 Parthenon, Acropolis, Greece- Photo Credit - timeflies 1955 & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the forty-sixth edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Greece ranks twenty-second highest in Yale University’s newly published Environmental Performance Index (EPI) for 2018. This is a slight drop compared with its EPI baseline ranking of 14th place. The baseline ranking is typically calculated by applying the same set of metrics to the country’s historic performance data from 10 years ago. The area driving the decline in the ranking is ‘climate and energy’. Greece’s current ranking for this sub-category is 133rd versus a baseline of 52nd.’ Climate and energy’ sub-category measures emissions intensity for CO2, methane, N20, black carbon etc. Paris Agreement Targets As part of Greece’s Paris Agreement targets, the country has agreed to reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GhG) emissions by at least 16% of 1990 levels, by 2030. This was agreed as part of the EU’s overall target to reduce emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. The EU Climate Leaderboard produced by Carbon Market Watch and Transport & Environment ranks Greece 14th out of the EU countries for its position towards negotiating the EU’s Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). Similar to Ireland and Austria, who we wrote about in recent weeks, Greece favoured using 2021 as the starting point for the EU’s emissions reduction targets as opposed to a lower starting point, derived from an average of 2016 – 2018 emissions. Electricity Generation According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) review of Greece’s energy policies in 2017, just under 60% of electricity generated was sourced from combustible fuels (coal 31.6%, natural gas 27.8%). Renewable energy’s share of the mix was 30% (hydro 11%, wind 11%, Solar 8%) with the remaining 10% coming from oil. If we compare Greece’s 2016 electricity mix with its 2000 mix we see improvements across the board. Combustible fuels portion of the overall figure was 70% in 2000. Coal represented 45% of the mix, no electricity was sourced from solar energy and less than 2% of electricity came from Wind. The country has made a conscious effort to clean up its act and reverse the trend of increasing emissions intensity. The report also highlighted that Greece has restructured its state-owned energy companies and opened up its electricity and gas markets in line with the third European Union (EU) Energy package. Greece will need to continue its reforms ahead as the country’s economy begins to recover in order to maintain this progress. GhG Emissions According to United Nations Climate Change Secretariat (UNCCS) GhG statistics for Greece, in 1990 and 2012 its energy sector was its highest emitting industrial sector with 73% and 79% of the overall figure respectively. Analysing the 2012 energy figures further revealed that energy industries were the highest emitter with 63% of the energy sector’s emissions. Summary When this blog was started last year, something that the highest emitting nations of CO2 had in common was their over-reliance on coal to help fuel their economies. Although the portion of electricity generated from coal in Greece has declined over the past 20 years, the amount of electricity generated from coal has remained static at 4,300 MW. Greece was one of the countries who felt the impact of the 2008 financial crash the most, and as a consequence, its economy went into a tailspin. More recently the economy is starting to show signs of recovery, with this turnaround will come a higher demand for energy. Greece needs to be careful that it does not fall back on coal during this transition and instead continue with its switch towards renewable energy. Next week’s blog will take a look at how companies are capturing CO2 and using it to enchance coal bed methane recovery. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 45 Luxembourg: Green bonds and blue electricity Week 44 Geothermal: Supercritical CO2 brings us heat from beneath our feet Week 43 Ireland: Dear Leo, by the time you read this letter we’ll all be gone  Luxembourg- Photo Credit - Waldomigeux & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the forty-fifth edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Having examined the role of enhanced geothermal systems in reducing CO2 emissions last week, I’m returning to my country-by-country analysis and this week I’m focusing on Luxembourg. Luxembourg ranks twentieth highest on Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI). This follows top 5 placings in 2014 and 2012 in the biennial index. Looking at the sub-categories of the index, Luxembourg’s Agriculture rating is weak based on overuse of fertiliser and its ‘carbon intensity’ score is also low. Paris Agreement Targets As part of Luxembourg’s Paris Agreement targets, the country has agreed to reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GhG) emissions by at least 33% of 1990 levels, by 2030. This was agreed as part of the EU’s overall target to reduce emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. The EU Climate Leaderboard produced by Carbon Market Watch and Transport & Environment ranks Luxembourg 6th out of the EU countries for the efforts it has taking towards reducing its CO2 emissions and the position it has taken towards negotiating the EU’s Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). Unlike Ireland who we featured two weeks ago, Luxembourg supports the EU commission’s proposal for its reduction starting point to be an average of 2016 – 2018 levels as opposed to using 2020/ 2021 levels (higher starting point). Electricity Generation According to 'Le Portail Des Statistiques Grand-Duché Luxembourg' the mix of the electricity provided to end users by source has changed substantially between 2009 and 2016. In 2009 53% of electricity used in Luxembourg was sourced from fossil fuels with just over 20% coming from renewable energy. In the space of just seven years, the trend has changed considerably. Renewable energy now represents 55% of the electricity mix with 34% of the remainder being sourced from fossil fuels. An increase in the generation of electricity at hydro-powered plants has been the main catalyst for the switch to renewables. The hydroelectricity share of the overall mix stands at 45% in 2016 compared with 12% in 2009. Green Bonds Financial Services and Asset Management are an important part of the Luxembourg economy. LuxSE, Luxembourg’s stock exchange was the first exchange in the world to list a green bond in 2017. The “Climate Awareness Bond” was issued by the European Investment Bank in 2007. A further 130 green bonds have been listed on the LuxSE since then, including bonds raised by sovereign funds, development banks, corporates, financial institutions etc. LuxSE defines a green bond as one that is dedicated to funding positive environmental/ climate change projects and these bonds are backed by their issuer’s entire balance sheet. Summary Just like its EU counterparts, Luxembourg is committed to meeting its share of the union’s CO2 emissions reduction target. The country has made great progress towards changing its electricity usage mix from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy in recent years. As a financial services hub, the small nation is a global leader in the area of green financing. Like other small countries featured in previous weeks of this blog, Luxembourg has shown that you do not have to be a large nation to make a big impact. Next week’s blog will profile Greece and their efforts to meet their CO2 emissions reduction targets. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 44 Geothermal: Supercritical CO2 brings us heat from beneath our feet Week 43 Ireland: Dear Leo, by the time you read this letter we’ll all be gone Week 42 Austria: New Government, same renewable energy goal  Hot Springs- Photo Credit - emosaidis & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the forty-fourth edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction This week I take a look at how advances in carbon capture and utilization technologies are being exploited to enhance geothermal systems and also to provide permanent storage site for CO2. Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy is generated naturally when heat from the Earth’s crust warms underground water reservoirs and the subsequent steam that is formed breaks through the surface at ground level (hydro-geothermal). This typically occurs in regions of the world where two tectonic plates have collided. Geysers are a well-known type of geothermal energy located close to volcanoes. Iceland is famous for its geysers. Geysers are also found in other areas of the world such as Chile and Yellowstone National Park in the US. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) The Pembina Institute (PI) defines enhanced Geothermal systems as the transfer of geothermal heat through supercritical CO2 or the direct generation of power from supercritical CO2 turbines. Supercritical CO2 is a fluid and occurs when CO2 is held at or above its critical temperature and pressure. In the context of CO2, water is replaced by supercritical CO2 and is injected into man-made underground reservoirs in a closed loop. The vapour rising from the heating of the CO2 reaches the surface and turns turbines to generate electricity. PI highlights permanent storage capability and improving the efficiency of geothermal energy as benefits accruing from EGS. Limitations included the length of time to make it commercially viable, supercritical CO2 transportation costs, and a requirement for grid connection on site. Iceland and United Nations University Iceland was featured in week 19 of this blog, what we learned then was that approximately 90% of Icelandic homes are heated naturally with energy sourced from their geothermal plants. We also found out that the United Nations University has trained over 500 scientists at their geothermal training programme in Iceland on how geothermal energy can be implemented in their countries. Just to provide an idea of the potential for geothermal energy, Kenya who sent scientists to the United Nations University in Iceland built the first geothermal plant in Africa in the Olkaria fields in Southwestern Kenya, 120 km North West of Nairobi. Roughly 50% of Kenyan electricity now sourced from geothermal energy. KenGen operates the geothermal plants, and say the plants have the potential to increase electricity generation to 1,000 megawatts, almost double the existing levels. This would mean that the geothermal plants could support the energy needs of the population of Kenya, similar to Iceland. KenGen says that each new wells costs approximately USD$6m to install, however, the benefits can be realized immediately at a geothermal plant that is already connected to the grid. Summary Geothermal energy is not new, it occurs naturally in places like Iceland where the local inhabitants have reaped its benefits for centuries. Enhanced Geothermal Systems is a clever innovation on this that can help boost the efficiency of clean energy produced and also find a permanent storage site for CO2. Countries like Kenya are taking advantage of this technology are able to generate electricity during drought periods, reducing their reliance on diesel generators. Next week’s blog will profile Luxembourg and their efforts to meet their CO2 emissions reduction targets. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 43 Ireland: Dear Leo, by the time you read this letter we’ll all be gone Week 42 Austria: New Government, same renewable energy goal Week 41 Enhanced Oil Recovery: extracting oil more efficiently and replacing it with CO2.  Gougane Barra Church, Cork, Ireland - Photo Credit - SeaneGriffin & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the forty-third edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Ireland ranks nineteenth highest in Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in 2016, its highest ranking since being placed tenth overall in 2006, the index’s year of inception. Between 2006 and 2014 Ireland did not feature in the top 30 list for this biennial index. Paris Agreement Targets As part of Ireland’s Paris Agreement targets, the country has agreed to reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GhG) emissions by at least 30% of 1990 levels, by 2030. This was agreed as part of the EU’s overall target to reduce emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. The EU Climate Leaderboard produced by Carbon Market Watch and Transport & Environment ranks Ireland 18th out of the EU countries for its position towards negotiating the EU’s Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). Similar, to Austria, featured last week, Ireland looked to weaken the starting point for emissions reduction and lobbied to move the start date from 2020 to 2021. This was met with widespread anguish by environmentalists and lobby groups in Ireland. An environmental NGO called Friends of the Irish Environment (FiE) has taken the Irish government to court in response to what they believe is a lack of climate change action on their part. Addressing the Citizen Assembly, Joseph Curtin, UCC and Institute of International and European Affairs described the government’s performance as a spectacular fail. He went on to say that upfront pain would have to be incurred with the loss of jobs in the peat and agriculture sectors in order for Ireland to get back on track. Laura Bourke, EPA, also addressed the Citizens’ Assembly and referred to peat and agriculture. She highlighted the triple negative of peat extraction: the production of poor fuel, the release of CO2 and the depletion of a natural way of storing CO2 in the Irish boglands. When writing about Estonia in week 28, I pointed out how the restoration of their bogs was helping reduce the nation’s emissions. The climate action advisory council in their end of year communication recommended that the government take urgent action to reduce its emissions. According to data published by EPA in December 2017 it predicted that Irish emissions in 2017 will be about 3.5% higher than 2016 when final figures are released. Electricity Generation Just over 80% of electricity generated in Ireland in 2015 was sourced from fossil-fuel powered plants, this is an improvement when compared with 1990 when virtually all electricity was generated at fossil-fuel power plants. Over that time period, renewable energy has grown steadily and now is the source for 17% of electricity produced in Ireland. During this time the proportion of electricity sourced from gas-fired plants has increased from 27% of the overall share to 42%. All this is progress but it still falls short of peer comparison with other countries of similar size to Ireland such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) are promoting the uptake of electric cars as a means towards reducing carbon emissions. Switching to electric cars will help as long as the renewables segment of overall electricity generation continues to grow. Agriculture Ireland has a long and proud farming tradition and just like other countries where agriculture is an important driver of the economy, it can come with the cost of greater CO2 emissions. Latest Statistics show that agriculture accounts for 32% of emissions in Ireland a slight decline from 36% in 1990. A positive development has been the creation of ‘Smart Farming’, an initiative that has seen the 1,000 participating farmers save on average €8,700 in costs and reduce their CO2 emissions by 10% Citizens’ Assembly We mentioned already how the Citizens’ Assembly (CA) had received climate change presentations from experts like Joseph Curtin and Laura Bourke. Following on from this, in November 2017, the CA voted for an overhaul of Irish climate change policy. Their recommendations include the introduction of a carbon tax, backing for renewable electricity support programmes, the abolition of peat subsidies and increasing bus and cycle lanes in Irish towns and cities. Cool Planet Experience You may have noted the official launch of the Cool Planet Experience (CPE) at Powerscourt Estate on Wednesday by Richard Branson and CPE founder Norman Crowley. CPE has a visitor centre at Powerscourt Estate dedicated to informing the general public about climate change and what action is required to address this. CPE will also host workshops across the country and is open to the general public, it also caters for school tours. Summary The Irish government has faced a flurry of criticism in how it is managing climate change policy, given their resistance to change. The introduction of a carbon tax would help in this regard, however following the controversial introduction and subsequent removal of water charges, the government may be reluctant to go down this road. Using the ‘carrot approach’ is likely to be more appealing, for example, rewards for using renewable energy. In Week 40, I reviewed the ‘Clean 15’ countries, and found that on average 66% of electricity generated in those countries is sourced from renewable energy. In small countries such as New Zealand, Singapore, and Norway, over 85% of electricity generation is sourced from renewable energy, meaning that using Ireland’s small size as an excuse for poor performance is inadequate. There are roughly 140,000 farms in Ireland. 1,000 farmers took part in the ‘Smart Farming’ programme last year and on average saved €8,700 each (€8,7m overall) in operating costs, lowering their CO2 emissions by 10%. If all farms signed up to this programme, assuming the average savings remain the same, it could result in up to €1.2 Bn in operational savings for the farmers of Ireland, and reduce agriculture’s overall share of CO2 emissions to levels below 30%. The general public appear to be behind green initiatives in Ireland, it is up to the Irish government now to listen to the electorate and show some climate change leadership. Over to you Leo, et al! Who to follow? If you would like to keep up to date on Ireland’s performance against its climate change goals, the following individuals, organisations, twitter handles, and websites are good sources of information: Dr. Paul Deane, Energy Policy & Modelling Group, UCC - @eriucc Mr. Joseph Curtin, IIEA, and UCC - @jmcurtin Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan, Environment & Science Editor, Irish Times – @KOSullivan Mr. Niall Sargent, editor of ‘The Green News’ - @IrishEnvNet, www.greennews.ie An Taisce, The National Trust for Ireland @AnTaisce, www.antaisce.org Electricity Supply Board (ESB) – www.esb.ie Smart Farming – www.smartfarming.ie Next week’s blog will take a look at how companies are capturing CO2 and using it to enhance geothermal heat systems. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 42 Austria: New Government, same renewable energy goal Week 41 Enhanced Oil Recovery: extracting oil more efficiently and replacing it with CO2. Week 40 Clean 15: what can we learn from the low carbon economies.  Belvedere Castle, Austria - Photo Credit - nbieser & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the forty-second edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Having examined the role of enhanced oil recovery in reducing CO2 emissions last week, I’m returning to my country-by-country analysis and this week I’m focusing on Austria. Austria ranks eighteen highest under Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and with the exception of the current ranking has consistently being a top 10 ranking country in this biennial index since its inception in January 2006. Paris Agreement Targets As part of Austria’s Paris Agreement targets, the country has agreed to reduce its GhG emissions by at least 36% of 1990 levels by 2030. This was agreed as part of the EU’s overall target to reduce emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030 as a whole. The EU Climate Leaderboard produced Carbon Market Watch and Transport & Environment ranks Austria 16th out of the EU countries for its position towards negotiating the EU’s Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). The leaderboard challenged Austria’s support of using the average of 2016 – 2018 emissions as a starting point, seeking the inclusion of a land use loophole (forestry) to offset emissions, and its lack of clarity towards its long-term emissions reduction targets. New Government In December 2017, the Austrian People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) and the Austrian far-right Freedom party Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) formed a coalition government. During the 2013 election campaign, Swiss publication jet d’encre reviewed the environmental policy section of the respective political parties’ election manifestos. Unsurprisingly, the Austrian Green Party had a comprehensive environmental section in their manifesto. ÖVP had 12 measures which included increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable energy sources and calling for a climate treaty with the largest emitting nations: China, US, and emerging economies. At that time, FPÖ did not have any environmental policy in their election manifesto. The FPÖ party’s website has an environmental policy section and encouragingly is in favour of the phase-out of coal in Austria as agreed by previous governments. Looking at the Energy section of the program for government signed by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) and vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache (FPÖ) the new coalition government has set an ambitious target to be fossil-fuel free in the generation of electricity by 2030. This goal will be supported by the construction of renewable energy power plants. Electricity Generation According to latest statistics produced by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for Austria, roughly 77% of electricity produced domestically came from renewable energy. Hydropower was the largest source of electricity generation, with over 60% of all electricity was produced at hydropower plants. Lower Austria, Austria’s largest state with a population of 1.7 million inhabitants, reported in November 2015, that for the first time it generated all its electricity from renewable sources. Similarly to the national split, hydropower was the largest contributor with just over 60% of the overall mix. Summary Like all the other EU nations, Austria supports the EU’s target of reducing CO2 emissions across the union by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. Austria plans to phase out the use of coal and fossil-fuels and has set an ambitious target of generating all its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. The new coalition government supports this goal in its program for government. The goal may be bold, but it is not unrealistic, 77% of electricity generated in Austria is sourced from renewable energy and the largest state in Austria already sources all its electricity from renewable energy. Next week’s blog will profile Ireland and their efforts to meet their CO2 emissions reduction targets. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 41 Enhanced Oil Recovery: extracting oil more efficiently and replacing it with CO2. Week 40 Clean 15: what can we learn from the low carbon economies. Week 39 Norway: driving carbon storage and electric cars in Europe 12/29/2017 Week 41 Enhanced Oil Recovery: extracting oil more efficiently and replacing it with CO2Read Now  Drilling for black gold - Photo Credit - JP26 & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the forty-first edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Following a CCUS field trip earlier this year, which included tours of Shell’s Quest facility and North West Refinery I returned home inspired to write about CCUS. One of the motivating factors was to highlight the good work that is being done by oil companies in a bid to reduce its CO2 emissions. This week I take a look at how advances in carbon capture and utilization technologies are being exploited to enhance the recovery of oil by oil companies on-site and how CO2 is being stored in place of the recovered oil. Enhanced Oil Recovery Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), this is a process where CO2 is injected into partly depleted coal seams. The CO2 helps remove fuel from small hard to reach seams and takes the place of the previously lodged fuel. This is a more efficient way of extracting oil from the ground as it reduces drilling and energy costs. The Pembina Institute describes the EOR process as ‘CO2 injected into an existing oil well to increase pressure and reduce the viscosity of the oil, increasing the amount of oil that can be recovered’. This is important because, in regions where oil is difficult to extract from the ground such as the Canadian oil sands, millions of litres of water are boiled to produce steam in order to soften and extract the oil tar. The institute also highlights the opportunities of EOR being the permanent storage of CO2 and a revenue stream that can offset the cost of EOR technology. The main drawback is that EOR facilitates the extraction of additional CO2 heavy fuel out of the ground for use. EOR is a mature CCUS technology and the Global CCS Institute has highlighted some noteworthy EOR processing facilities on its website: Great Plains Synfuels Plant and Weyburn-Midale The Great Plains Synfuels Plant is situated in North Dakota, US and produces CO2 during its coal gasification process. It captures up to 3 Mtpa (metric tonnes per annum) and transports it to the Weyburn Oil facility in Saskatchewan, Canada where it is used to help extract oil via EOR processes. To date, roughly 35 million tonnes of CO2 have been used. Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant (formerly Val Verde Natural Gas Plants) The Terrell gas processing plant in South Western Texas has been capturing roughly 0.5 Mtpa of CO2 for over 40 years and transporting it by pipeline to McCamey Texas. From there it is connected to the Canyon Reef Carriers (CRC) pipeline and the Pecos pipeline and used across oil fields to enhance the levels of oil recovered. Century Plant The Century Plant is another natural gas plant in Texas with a CO2 capture capacity of 8.4 Mtpa. The CO2 captured at this site is also transported by pipeline to the Texan oil field boost oil yields from extraction. Summary EOR is a mature CCUS technology which helps reduce the amount of water used and energy consumed during the extraction of oil from oil fields. In addition to its cost-saving benefits, EOR can also be a supplementary revenue stream for any heavy industry company, that applies it to their production plants. The main limitation of EOR is that it aides the extraction of more CO2 intensive fossil fuels. However, as EOR and other CCUS technologies have proven, the CO2 generated can be captured and put to good use or permanently stored. Next week’s blog will profile Austria and their efforts to meet their CO2 emissions reduction targets. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 40 Clean 15: what can we learn from the low carbon economies. Week 39 Norway: driving carbon storage and electric cars in Europe Week 38 Desalination: water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink  Pool ball - Photo Credit - heyourelax & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the fortieth edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Week 15 of this blog featured the ‘dirty dozen’, the twelve largest emitting nations of CO2 into the Atmosphere. These twelve countries alone account for roughly 66% of all CO2 emissions. Over the course of the last five months of this blog, I have written about fifteen countries who are currently performing well against their climate change commitments and are top-ranking countries in the latest ‘Environmental Performance Index’ (EPI) published by Yale University. So what lessons can the ‘dirty dozen’ learn from the ‘clean fifteen’ and look to implement as part of their climate change policy? Let’s find out by reminding ourselves what behaviours make the ‘clean fifteen’ lower carbon-emitting nations. Paris Agreement Commitments and Carbon neutrality The ‘clean fifteen’ have made individual country climate change pledges as part of their Paris Agreement signatures. The EU as a whole has agreed to cut its emissions by 40% of 1990 level by 2030, by default the 10 EU countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Malta, France, and Croatia) have signed up to this goal. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland’s Paris Agreement commitments at least match the EU’s with Switzerland surpassing it by committing to a 50% reduction. Singapore is broadly in line by committing to reducing their emissions by 36% of 1990 levels by 2030. New Zealand has agreed to an 11% reduction by 2030, however, the nation of Islands has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. Five of the European countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Estonia, and France) have also committed to being carbon neutral over the next 30 years. Electricity Generation The percentage of electricity generated by renewable/ clean energy sources in the ‘clean fifteen’ countries is roughly two-thirds of total generation. This is in stark contrast to the ‘dirty dozen’ where at least 80% of all emissions in these countries originated in their energy sector. Malta is the outlier within the ‘clean fifteen’ with just 2.4% of its domestic electricity generation stemming from renewable energy. Since 2015 Malta imports 50% of the electricity it uses from Italy via an interconnector, this has led to a dramatically favourable reduction in the country’s total emissions. Electric Cars Sweden plans to be fossil fuel free by 2045 and Volvo will only manufacture electric or hybrid engine cars from 2019 onwards. France will ban the use of diesel and petrol engine cars from 2040 onwards. Norway has set a target of selling only zero emission engine light vans and cars from 2025 onwards. CCUS All 15 countries have invested in CCUS research, either on a standalone basis and /or in collaboration with other countries. This ranges from legal research in New Zealand to notable or large-scale CCUS projects in Croatia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Spain, France, Switzerland, Norway etc. Summary The ‘clean fifteen’ are lower carbon economies for a multitude of reasons, starting at the top with their commitment to the Paris Agreement and the policies they are implementing to achieve their Co2 emissions reduction targets. They are not reliant on fossil fuels as a source of energy and are increasing their proportion of renewables in their mix of electricity generation sources. The most ambitious of the fifteen have set targets to be carbon neutral by 2050, and have begun by switching to renewable energy and pledging to phase out fossil-fuel engine cars will help them achieve this. Next week’s blog will take a look at how companies are capturing CO2 and using it to enhance oil recovery. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 39 Norway: driving carbon storage and electric cars in Europe Week 38 Desalination: water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink Week 37 Switzerland: powering cars with carbon negative biofuel Oslo - Photo Credit - AlexvonGutthenbach-Lindau & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the thirty-ninth edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Having examined the role of desalination in reducing CO2 emissions last week, I’m returning to my country-by-country analysis and this week I’m focusing on Norway. Norway ranks seventeenth highest under Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and has consistently being a top 20 ranking country in this biennial index since its inception in January 2006. Paris Agreement Targets As part of Norway’s Paris Agreement targets, the country has agreed to reduce its GhG emissions by at least 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. This is in line with the EU’s Paris Agreement commitments. Norway was one of the first developed economies to commit to the Paris Agreement when the country made its pledge in 2016. Electricity Generation According to the latest electricity generation and consumption statistics published by Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway) 94.5% of electricity produced in Norway in October 2017 was at hydro power plants with the remainder sourced from wind power (3%) and thermal power (2.5%) respectively. The October position was very much in line with 2016 electricity production data. Net consumption of electricity data for October 2017 also revealed that over 63% of the electricity used was in areas outside of the extraction of oil and gas or power-intensive manufacturing. As part of Norway’s Transport Plan for 2018 – 2029, the Norwegian government set a target that all new passenger cars and light vans sold in 2025 will be zero-emission vehicles. At 215.6 per 10,000 inhabitants, Norway has the highest number of electric cars per capita in the World in 2016, this represents 29% of the total electric car market. Full Chain CCS Project Gassnova is Norway’s state body responsible for the development of carbon capture and storage technologies. It is overseeing the implementation of a full-scale CCS project by 2022 that will store up to 1.5 Mtpa (metric tons per annum) of CO2 in an onshore site in the Smeaheia area of Norway, South of Stavanger. Upon its completion, the site will be able to accept CO2 from other European countries as well as further afield. In 2016, Gassnova undertook feasibility studies for the capture and storage of CO2 with companies across three areas: ammonia production (Yara International), cement production (Norcem), and waste-to-energy (Fortum Oslo Varme). In October 2017, Statoil, Shell, and Total signed a CO2 storage partnership agreement. The tree oil companies will help mature the development of carbon storage at the Smeaheia site. Yara International Yara International is headquartered in Oslo, Norway and is world’s largest supplier of plant nutrients. Carbon capture helps Yara International produce close to emissions-free fertiliser. Norcem Norcem is a subsidiary of Heidlebergcement and manufacturers cement at its facilities in Brevik and Kjøpsvik. Norcem’s goal is to produce CO2 neutral cement by 2030. Using flue gas, the company tested four different CCUS technologies as part of its efforts to achieve this goal. Fortum Oslo Varme Fortum Oslo Varme is jointly owned by Finnish Utility Fortum Oy and the City of Oslo. It has a waste-to-energy plant at Klemetsrud, 12km South of Oslo city centre. The flue gas produced there is similar to that of flue gases at coal-fired plants. Fortum Oslo Varme is able to capture about 90% of the CO2 produced in flue gases. About 60% of CO2 emitted originated from biological sources such as wood, meaning production from the Klemetsrud’s facility is CO2 negative. Summary For a country known for its oil industry, Norway is a clean tech and electric car leader. The government’s goal that all cars and lights vans be emission-free by 2025 seems like a realistic one when you consider the progress made to date. The implementation of a full-scale CCS project by 2022 means that this innovative Nordic country can profit from the CO2 emissions of other European countries for years to come. Next week’s blog will profile the ‘clean 15’ and their efforts to meet their CO2 emissions reduction targets. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 38 Desalination: water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink Week 37 Switzerland: powering cars with carbon negative biofuel Week 36 Croatia: using enhanced oil recovery to move towards a cleaner economy Seawater - Photo Credit - Pexels & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the thirty-eighth edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction This week I take a look at how advances in carbon capture and utilization technologies are being exploited to remove brine from wastewater. Brine is a high concentration of salt in water. Brine is also a by-product of industrial processes and brine wastewater can be hazardous to the environment. Brine Wastewater and Desalination Brine, for all intents and purposes, is more commonly known as salt. Brine wastewater is found in the food industry, using salt to treat meat. It is most commonly found in heavy industries such as oil and gas where brine water is used as a coolant. Brine water can become contaminated during the production process and must be treated before the water is released back into the environment. Desalination is the removal of salts and minerals from a substance such as sea water or soil. CO2 is mixed with salt water at high pressure and temperature in order to form hydrates that are removed leaving clean water behind. Condorchem Envitech Condorchem Envitech is an environmental engineering company founded in Barcelona, Spain with over 25 years’ experience, providing primary water, wastewater, and air emissions treatment solutions to its clients around the world. Condorchem Envitech has developed three types of technology that assists with the desalination process:
COSIA (Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance) COSIA is an alliance of oil sands producers and is focused on improving the process of extracting oil and gas from the oil sands as efficiently and eco-friendly as possible. One of their aspirations is to “be world leaders in water management, producing Canadian energy with no adverse impact on water”. COSIA has two key performance goals for ‘In Situ’ and mining operators towards reaching its water management goal:
Summary Good water management starts with the conservation of water through the implementation of policies devised by governments and industry bodies such as COSIA. This will be crucial towards ensuring that water usage levels are sensibly managed and monitored into the future. Where water is an important, and unavoidable ingredient in the food and energy sectors, technological innovations by companies such as Condorchem Envitech will help remove brine from the wastewater, safely dispose of any contaminated particles, and only allow filtered water back into the environment. Next week’s blog will profile Norway and their efforts to meet their CO2 emissions reduction targets. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 37 Switzerland: powering cars with carbon negative biofuel Week 36 Croatia: using enhanced oil recovery to move towards a cleaner economy Week 35 Urea: using carbon to boost crop yield  Switzerland - Photo Credit - Rivella & Free Images - Pixabay
Welcome to the thirty-seventh edition of my weekly blog where I take a closer look at the policies adopted by individual countries in their efforts to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Particular attention is paid to the role that Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) research and technologies are playing in the drive to meet these requirements. Introduction Switzerland ranks sixteenth in Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), the country has never ranked outside the top 20 in this biennial index since its inception in January 2006. In fact, Switzerland has twice been the highest ranked country. Its fall in the latest ranking is more a reflection of the overall improvement of other nations as opposed to any decline in standards by the Swiss. Similarly to Croatia last week, Switzerland’s biggest improvement in the index score came in the area of ‘air quality’ and air pollution in excess of fine particle matter (PM) 2.5. Paris Agreement Targets In 2015, Switzerland provided details its intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) to UN climate change targets, committing to a GhG emissions reduction of 50% of 1990 levels by 2030. Switzerland also plans to reduce its emissions by 35% of 1990 levels by 2025. Energy Statistics Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) statistics for 2016 show that petroleum products (50%) were the largest source of final energy consumption with electricity and gas the next highest at 25% and 14% respectively. Petroleum product consumption was 68/32 between motor fuels and fuel oils or 34% and 16% of overall energy consumption. When we look at electricity production, we find that almost 60% of overall production was generated at hydroelectric plants and 33% at nuclear power plants. Aljadix (@aljadix) You may recall we featured a Swiss company call Aljadix in our week 17 blog about algae cultivation. Aljadix has developed a 200m long, 100m wide and 0.5m deep sea platform that uses co2 from heavy industry such as fossil fuel power plants and cement plants to help accelerate the production of microalgae. The microalgae are then converted into biofuel, making this a carbon negative process as the sea platform is effectively a large solar surface area. To give this achievement some context the dimensions of Barcelona's pitch at Camp Nou are 68m x 105m. So, the sea-surface platform is 20,000 m2 or almost 3 times the area of the Camp Nou pitch. Aljadix ‘s unique selling point is that they are a carbon negative biofuel producer. From 1 km2 of microalgae production, they claim they can generate 10 million litres of biodiesel per year and 1,000 tonnes of inert carbon hydrochar. So, one sea-surface platform can produce up to 200,000 litres of readily usable diesel per year. Assuming the average car uses 2,000 litres of fuel per year. The sea-surface platform could power 100 cars annually. A smaller sea-surface platform the size of the Camp Nou pitch could power 36 cars per annum, just enough to cover a car for each first team squad member and the first team coaching staff. Summary Petroleum products represent 50% of Swiss energy consumption. A third of the energy consumed is used to power petroleum engine automobiles. Electricity generation at hydroelectric and nuclear power plants consumes a further 25% of energy produced. One way of reducing the reliance on petroleum products is by substituting them with biofuel sourced from microalgae cultivation. However, there are over 4.5m passenger vehicles in Switzerland so this alone will not be enough. Other measures will need to be looked at such as switching to electric vehicles. Next week’s blog will take a look at how companies are capturing CO2 and using desalination technology. If you liked this article you might enjoy reading some recent articles in the series: Week 36 Croatia: using enhanced oil recovery to move towards a cleaner economy Week 35 Urea: using carbon to boost crop yield Week 34 Singapore: sticking with Paris and switching to natural gas. |
Archives
April 2018
Categories |
RSS Feed