Tag Archives: Alternative Energy

Climate Solutions, Earth Day, Observation, Sustainable Energy

The World Must Transition to 200% Renewable Energy Sources: no, that’s not a misprint

Video September 23, 2022 Danny Leeds

net-zero by 2050 was a joke, but nobody’s laughing

Attitude matters. Imagine that in the run-up to the 20xx Olympics your country declared: we will strive to not-lose and achieve net-zero gold medals!

OK maybe not the best metaphor but still – why aim to not trigger armageddon by… 2050?

It is international scientific consensus that, in order to prevent the worst climate damages, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. –

Once that lofty non-goal was agreed upon by governments across the globe, it quickly became apparent that virtually none of them were doing anywhere near what it would take to get to said uninspired non-goal.

The idea was (and still is) to drag and under-achieve as long as politically possible and then suddenly, in the final stretch, accelerate efforts (with resources controlled by future politicians) and reach net-zero. And then declare victory.

People want more than net-zero. People need more than net-zero. At the very least there has to be a better name, and a serious plan to make it actually happen.

You are going to hear a lot about minus-zero carbon soon. The reason is a good one. When the stakes are as high as the extinction of all life on earth, just getting to a tie score is not a good plan. So those who are in the trenches, working on solutions for global warming and reducing the carbon footprint, are search also for better ways to communicate what the goal is and what it means.

This, hopefully, can lead to a focus on a goal, or at least the articulation of a desire, that can inspire people to become highly active, even agitated, perhaps even alarmed, and begin the hard work and striving that it will take to get to a net-positive outcome for all of us.

And, who exactly decided that it would be a good idea to prolong the carbon carnival as long as possible in the first place? Carbon emitters and oil profiteers perhaps?

60 years of feet dragging, obfuscation and deliberate blocking of any solutions threatening the status quo have already come and gone.

Also, if energy is clean and abundant, why not use more? Energy is good, more energy use, if clean and sustainable, could be better. It can give us amazing things. Efficient use is good too, of course, but this is a mind-set issue. This is thought error or a thought liberation.

Minus-zero carbon x 100% (with 200% energy availability) is a much better goal and represents a thought liberating idea.

Perfection can’t be the enemy of good in the energy arena

Do we need architects and inventors, innovators and scientists, and massive amount of ammunition in the form of trillions of dollars in funding, from both public and private sources? Hell yes.

And must these magicians and Mavericks do amazing things that were believed impossible just a short while ago? Absolutely. Is this a ‘moon-shot’ to, not just save, but catapult humanity into a better future? You bet-ur-a%$ it is.

That means that the challenges of finding better tech, examples such as for soil regeneration, or more efficient battery storage, or for alternatives to rare earth metals, if they are too, um, rare need to be figured out and set into motion, fast. It means inventing and discovering tech that does not exist, that has not been tried or even sought after, why never sought? Because oil was cheap and available, so don’t stress it, Bub.

And, there are those out there, already today, that are thinking beyond net-zero in 2050. There are those that want more, that know that we need more. Those that understand that political inertia and corrupt vested interests are not the excuses we want written on our tombstones.

And why not look for half-full glasses or beliefs manifested into action? Why not aim for something that makes us want to get up, stand up, and make something possible that looks like hope and feels like success and winning?

Decentralized solutions are coming, in every part of life

The reality is that it is not only the world’s energy infrastructure that needs a total makeover. Financial inequality, political and economic systems are fragile and failing, regardless where.

There is a whiff of collapse that could turn into a whirlwind and then could derail any progress made, as we plunge into dark ages, even before factoring in the catastrophic climate challenges.

We need new, innovative ways to learn, to communicate, interact and collaborate. And these are emerging – if you don’t believe in crypto, web3 or any other new directions that many are seeing as alternatives to broken systems of the past, you at least have to acknowledge that actively looking for a better way, one that does represent a solution, is what is needed even as the current systems are failing us.

So if you don’t agree with the ideas for change and proposed ways to improve methods for human interaction and coexistence, come up with new ideas and put them forth, ok?, maybe we have to try and strive and stumble until a truly better way presents itself.

Give yourself and all you have into actions that will finally change the direction from one that spells doom, in this case continuing to burn carbon in insanely massive amounts while we fight, disagree and kill one another (war, etc.), to something new, something that at least could have a chance to win the peace.

Losing is unacceptable for-real this time. Winning isn’t everything, no sir, it’s the only thing. And starting on 04-22-2022 this net-zero BS needs to be sent to Mars, or perhaps Uranus.

Meanwhile here on earth we gotta get busy building the only thing that will prevent oblivion: a tiny taste of utopia that will grow from a seed into a raging forest of real, not fossilized, success.

Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Earth Day, Sustainable Energy

A ‘100% renewables’ target might not mean what you think it means. An energy expert explains

April 23, 2022 Creative Commons

In the global effort to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, achieving a “100% renewables” electricity system is considered ideal.

Some Australian states have committed to 100% renewable energy targets, or even 200% renewable energy targets. But this doesn’t mean their electricity is, or will be, emissions free.

Electricity is responsible for a third of Australia’s emissions, and making it cleaner is a key way to reduce emissions in other sectors that rely on it, such as transport.

So it’s important we have clarity about where our electricity comes from, and how emissions-intensive it is. Let’s look at what 100% renewables actually implies in detail.

Is 100% renewables realistic?

Achieving 100% renewables is one way of eliminating emissions from the electricity sector.

It’s commonly interpreted to mean all electricity must be generated from renewable sources. These sources usually include solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, and exclude nuclear energy and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage.

But this is a very difficult feat for individual states and territories to try to achieve.

The term “net 100% renewables” more accurately describes what some jurisdictions — such as South Australia and the ACT — are targeting, whether or not they’ve explicitly said so.

These targets don’t require that all electricity people use within the jurisdiction come from renewable sources. Some might come from coal or gas-fired generation, but the government offsets this amount by making or buying an equivalent amount of renewable electricity.

A net 100% renewables target allows a state to spruik its green credentials without needing to worry about the reliability implications of being totally self-reliant on renewable power.

So how does ‘net’ 100% renewables work?

All east coast states are connected to the National Electricity Market (NEM) — a system that allows electricity to be generated, used and shared across borders. This means individual states can achieve “net 100% renewables” without the renewable generation needing to occur when or where the electricity is required.

Take the ACT, for example, which has used net 100% renewable electricity since October 2019.

The ACT government buys renewable energy from generators outside the territory, which is then mostly used in other states, such as Victoria and South Australia. Meanwhile, people living in ACT rely on power from NSW that’s not emissions-free, because it largely comes from coal-fired power stations.

This way, the ACT government can claim net 100% renewables because it’s offsetting the non-renewable energy its residents use with the clean energy it’s paid for elsewhere.

SA’s target is to reach net 100% renewables by the 2030s. Unlike the ACT, it plans to generate renewable electricity locally, equal to 100% of its annual demand.

At times, such as especially sunny days, some of that electricity will be exported to other states. At other times, such as when the wind drops off, SA may need to rely on electricity imports from other states, which probably won’t come from all-renewable sources.

So what happens if all states commit to net 100% renewable energy targets? Then, the National Electricity Market will have a de-facto 100% renewable energy target — no “net”.

That’s because the market is one entire system, so its only options are “100% renewables” (implying zero emissions), or “less than 100% renewables”. The “net” factor doesn’t come into it, because there’s no other part of the grid for it to buy from or sell to.

How do you get to “200% renewables”, or more?

It’s mathematically impossible for more than 100% of the electricity used in the NEM to come from renewable sources: 100% is the limit.

Any target of more than 100% renewables is a different calculation. The target is no longer a measure of renewable generation versus all generation, but renewable generation versus today’s demand.

Australia could generate several times more renewable energy than there is demand today, but still use a small and declining amount of fossil fuels during rare weather events. Shutterstock

Tasmania, for example, has legislated a target of 200% renewable energy by 2040. This means it wants to produce twice as much renewable electricity as it consumes today.

But this doesn’t necessarily imply all electricity consumed in Tasmania will be renewable. For example, it may continue to import some non-renewable power from Victoria at times, such as during droughts when Tasmania’s hydro dams are constrained. It may even need to burn a small amount of gas as a backup.

This means the 200% renewable energy target is really a “net 200% renewables” target.

Meanwhile, the Greens are campaigning for 700% renewables. This, too, is based on today’s electricity demand.

In the future, demand could be much higher due to electrifying our transport, switching appliances from gas to electricity, and potentially exporting energy-intensive, renewable commodities such as green hydrogen or ammonia.

Targeting net-zero emissions

These “more than 100% renewables” targets set by individual jurisdictions don’t necessarily imply all electricity Australians use will be emissions free.

It’s possible — and potentially more economical — that we would meet almost all of this additional future demand with renewable energy, but keep some gas or diesel capacity as a low-cost backstop.

This would ensure continued electricity supply during rare, sustained periods of low wind, low sun, and high demand, such as during a cloudy, windless week in winter.

The energy transition is harder near the end — each percentage point between 90% and 100% renewables is more expensive to achieve than the previous.

That’s why, in a recent report from the Grattan Institute, we recommended governments pursue net-zero emissions in the electricity sector first, rather than setting 100% renewables targets today.

For example, buying carbon credits to offset the small amount of emissions produced in a 90% renewable NEM is likely to be cheaper in the medium term than building enough energy storage — such as batteries or pumped hydro dams — to backup wind and solar at all times.

The bottom line is governments and companies must say what they mean and mean what they say when announcing targets. It’s the responsibility of media and pundits to take care when interpreting them.

This article is by James Ha, Associate, Grattan Institute and republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Business, Entertainment, Travel

Hollywood Blvd. Walk of Fame Redesign looks Great but Faces Challenges

February 17, 2020 Kat Lee

According to Locals, a Makeover is a Must

The epicenter of the entertainment industry, Hollywood Boulevard has been one of Los Angeles’ biggest tourist attractions for over a hundred years. It’s glamorous Walk of Fame, particularly near the intersection with Vine Street, is iconic and has been the focus of many sensational events and occasions throughout the years.

As dazzling as Hollywood may be to tourists, though, Angelinos have had many complaints about the famed street’s architecture and organization over the years, so much so that the location has undergone several aesthetic transformations during the past few decades.

Now, Los Angeles City Council and specifically Hollywood District representative Mitch O’Farrell has been pushing for a complete overhaul of the area. This renovation would incorporate several changes to the street’s layout, but it would principally offer increased sidewalk space for an improved pedestrian experience.

Hollywood’s Walk of Fame is notoriously crowded. One can hardly appreciate the Stars for all the people walking over them. By widening the sidewalk, people will be able to admire the monuments with comfort, but also walk down the street without having to dodge so many bodies.

Of course, the drawback to a larger sidewalk is decreased road space. Traffic is bad enough in Los Angeles as it is, and some fear that with a wider sidewalk, a narrower street would terribly back up the cars along Hollywood Boulevard. Perhaps this is yet another initiative on LA’s behalf to latently promote public transportation or deincentivize independent driving.

That being said, California (and Los Angeles in particular) enters into 2020 with some bold environmental plans. The Golden State has daring ambitions to go carbon neutral well ahead of the rest of the nation and to drastically decrease its emissions in the coming years. The state has targeted an increased use of electric cars as a paramount means of attaining these goals, but obviously, more action is needed if they truly desire to reach their hefty objectives.

Environmental Considerations Should be at the Center of the Planning

Thus, the renovation of Hollywood Boulevard should be seen as an opportunity to make the neighborhood a more eco-friendly urban environment. Unfortunately, not much has been said about this so far. The prospective designs for the updated area—spearheaded by Gensler and Studio-MLA architecture firms—do involve more open air space and trees, though.

This is a good start, but the redesign could also seek ways to incorporate solar panels, increased vegetation, and carbon absorbing surfaces into the landscape. A sleek style certainly does wonders for the street’s aesthetic, but that does not mean that the renovation cannot be functional and progressive at the same time.

Furthermore, there is also a political question as to weather or not refurbishing Hollywood Boulevard at all is the best use of Los Angeles’ taxpayer dollars. Other neighborhoods in the community—South Central, Downtown, or Skid Row for examples—have far worse infrastructure and definitely require more immediate attention.

Likewise, LA’s public transportation system has been highly criticized for decades. If the local government is seeking an urban planning initiative, perhaps it could try refining the city’s metro system for greater accessibility and use.

The obvious argument against all of this is that brushing up the Walk of Fame will increase activity in one of the city’s central commercial hubs. This will help the local economy, eventually earning the city greater funds that it can redistribute to some of LA’s more desperate regions or issues.

It is a strange rewriting of the trickle-down-economics plan that was seldom more than political speech fodder. Nevertheless, Los Angeles already has $4 million in seed money for the project, while some believe that such funds are better placed directly towards more pressing and important causes.

Although the Walk of Fame redevelopment plan has been talked about for months, it is still only in its infancy. It has a long way to go, but hopefully, those in charge of it will not overlook environmental and social justice opportunities when they consider the project’s architectural, political, and ethical implications.

Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Business, Stock Market

Shifting to a Sustainable Energy Infrastructure: Saudi Aramco’s IPO shares are a bad Investment for the Planet

December 9, 2019 Danny Leeds

Literally Trillions are Staked on a Carbon Nightmare Future

Saudi Aramco is Saudi Arabia’s largest national oil company and one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest, corporations in the world. On Sunday, November 30th, 2019, Saudi Arabia’s Capital Market Authority stated that Aramco is going to be turned into a publically traded corporation and start making initial public offers of 1 to 3 percent of its shares sometime in December.

Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman initially boasted the Aramco’s worth at $2 trillion. Further research, however, deems the valuation somewhere between $1.3 and 1.7 trillion. Nevertheless, these enormous figures—mixed with the projected IPO of $8.53 per share—still make Aramco more fiscally valuable than Apple or Microsoft.

Putting Aramco in the public sector is a huge move for Saudi Ariabia’s economy and is inextricably linked to the Crown Prince’s “Vision 2030” socioeconomic reform plan for the kingdom. It will make oil a larger money-maker than it already is for the nation by attracting additional foreign investors and combatting the shift towards alternative energy sources.

At the same time, though, this move is not the most environmentally progressive, and although it creates a short-term economic boost for the country, it may not be sustainable in the long run.

Right now the world is trying desperately to reform its energy practices and emissions standards. The 2015 Paris Climate Accord outlined bold plans to address the global climate crisis and currently, the UN Climate Conference in Madrid is working on updating and evaluating those goals. A big part of these initiatives puts focus on transferring global energy away from fossil fuel burning and towards cleaner and more renewable sources and methods.

While Saudi Arabia has made some investments in alternative energy sources, it remains overwhelmingly focused on oil—its most profitable commodity. The nation’s slight investments in solar power are dwarfed compared to its ongoing oil extraction. Then, even when the country does employ solar energy, it often uses it to fund or power oil wells and refineries.

When asked about Aramco’s response to the Paris Climate Accord, the company’s Chief Executive Amin Nasser practically laughed it off, boasting that with all other parts of the world being held to stringent energy conditions, Aramco would easily become the global leader in gas.

Not a Question of When but rather How Fast can the World Switch off the Oil Pumps?

The corporation should not be so quick to celebrate, though. While the planet still has a long way to go when it comes to environmental protection and security, more investors are turning away from oil and starting to consider alternatives. With the scarcity and conflict surrounding the resource, oil is becoming less reliable. The recent surge in electric vehicle adoption is just one example of alternative energy sources affecting the oil economy.

Nasser responded to this observation by calling it a “crisis of perception” facing oil firms. Cynically, he explains that ideas of oil going away anytime soon is a highly exaggerated theory, and that fossil fuels remain the most secure form of energy.

Perhaps this is the case for now. But if big oil continues to pump the Earth without regard for ecological fragility, then there will eventually be nothing “secure” about the practice at all, and economic influence will mean quite little in the face of Armageddon. All humans will be affected, not just the “green” ones.

Even in less dramatic terms, studies suggest that “Peak Oil” will arrive at some point in the next twenty-five years. When this happens, it will severely hurt Aramco’s prices, as demand will go down and investors will have a greater economic incentive to move on from oil. The company will not seem so high and mighty when that happens. Geopolitical dangers will almost certainly rise.

All of this is not even to mention the socio-political risks that come with investing in Aramco. Environmental issues aside, Aramco still faces international competition with the U.S. and Russia, stagnant output for the past five years, warlike attacks from Iran, and a lack of corporate autonomy against the Saudi Arabian government.

From an immediate money-driven perspective, investing in Aramco might seem like an easy buck and a booming economic development for Saudi Arabia. However, money (like oil wells) can dry up quicker than one thinks, and when that happens, investors might be left with nothing in their pockets but a long list of political, sociological, and environmental problems.