise the price to less than $20 per kilowatt-hour, a level at which academics have said renewables plus storage could fully replace traditional fossil-fuel-burning power plants.
A battery capable of cheaply discharging power for days has been a holy grail in the energy industry, due to the problem that it solves and the potential market it creates.
Form Energy’s iron-air battery breathes in oxygen and converts iron to rust, then turns the rust back into iron and breathes out oxygen, discharging and charging the battery in the process.
Earlier this year, it built Big Jim, a full-scale one-meter-by-one-meter battery cell. If it works as expected, 20 of these cells will be grouped in a battery. Thousands of these batteries will be strung together, filling entire warehouses and storing weeks’ worth of electricity. It could take days to fully charge these battery systems, but the batteries can discharge electricity for 150 hours at a stretch.
» Read article
One of the biggest myths about EVs is busted in new study
Even EVs that plug into dirty grids emit fewer greenhouse gases than gas-powered cars
By Justine Calma, The Verge
July 21, 2021
A new study lays to rest the tired argument that electric vehicles aren’t much cleaner than internal combustion vehicles. Over the life cycle of an EV — from digging up the materials needed to build it to eventually laying the car to rest — it will release fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gas-powered car, the research found. That holds true globally, whether an EV plugs into a grid in Europe with a larger share of renewables, or a grid in India that still relies heavily on coal.
This shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis. So governments from California to the European Union have proposed phasing out internal combustion engines by 2035. But there are still people who claim that EVs are only as clean as the grids they run on — and right now, fossil fuels still dominate when it comes to the energy mix in most places.
“We have a lot of lobby work from parts of the automotive industry saying that electric vehicles are not that much better if you take into account the electricity production and the battery production. We wanted to look into this and see whether these arguments are true,” says Georg Bieker, a researcher at the nonprofit research group the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) that published the report. The ICCT’s analysis found that those arguments don’t hold true over time.
The report estimates the emissions from medium-sized EVs registered in 2021 in either India, China, the US, or Europe — countries that make up 70 percent of new car sales globally and are representative of other markets across the world, the ICCT says. Lifetime emissions for an EV in Europe are between 66 and 69 percent lower compared to that of a gas-guzzling vehicle, the analysis found. In the US, an EV produces between 60 to 68 percent fewer emissions. In China, which uses more coal, an EV results in between 37 to 45 percent fewer emissions. In India, it’s between 19 to 34 percent lower.
» Read article
» Read the ICCT report
GM leaves owner owing $12K after Bolt EV battery fire last year
By Sean Graham, Electrek
July 20, 2021
GM again exploded into the mainstream news last week with an announcement that it was no longer safe to charge the Chevy Bolt EV unattended and that owners should park outside and away from structures out of fire concerns. This all started with a recall of 68,000 Bolt EVs in November of last year. While Hyundai had a similar problem and eventually elected to replace all Kona EV batteries with newer ones, GM decided that software could fix their problems. There have been at least two Bolt EV fires that had the final software update installed, which prompted GM’s recent announcement.
We reached out to a GM spokesperson for comment. We were told that GM is diligently investigating these latest fires and is working on a potential update to owners as quickly as possible. But the spokesperson could not give a timeframe for how this would progress.
While some are quick to dismiss electric vehicle fires as still less common than gas car fires, the opposite is actually true in this particular case. The Chevy Bolt, at least the 2019 model year, is more than an order of magnitude more likely to catch fire than a 2019 gas car, and it can do so in the middle of the night when you’re sleeping.
Electrek exclusively sat down with several owners of Bolt EV fires, and here’s one of their stories.
This is the owner’s recount from his Bolt EV fire that occurred on June 29, 2020, that GM confirmed to be battery-related.
» Read article
Eviation’s Hotly Anticipated Electric Commuter Plane Will Make Its Maiden Voyage This Year
The Washington-based startup expects its plane to be ready for operation in 2024.
By Bryan Hood, Robb Report
July 19, 2021
Three years after it was announced, Eviation Aircraft’s first electric plane is almost ready to take flight.
The Washington-based startup says its debut aircraft, the Alice, could make its maiden flight before the year is out. In fact, the company is so confident in the battery-powered commuter jet that it expects it to be in operation by 2024.
The just-unveiled production version of the Alice looks quite a bit different from the plane Eviation first showed off back in 2018. The zero-emission prototype had a very clear science fiction-inspired look, but the final version will sport a more refined and traditional fixed-wing design. That’s not the only change, either. The Alice now has just two propellers, both mounted on the tail, as opposed to the three its prototype was outfitted with, which were located at the rear and at the end of each wing.
Despite these changes, the Alice will still have room for nine passengers, not including the two seats in the cockpit for the pilot and co-pilot. That will put the plane firmly in the commuter and business class when it’s finally ready for operation. Each propeller is powered by a magni650 electric motor by magniX, according to a press release. It will also feature a fly-by-wire system from Honeywell, which will afford the pilot improved controls.
Eviation says the Alice will have a top speed of 253 miles per hour and a range of 440 nautical miles, which works out to about 506 miles. That means the plane should be able to easily make the trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco on a single charge. Anyone paying attention to electric vehicle announcements is probably used to outlandish power and range claims, but Alice’s numbers should actually be attainable. That’s because its high-density battery system uses currently available cells.
» Read article
CARBON CAPTURE & SEQUESTRATION
Will the Democrats’ Climate Legislation Hinge on Carbon Capture?
The bipartisan infrastructure bill may include billions in support for the technology. Progressive groups are not happy about it.
By Nicholas Kusnetz, Inside Climate News
July 20, 2021
The Democrats’ fragile package of sweeping climate and infrastructure legislation might end up being held together by a technology known as carbon capture and storage. That is, if it doesn’t pull it apart.
The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a bipartisan infrastructure bill that includes billions in government support for carbon capture, which pulls carbon dioxide out of smokestack emissions or straight from the air and pumps it underground. But on Monday, a coalition of hundreds of progressive environmental groups sent an open letter to President Joe Biden and Democratic Congressional leaders calling on them to reject the technology.
“Carbon capture is not a climate solution,” the groups wrote in the letter, which was accompanied by an advertisement in the Washington Post. “To the contrary, investing in carbon capture delays the needed transition away from fossil fuels and other combustible energy sources, and poses significant new environmental, health, and safety risks, particularly to Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities already overburdened by industrial pollution, dispossession, and the impacts of climate change.”
The letter reflects a split that has emerged in the advocacy community and among Democrats. Many of the nation’s most influential, mainstream environmental groups did not sign the letter, while those organizations that did sign included more left-leaning, justice-focused and local groups.
Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, has taken on an increasingly central role in climate policy discussions over the last couple of years. It is one of the few climate actions that draws bipartisan support. Most major labor unions also support CCS, arguing that its deployment could provide new jobs and help extend the life of some gas or coal-burning power plants, which often provide high-paying union jobs. And the fossil fuel industries have promoted the technology for decades.
» Read article
» Read the letter
DOE Quietly Backs Plan for Carbon Capture Network Larger Than Entire Oil Pipeline System
Obama Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and major labor group AFL-CIO are behind the “blueprint” for a multi-billion dollar system to transport captured CO2 — and offer a lifeline to fossil fuel plants.
By Sharon Kelly, DeSmog Blog
July 18, 2021
An organization run by former Obama-era Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, with the backing of the AFL-CIO, a federation of 56 labor unions, has created a policy “blueprint” to build a nationwide pipeline network capable of carrying a gigaton of captured carbon dioxide (CO2).
The “Building to Net-Zero” blueprint appears to be quietly gaining momentum within the Energy Department, where a top official has discussed ways to put elements into action using the agency’s existing powers.
The pipeline network would be twice the size of the current U.S. oil pipeline network by volume, according to the blueprint, released by a recently formed group calling itself the Labor Energy Partnership. Backers say the proposed pipeline network — including CO2 “hubs” in the Gulf Coast, the Ohio River Valley, and Wyoming — would help reduce climate-changing pollution by transporting captured carbon dioxide to either the oil industry, which would undo some of the climate benefits by using the CO2 to revive aging oilfields, or to as-yet unbuilt facilities for underground storage.
The blueprint, however, leaves open many questions about how the carbon would be captured at the source — a process that so far has proved difficult and expensive — and where it would be sent, focusing instead on suggesting policies the federal government can adopt to boost CO2 pipeline construction.
Climate advocates fear that building such a large CO2 pipeline network could backfire, causing more greenhouse gas pollution by enabling aging coal-fired power plants to remain in service longer, produce pipes that could wind up carrying fossil fuels if carbon capture efforts fall through, and represent an expensive waste of federal funds intended to encourage a meaningful energy transition.
In March, over 300 climate and environmental justice advocacy groups sent a letter to Congress, arguing that subsidizing carbon capture “could entrench the fossil economy for decades to come.”
» Read article
» Read the letter
FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY
The U.S. Shale Revolution Has Surrendered to Reality
Fracking companies aren’t drilling as investment continues to dry up.
By Justin Mikulka, DeSmog Blog
July 16, 2021
“Drill, baby, drill is gone forever.”
That was the recent assessment of Saudi Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman of the American oil industry’s future potential. As Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz is one of the most influential voices in the global oil markets. Fortune termed it a “bold taunt,” and a warning to U.S. frackers to not increase oil production.
The response by the U.S. producers — to shut up and take it — quietly confirms this reality. Shale oil’s era of growth appears to be over. The reason is that even as global oil demand and prices rise, the economics of the shale oil business model continue to not work. The U.S. shale industry has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in the past decade producing oil and selling it for less than it cost to produce.
This was possible because despite the losses, investors kept giving the industry money. But now investors appear to have grown tired of losing money on U.S. shale companies and new lending to the industry has dropped dramatically.
As reported this month by The Wall Street Journal, “capital markets showed little interest in funding expansive new drilling campaigns” for the U.S. shale industry. Shaia Hosseinzadeh, a partner at investment firm OnyxPoint Global Management LP, told The Journal that the problem facing fracking companies is that “they can’t access cheap capital any longer.”
Without new infusions of money, the industry can’t drill for more oil, and that is why the Saudis feel confident taunting the U.S. oil industry. Prince Abdulaziz’s confidence is based in the financial realities of U.S. shale.
» Read article
How a powerful US lobby group helps big oil to block climate action
The American Petroleum Institute receives millions from oil companies – and works behinds the scenes to stall or weaken legislation
By Chris McGreal, The Guardian
July 19, 2021
When Royal Dutch Shell published its annual environmental report in April, it boasted that it was investing heavily in renewable energy. The oil giant committed to installing hundreds of thousands of charging stations for electric vehicles around the world to help offset the harm caused by burning fossil fuels.
On the same day, Shell issued a separate report revealing that its single largest donation to political lobby groups last year was made to the American Petroleum Institute, one of the US’s most powerful trade organizations, which drives the oil industry’s relationship with Congress.
Contrary to Shell’s public statements in support of electric vehicles, API’s chief executive, Mike Sommers, has pledged to resist a raft of Joe Biden’s environmental measures, including proposals to fund new charging points in the US. He claims a “rushed transition” to electric vehicles is part of “government action to limit Americans’ transportation choice”.
Shell donated more than $10m to API last year alone.
And it’s not just Shell. Most other oil conglomerates are also major funders, including ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP, although they have not made their contributions public.
The deep financial ties underscore API’s power and influence across the oil and gas industry, and what politicians describe as the trade group’s defining role in setting major obstacles to new climate policies and legislation.
Critics accuse Shell and other major oil firms of using API as cover for the industry. While companies run publicity campaigns claiming to take the climate emergency seriously, the trade group works behind the scenes in Congress to stall or weaken environmental legislation.
Earlier this year, an Exxon lobbyist in Washington was secretly recorded by Greenpeace describing API as the industry’s “whipping boy” to direct public and political criticism away from individual companies.
» Read article
» Learn more about Pipeline projects
» Learn more about other proposed energy infrastructure
» Sign up for the NFGiM Newsletter for events, news and actions you can take
» DONATE to help keep our efforts going!