#Decarbonize Africa

[nordic-baltic-african-impactweek]

ZESA Enterprises Absolicon Visit by Lars Ling Via Flickr: Zesa Enterprises Senior Management engages with Swedish visitors from Absolicon Solar Collector AB and CleanTech Region Impact Group. www.zetdc.co.zw/ This solar thermal heat technology is meant to assist the country's Industries in reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, lowering energy costs, and helping battle climate change. www.absolicon.com/ The latest on Instagram: bit.ly/instacleantechregion CleanTech Region Impact Group facilitates the conversation and are strategic advisor. linktr.ee/cleantechregion Photo and video credit: Lars Ling linktr.ee/larsling All rights reserved (c) copyright

[jcmarchi]

Offering clean energy around the clock

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/offering-clean-energy-around-the-clock/

Offering clean energy around the clock

As remarkable as the rise of solar and wind farms has been over the last 20 years, achieving complete decarbonization is going to require a host of complementary technologies. That’s because renewables offer only intermittent power. They also can’t directly provide the high temperatures necessary for many industrial processes.

Now, 247Solar is building high-temperature concentrated solar power systems that use overnight thermal energy storage to provide round-the-clock power and industrial-grade heat.

The company’s modular systems can be used as standalone microgrids for communities or to provide power in remote places like mines and farms. They can also be used in conjunction with wind and conventional solar farms, giving customers 24/7 power from renewables and allowing them to offset use of the grid.

“One of my motivations for working on this system was trying to solve the problem of intermittency,” 247Solar CEO Bruce Anderson ’69, SM ’73 says. “I just couldn’t see how we could get to zero emissions with solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind. Even with PV, wind, and batteries, we can’t get there, because there’s always bad weather, and current batteries aren’t economical over long periods. You have to have a solution that operates 24 hours a day.”

The company’s system is inspired by the design of a high-temperature heat exchanger by the late MIT Professor Emeritus David Gordon Wilson, who co-founded the company with Anderson. The company integrates that heat exchanger into what Anderson describes as a conventional, jet-engine-like turbine, enabling the turbine to produce power by circulating ambient pressure hot air with no combustion or emissions — what the company calls a first in the industry.

Here’s how the system works: Each 247Solar system uses a field of sun-tracking mirrors called heliostats to reflect sunlight to the top of a central tower. The tower features a proprietary solar receiver that heats air to around 1,000 Celsius at atmospheric pressure. The air is then used to drive 247Solar’s turbines and generate 400 kilowatts of electricity and 600 kilowatts of heat. Some of the hot air is also routed through a long-duration thermal energy storage system, where it heats solid materials that retain the heat. The stored heat is then used to drive the turbines when the sun stops shining.

“We offer round-the-clock electricity, but we also offer a combined heat and power option, with the ability to take heat up to 970 Celsius for use in industrial processes,” Anderson says. “It’s a very flexible system.”

The company’s first deployment will be with a large utility in India. If that goes well, 247Solar hopes to scale up rapidly with other utilities, corporations, and communities around the globe.

A new approach to concentrated solar

Anderson kept in touch with his MIT network after graduating in 1973. He served as the director of MIT’s Industrial Liaison Program (ILP) between 1996 and 2000 and was elected as an alumni member of the MIT Corporation in 2013. The ILP connects companies with MIT’s network of students, faculty, and alumni to facilitate innovation, and the experience changed the course of Anderson’s career.

“That was an extremely fascinating job, and from it two things happened,” Anderson says. “One is that I realized I was really an entrepreneur and was not well-suited to the university environment, and the other is that I was reminded of the countless amazing innovations coming out of MIT.”

After leaving as director, Anderson began a startup incubator where he worked with MIT professors to start companies. Eventually, one of those professors was Wilson, who had invented the new heat exchanger and a ceramic turbine. Anderson and Wilson ended up putting together a small team to commercialize the technology in the early 2000s.

Anderson had done his MIT master’s thesis on solar energy in the 1970s, and the team realized the heat exchanger made possible a novel approach to concentrated solar power. In 2010, they received a $6 million development grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. But their first solar receiver was damaged during shipping to a national laboratory for testing, and the company ran out of money.

It wasn’t until 2015 that Anderson was able to raise money to get the company back off the ground. By that time, a new high-temperature metal alloy had been developed that Anderson swapped out for Wilson’s ceramic heat exchanger.

The Covid-19 pandemic further slowed 247’s plans to build a demonstration facility at its test site in Arizona, but strong customer interest has kept the company busy. Concentrated solar power doesn’t work everywhere — Arizona’s clear sunshine is a better fit than Florida’s hazy skies, for example — but Anderson is currently in talks with communities in parts of the U.S., India, Africa, and Australia where the technology would be a good fit.

These days, the company is increasingly proposing combining its systems with traditional solar PV, which lets customers reap the benefits of low-cost solar electricity during the day while using 247’s energy at night.

“That way we can get at least 24, if not more, hours of energy from a sunny day,” Anderson says. “We’re really moving toward these hybrid systems, which work like a Prius: Sometimes you’re using one source of energy, sometimes you’re using the other.”

The company also sells its HeatStorE thermal batteries as standalone systems. Instead of being heated by the solar system, the thermal storage is heated by circulating air through an electric coil that’s been heated by electricity, either from the grid, standalone PV, or wind. The heat can be stored for nine hours or more on a single charge and then dispatched as electricity plus industrial process heat at 250 Celsius, or as heat only, up to 970 Celsius.

Anderson says 247’s thermal battery is about one-seventh the cost of lithium-ion batteries per kilowatt hour produced.

Scaling a new model

The company is keeping its system flexible for whatever path customers want to take to complete decarbonization.

In addition to 247’s India project, the company is in advanced talks with off-grid communities in the Unites States and Egypt, mining operators around the world, and the government of a small country in Africa. Anderson says the company’s next customer will likely be an off-grid community in the U.S. that currently relies on diesel generators for power.

The company has also partnered with a financial company that will allow it to access capital to fund its own projects and sell clean energy directly to customers, which Anderson says will help 247 grow faster than relying solely on selling entire systems to each customer.

As it works to scale up its deployments, Anderson believes 247 offers a solution to help customers respond to increasing pressure from governments as well as community members.

“Emerging economies in places like Africa don’t have any alternative to fossil fuels if they want 24/7 electricity,” Anderson says. “Our owning and operating costs are less than half that of diesel gen-sets. Customers today really want to stop producing emissions if they can, so you’ve got villages, mines, industries, and entire countries where the people inside are saying, ‘We can’t burn diesel anymore.’”

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Nikkei is Private Japanese Media]

China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) came at the "right time" for boosting Africa's development, a top African Union (AU) official told Nikkei Asia, as he played down concerns that it was a debt trap for poor countries. Last week, Beijing said it would ramp up the decade-old infrastructure drive to build ports, roads and railways by pushing into the digital realm, as the multibillion-dollar program becomes China's key foreign policy tool for influence in developing nations. Chinese President Xi Jinping's renewed focus on industrialization, agriculture and talent development was also just what the continent needs, said Albert Muchanga, head of trade and industry for the African Union Commission, the AU's Ethiopia-based secretariat.

"China will continue BRI, at the same time there is a complementary effort to support us in those three areas. ... Both came at the right time," Muchanga said in an interview on the sidelines of last week's Turkey-Africa Business and Economic Forum in Istanbul. "Africa was making massive investments in developing infrastructure, connectivity, telecommunication systems as well as energy facilities [when BRI launched] and that helped quite a lot." "We need to start the process of adding value on the continent to push industrialization," added the former Zambian diplomat.[...]

Asked if Western powers were being drawn to Africa in competition with China, Muchanga replied, "Well, they are reacting to it, which is good." He also questioned growing criticism that the BRI's massive infrastructure loans and an opaque structure have saddled some recipient countries with unsustainable debt. Some $76.8 billion worth of Chinese overseas loans were renegotiated or written off between 2020 and 2022, according to U.S. research firm Rhodium Group, compared to $17 billion in the preceding three years. "When you discuss with the scholars from China and other people, I think there's an acknowledgment that if we demonstrate greater transparency, I think some of the allegations that are made may not be well founded," Muchanga said, without elaborating.

AU member nation ministers will gather in November to adopt a critical minerals strategy, the official said, adding that the commission is working on a document for approving its new leaders at a summit scheduled for February. "We are responding to the issue of green transition by coming up with a critical minerals strategy," he said, "but the message is to come and produce at source to contribute to decarbonization."

16 Oct 23

[kp777]

By Olivia Rosane

Common Dreams

May 15, 2023

More than 1,000 scientists and academics in over 21 countries engaged in nonviolent protest last week under the banner of Scientist Rebellion to demand a just and equitable end to the fossil fuel era.

At least 19 of the participating scientists were arrested in actions linked to the group's "The Science Is Clear" campaign from May 7-13, organizers said at a Monday press conference. The group believes that researchers must move from informing to advocating in the wake of decades of fossil fuel industry disinformation about the climate crisis and the downplaying or ignoring of their warnings by governments and media organizations.

"It's urgent that scientists come out of their laboratories to counter the lies," Laurent Husson, a French geoscientist from ISTerre, said.

"Experts on tropical rainforests told me privately that they think the Amazon has already passed its tipping point. Let that sink in. The world needs to know."

Participating scientists in Africa, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America organized more than 30 discrete events during May's spate of actions. Scientific Rebellion is concerned that climate policy is not in line with official warnings like the final Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report of the decade, released earlier this year, which called for "rapid and deep and, in most cases, immediate" reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in its "Summary for Policymakers."

However, some scientist-activists say that what researchers discuss internally is even more alarming.

"I was just at a NASA team meeting for three days in D.C.," Peter Kalmus tweeted Wednesday. "The scientific findings are so fucked up. Experts on tropical rainforests told me privately that they think the Amazon has already passed its tipping point. Let that sink in. The world needs to know."

The Science Is Clear campaign had three clear demands: that governments rapidly decarbonize their infrastructure in coordination with citizens assemblies that would also address growing inequality, that the Global North both provide money to the Global South to help them pay for the inevitable loss and damage caused by the climate crisis and forgive their outstanding debt, and that ecosystems and the Indigenous people and local communities that depend on them be protected from extractive industries.

Local actions also had independent demands in line with these goals. For example, Rose Abramoff—a U.S.-based scientist and IPCC reviewer—helped disrupt a joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature Wednesday with the demands that Massachusetts ban all new fossil fuel infrastructure and fund a just transition to renewable energy. The activists, who also included members of Extinction Rebellion, occupied the House Gallery for six hours before they were arrested.

Abramoff said at the press conference that she joined Scientific Rebellion when the data turned up by her field work grew too alarming.

"This can't be my job to just calmly document destruction without doing anything to prevent it," she said.

She has now been arrested six times including Wednesday. And while she was fired from one job, she remains employed, housed, and healthy with a clean record.

"I think more scientists and other people with privilege should be taking these measures," she said.

Janine O'Keefe, an engineer and economist, said she was treated with much more respect by police when she protested in a lab coat compared with when she didn't, and was often not arrested at all.

"I implore you to find the courage to go against the silence," she said.

IPCC author Julia Steinberger also said she felt activism was part of a scientist's duty.

"It is us doing our jobs and holding our government to account on the commitments they have made to protect us."

"It is us doing our jobs and holding our government to account on the commitments they have made to protect us," Steinberger said.

Several other scientists risked arrest alongside allied activists in direct actions throughout the week. Three scientists were arrested for protesting Equinor in Norway. In Italy, police stopped activists before they could begin a protest at Turin Airport and arrested all of the would-be participants. In Denmark, five scientists were arrested at protests alongside more than 100 other activists, and in Portugal, scientists and allies managed to block the Porto de Sines—the main entry point for fossil fuels into the country—without any arrests being made.

In France, meanwhile, police arrested 18 activists including five scientists for blocking a bridge in the Port of Le Havre Friday, near where TotalEnergies is building a floating methane terminal for imported liquefied natural gas.

Tanakula, who helped organize marches and spoke to staff and students at her university, pointed out that Africa had only contributed less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions but was on the "frontline" of their impacts, such as extreme flooding May 5 that killed more than 400 people.

"We can't just be observers or do research. We need to engage people, and we need to act in the name of science," Tanakula said.

Scientific Rebellion doesn't just focus on the climate crisis. The Science Is Clear webpage notes that human activity has overshot six of nine planetary boundaries that sustain life on Earth, and that—beyond just the fossil fuel industry—the entire current economic system is to blame.

"The underlying cause of this existential crisis is our growth-based economic system," Matthias Schmelzer, a postdoctoral researcher at the Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, Germany, said in the press conference.

"The underlying cause of this existential crisis is our growth-based economic system."

More than 1,100 scientists and academics have signed a letter urging both public and private institutions to pursue degrowth—a planned and democratic realignment of the goal of the global economy from increasing gross domestic product to ensuring well-being within planetary boundaries.

Members of Scientific Rebellion expressed optimism that direct action could help push through the changes it seeks. Abramoff pointed to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, which banned private jets months after activists blocked them from taking off. She also argued that two major pieces of U.S. climate legislation—the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law—would not have passed without grassroots pressure.

"I feel that we have so much power," Abramoff said, "and we just have to be brave enough to use it."

Read more.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

Last year’s United Nations climate conference in the United Arab Emirates ended on a surprising high note as the world’s countries endorsed a landmark agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. After weeks of tense negotiation, the conference produced a slew of unprecedented commitments to ramp up the deployment of renewables, adapt to climate disasters, and move away from the use of coal, oil, and gas.

The question at this year’s COP29 conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, is just how much that massive effort will cost. After years of global debate over the scale of funding that developed countries owe less fortunate nations for decarbonization and disaster aid, negotiators have until the end of the conference in December to agree on a hard-fought financial target for climate assistance over the next few decades. This new target, referred to as the New Collective Quantified Goal by climate negotiators, is critical to upholding the 2015 Paris Agreement and addressing the harm of fossil fuel emissions from industrialized countries like the United States. Without funding, some of the poorest nations in Asia and Africa, which have contributed negligibly to the climate crisis, stand little chance of transitioning their economies away from fossil fuels and adapting to a warmer world. 

The last time the world set such a goal, it didn’t work out well. Back in 2009, wealthy countries agreed to send poorer countries $100 billion in climate finance every year by 2020. Though the figure was less than half of the annual global need, according to World Bank estimates, rich countries didn’t even come close to meeting their target until last year. Even then, some aid organizations like Oxfam contend that these countries have overstated or double-counted their aid by tens of billions of dollars. In the meantime, international estimates of total aid needs have ballooned into the trillions. As a result, the talks around climate finance are still marked by frustration and mistrust, and diplomats debating the goal over the past two years have made little progress toward consensus.

[tritonmarketresearch]

High Energy Demand to Boost the Global BIPV Market

Triton Market Research presents the Global Building Integrated Photovoltaics Market report segmented by Application (Glazing, Roofing, Architectural Shading, Facades), Technology (Thin Film, Crystalline Silicon [Polycrystalline, Monocrystalline], Other Technologies), Industry Vertical (Commercial, Industrial, Residential), and Regional Outlook (, North America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa, Europe, Latin America).

The report further includes the Market Summary, Industry Outlook, Parent Market Analysis, Impact Analysis, Key Insights, Porter’s Five Forces Analysis, Market Maturity Analysis, Industry Components, Regulatory Framework, Key Buying Analysis, Key Market Strategies, Drivers, Challenge, Opportunities, Analyst Perspective, Competitive Landscape, Research Methodology & Scope, Global Market Size, Forecasts & Analysis (2023-2030).

According to Triton’s research report, the global building integrated photovoltaics market is estimated to progress at a CAGR of 17.31% during the forecast period 2023-2030.

Request Free Sample Report:

https://www.tritonmarketresearch.com/reports/building-integrated-photovoltaics-market#request-free-sample

 Building integrated photovoltaic products are used to replace conventional building materials in the components of a building envelope like roof tiles, curtain walls, windows, etc.

As per the International Energy Outlook, the global power demand is expected to soar by around 80% by 2040, requiring trillions of dollars in investment to meet the high demand. Moreover, the world’s net electricity generation will increase significantly in the same year. Access to electricity is vital for operations across industries, especially in developing countries. Hence, the growing energy demand is estimated to create high demand for PVs in buildings for efficient power supply, thereby propelling the BIPV market on a growth path.

However, BIPV technology is at a nascent stage, being highly adopted in developed nations but witnessing a slow glow in emerging economies like India. The lack of awareness about solar power is estimated to hamper the studied market’s growth over the forecast period.

Over the forecast period, the Asia-Pacific is estimated to become the fastest-growing region. China, Japan, and South Korea have recently adopted net-zero emission targets to be attained by 2050. As per industry sources, energy efficiency and decarbonization under sustainable development could help reduce significant emissions from buildings. Moreover, the region is witnessing high population growth, which has elevated the energy demand. Therefore, the growing need to reduce emissions and high energy demand is expected to broaden building integrated photovoltaics market prospects over the forecast period.

The prominent companies thriving in the building integrated photovoltaics market are Tesla Inc, ClearVue Technologies Limited, AGC Inc, SunPower Corporation, Kaneka Corporation, MetSolar, Heliatek, Saule Technologies, Waaree Energies Ltd, and Ertex Solartechnik GmbH.  

Given the technological complexity and high capital requirements, the entry of new entrants is difficult. The materials processing step is technologically exhaustive and thus creates a high barrier for new players. Despite this, several players are entering the market owing to increasing demand and government incentives. However, the growing competition among existing players is expected to lower the threat of new entrants over the forecast period.

 Contact Us:

sales@tritonmarketresearch.com

Phone: +44 7441 911839

[pamphletstoinspire]

From 8,000,000,000 to Zero

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is officially a thing, I learn from the usual reliable media sources. Its founder, Les Knight, advocates intelligent non-breeding.

While most World Economic Forum and environmental crusaders only want the world’s population to be reduced by seven billion or so, Mr. Knight would like to eliminate the whole amount.

Like many other progressive people, he likes to flatter the young for their intelligence and wisdom. By coincidence, they are also our largest potential breeding group. Mr. Knight’s TV presentation (on Fox this week) goes like this:

“My plan is for everyone to think before they procreate, and if people really think about it, think it all the way through, and have the wherewithal not to procreate, which is a really big problem all over the planet. . .44 percent of young people are saying ‘no I don’t think I wanna do that.’”

“Just because they’ve thought about it.”

Now, I doubt that 44 percent of the young have come to this decision, formally, but they seem to be not breeding, and thus giving encouragement to the extinguishers.

Elsewhere in demographic trends: the world’s population is reported to have hit eight billion. If this is true, the counters predict nine, and perhaps ten, then an accelerating drop. For the world seems to favor extinction, and in the absence of sufficient babies, the live population is aging very fast. This is happening even in remote villages.

Grand United Nations plans for sustainable development, family planning, and decarbonization, are the largest international bureaucracies devoted to the goal of population elimination. But what if people resumed having babies? Would that not change everything?

While men can have babies, according to progressive belief, I wonder if they will when their average age passes seventy. Whether women, once they have attained this average age, will also be getting pregnant, I have no opinion. I have learned not to comment on the female body.

For the next generation or so, the population will rise from cumulative habit, but then it will begin crashing – almost everywhere.

Through the decades that I have been following the numbers (as a journalist, not a scientist), I have noticed that the more authoritative ones go consistently over the top, exaggerating the speed of population growth. They are also inclined to overestimate the current population, thanks, I think, to political and ethnic pressures to drive the numbers, usually up.

Indonesia and Red China are, I would guess, two of the most guilty of this. The Chinese have quietly conceded that 100 million of their citizens don’t exist. The Indonesians have tried to reduce the proportion of Christians, Buddhists, and others, in the gentlest possible way, by creating millions of imaginary Muslims. Indeed, I am skeptical of the size of the Muslim population overall, and this makes me less alarmed about Islamization.

On the other hand, the population of Africa may be going up quicker, as the number-crunchers are beginning to admit. It is not that the Africans are more fecund, exactly, but that they instinctively form families. They have a greater resistance to modernity, and while the international population may soon stagnate, it will then grow in Africa as it shrinks everywhere.

The future of the human race may thus be “out of Africa,” just as it was (supposedly) in distant antiquity.

So this is, arguably, the best news for the survival of homo sapiens sapiens. Only we, the non-Africans, are likely to disappear, leaving the whole planet free for any African excess.

Elsewhere, the reasons for decline are not, over-simply, the declining need for children to support us in old age. This cliche has satisfied the curiosity of social scientists for too long. The reality is a complex of associations with increasing wealth, and technological improvements.

Common attitudes have become less and less religious, and people cease to be impressed by old-fashioned moral certainties. They have decided to afford not only material goods, but spiritual luxuries. Today, they can believe what they want, instead of having to limit themselves to the plausible.

With increasing per capita wealth (universally) comes increasing arrogance, pride, and smugness; spoilt children, narcissism, and so on: all the spiritual markers of modernity. This cannot be precisely measured, however – statistics are useless for intangibles, and so they aren’t even gathered.

The result can however be verified. Fewer children are proportionally hatched, and then fewer in each subsequent generation.

Not just the tiny flat Maldive Islands may disappear beneath the waves as a consequence of global warming. Vast Japan will become so many uninhabited mountains; though sufficiently tall to keep sticking out of the water.

Population decline is already advancing in other rich, over-developed nations. And where the population is still growing, in places like Canada, Germany, or the United States, it is because governments encourage immigrants to settle in numbers sufficient to pay the pensions of our retired. This is, in effect, the latest form of slavery.

Yet it makes perfect sense, in the longer term, because as the immigrant streams dry up, the pensioners will also have dessicated. Not since the dinosaurs have we had such a die-off.

Were it not for Ukraine, I might think we had already reached the point where we couldn’t have wars anymore. There are recruitment issues in all the world’s great armies. But Mr. Knight can be pleased that euthanasia, suicide, and drug deaths are flourishing, especially among young males, now that they are no longer needed as soldiers.

Extinction follows from minute, but aggregate, changes in perception. Previously, for the majority, the desire to live was even larger than the desire to conserve coal or diamonds. Surprisingly, we didn’t need reasons to persist. Typically, we tried to live as long as possible. God, too, was generally perceived to be alive, and “an influencer” in human life.

Who’d have guessed that progressive modernity would be our extinction event?

By: David Warren

[mariacallous]

Last year, climate action was all about declaring dates for achieving net-zero carbon emissions. At the 2021 UN’s climate change conference in Glasgow, COP26, India pledged that it would reach net-zero by 2070, a date just 10 years behind China, despite its per capita emissions being some 30 years behind China’s and only half the present world average. COP27 is just days away, but this year many countries are distracted with energy security issues, instead of upping their game for more aggressive emissions cuts.

This COP, we must shift the conversation from futuristic net-zero ambitions toward practical and equitable emissions trajectories. The rich and overall high emitters have to reduce emissions aggressively, while the low-emissions poor must lower their growth rate of emissions on a credible path toward zero.

Development from a very low base inevitably means the poor must increase their emissions in the short term. The good news is this should still fit within global emissions targets if high emitters reduce emissions quickly up front. Unfortunately, the push toward zero has been interpreted as a prohibition on public support for new unabated fossil fuel energy. This is both unfair and unviable.

Developing nations need energy, which may require a little fossil fuel

Developing countries are being asked to “leapfrog” to renewable energy (RE). However, if we don’t allow any new fossil fuel investments, then RE is difficult to scale because it’s intermittent. How do you meet the evening peak electricity demand with solar power? Batteries are still very expensive. Today’s optimal electricity grid design may maximize RE by relying on minimal fossil fuels for occasional peak needs. Batteries should soon be able to meet much or even most of the peaks cost-effectively, but if one designs for zero fossil fuel, then it’s very expensive.

The good news is that simply having some fossil fuel capacity doesn’t mean it will get used much – the marginal cost of RE (and a battery) is virtually zero, once built. As my research group modeled for India in detail, an optimal design focuses on high RE first, without worrying about storage just yet. The cost savings from not over-ambitiously getting down to zero carbon can be spent on accelerating up-front decarbonization, which lowers cumulative emissions.

For the poorest of the poor, the real need is electricity access, regardless of fuel. Sub-Saharan Africa is where most people lacking modern energy services live. Giving 250 million homes electricity connectivity, with 35 kWh/month usage (enough for a TV, refrigerator, and fan), even entirely from coal, would only be 0.25% of global emissions. And most new builds don’t rely on coal – solar is already far cheaper, at least for the daytime.

A push towards RE-only has created pressure to not finance natural gas in poorer countries, despite them being told for decades that natural gas was a bridge fuel to a cleaner future, and one that would avoid the use of coal. This pressure hurts not just energy security but also food security. Recently, there was global pushback against a natural gas fertilizer plant planned in Bangladesh that would be three times more efficient than older designs. This isn’t climate justice.

Developing regions want to minimize their use of fossil fuels, such as India’s ambition to achieve 500 GW of non-fossil electricity capacity by 2030. This would quadruple India’s current RE capacity (excluding hydropower), and more than double its current total installed capacity. But rising RE doesn’t mean switching off coal prematurely before viable alternatives emerge, more so because India’s cumulative emissions from all sources would still be modest. In reality, India’s 2019 per capita coal consumption was only half the world average when we adjust India’s tons consumed. This is because of its lower energy content per ton, which means lower emissions.  In contrast, India used only about 22% of the world average of oil and gas per capita.

Globally, total oil and gas emissions were 25% more than from coal, even after factoring in coal-based emissions from cement. Thus, it is inconsistent to focus disproportionally on lower coal use instead of lower total emissions. It is also inconsistent to focus on emissions created by new builds in developing regions, instead of emissions from already built infrastructure that is overwhelmingly in high-emissions regions.

The poor need more energy, and much of it will be clean energy which is already viable. It’s the last fraction of energy that is hard to keep fossil-free. It can be done – at a cost. That cost should disproportionally be borne by the rich, first as they go full zero and pay the early adopter premium, and second, through financial support for developing nations. The premium is important, not just to cover the cost of developing batteries, but also for green hydrogen to avoid industrial emissions.

Such support should be part of promised aid or concessional finance and certainly not more traditional debt. At COP15 in 2009, there was a pledge to provide $100 billion of annual climate support for the poor by 2020, but the form such support would take was never specified. Sadly, the pledged funds haven’t yet fully materialized, and the date has since been pushed back to 2023.

Many developing countries are asking for funds due to climate-related “loss and damage.” How much materializes remains to be seen. Regardless of what form it takes, all climate finance support should be flexible, allowing recipients to not just mitigate their emissions, but also pay towards adaptation and resilience.

Present net-zero plans are not just unfair – they are insufficient

The focus on “net-zero” also brings with it many other problems, including of accounting and fairness. Today’s offsets are often accounting tricks, whereby an entity helps avoid emissions elsewhere, often in a developing country, and claims that as negative for them. Financiers discussing offsets have repeatedly told me “All carbon is equal.”  John Kerry recently told African leaders “Mother nature does not care where those emissions come from”.

These physical realities miss several issues. First, if all carbon is equal, then we cannot ignore historically accumulated carbon. Second, when considering offsets, paying to avoid future emissions elsewhere doesn’t negate emissions – it simply avoids growth. Not to mention a lot of “carbon finance” is just a label. It’s often not additional money and, even worse, is routinely debt funding for things like solar projects which would find funding anyways. Third, avoiding all carbon isn’t equal. Cheaper low-hanging fruit like offsets in poorer countries must not absolve the rich from aggressively ending their emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like home heating, industry, and transportation. The recent U.S. Inflation Reduction Act was a step in this direction by focusing on increasing the supply and use of clean energy.

Keeping the world within 1.5°C maximum average temperature rise needs aggressive steps and while most countries are doing more than in the past, their targets don’t add up to staying within 1.5°C. Even worse, their policies and actions don’t match the targets. Countries like the UK and the United States tout lowered emissions, but that’s from a very high base, and they also benefited from a one-time shift from coal to cheap gas, which isn’t available to many poorer countries. Another issue is many developed nations import a large fraction of their emissions as embedded carbon, which doesn’t show up in national emissions accounting. The UK imported 41% of domestic emissions as embedded carbon in 2019, growing from 11% in 1990.

The rich already have saturated development: the cars, refrigerators, roads, and homes they need to build are mostly replacement stock, although they will also need infrastructure to support the clean energy transition. However, poorer countries’ growth needs are far more than just replacement of fossil fuels with zero-carbon infrastructure. Given such high growth can’t be met easily by zero-carbon solutions, their emissions will need to rise in the short run. But the poor’s rise in emissions will be less than the likely failure in reduction by high emitters in the coming decade.

Rich countries must reduce their emissions faster

Achieving net zero emissions by 2050 requires a 3.3% reduction each year from 2020, assuming a constant annual decline. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s special report on staying within 1.5°C maximum average temperature rise stated we need a faster reduction up front: a 45% decline by 2030 from 2010 levels. Unfortunately, global fossil CO2 emissions grew by 10% from 2010 to 2019. Thus, in this decade, we need to accelerate the decline and also get to zero sooner to make up for the extra emissions in the previous decade. This means that to achieve the 1.5°C goal, the annual decline must be more than twice as fast as the IPCC report suggests. And the decline must be even greater from richer high-emitting countries.

Unfortunately, high emitters have collectively never reduced their emissions over a decadal timespan. The UK, the top performer out of the G7 countries, reduced its domestic CO2 emissions by 35% from 1990 to 2019. But this is only an 1.2% annual reduction, falling short by more than 2% annually compared to the 3.3% target. And this is ignoring imports of embedded carbon.

Not only do we need high emitters to aggressively reduce emissions, but buried in the details of the IPCC report and far less publicized is IPCC’s finding that virtually all pathways within a 1.5°C temperature rise or with limited overshoot also require significant Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). While planting trees is one technique, it doesn’t scale well, more so for developing regions where land pressures are higher. Plus, we have the risk of trees and their stored carbon going up in smoke with forest fires.

Many CDR plans involve literally sucking carbon dioxide out of the air for long-term storage, an expensive prospect through direct air capture. The volumes that must be removed are enormous. Taking a mid-range IPCC estimate, 500 Gt of CO2 removal means 10 Gt/year for the second half the century, or about a quarter of present annual emissions every year. This burden must also not fall on the low emitters of today, the poor, even if they represent a high­­­­­ share of global emissions post-2050. This is because the need for CDR is overwhelmingly due to over-emissions by today’s high emitters. Also, expectations of future CDR should not become a rationalization for not mitigating today.

What do developing regions need?

RE is already viable at large scale, but its deployment in many developing regions lags its potential. This is where developed countries can help through improved finance (especially cheaper capital). While many cross-border projects carry risks, some of the risks could either be shared by developed countries or mitigated by multilateral agencies who can provide counter-guarantees or other risk-reduction mechanisms.

At COP26, a coalition of financiers announced $130 trillion was available for the transition, but this money is the gross total funding pool, and not necessarily incremental money available to pay a premium for becoming carbon-free. The good news is that financial help as climate support is only required for the incremental cost of going green, akin to viability gap funding, and not all the costs.

In addition to finance, access to state-of-the-art technology is also important. While much of this may be owned by the private sector, government nudges and incentives can help.  As well as technology, countries need secure supply chains. Given many of the global minerals for clean energy are concentrated or controlled by a handful of countries, developing countries need help to ensure they aren’t last in line or forced to pay a premium. COVID-19 and Russia’s war in Ukraine showed how the poor became the last to get access to vaccines or global supply chains.

Growing RE is one part of the solution. But given existing fossil fuel plants in developing regions (especially new ones) aren’t going away any time soon, we need to make them cleaner, more efficient, and flexible. Unfortunately, a global finance model of “don’t touch any fossil fuel project” means a missed opportunity to reduce local air pollution and make the transition less expensive.

COP27 is an opportunity for countries to not just ratchet up their ambitions, but also give credence to their ambitions. We need aggressive targets for all countries – but the targets won’t be the same everywhere. Poorer countries already face the brunt of climate change, but they want to do their fair share of mitigation. They may even do some amount of unfair share. But this cannot mean climate absolutism.

[tushar38]

Carbon Management System Market: Key Players and Competitive Landscape

 Introduction to Carbon Management System Market

The Carbon Management System Market is rapidly expanding as organizations and governments worldwide seek to reduce carbon emissions and achieve sustainability targets. Carbon management systems provide tools for tracking, managing, and reducing carbon footprints, utilizing advanced software and analytics to monitor energy consumption and emissions. With growing regulatory pressures, corporate sustainability initiatives, and increasing awareness of climate change, the market for carbon management systems is expected to experience substantial growth. This industry is crucial for achieving global decarbonization and sustainable development goals.

The Carbon Management System Market is Valued USD 12.4 billion in 2024 and projected to reach USD 26 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 9.20% During the Forecast period of 2024-2032.Organizations are increasingly adopting carbon management solutions to meet regulatory requirements and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon management systems offer a wide range of services, from emission tracking and reporting to carbon offsetting and energy optimization. The market encompasses various sectors such as energy, manufacturing, transportation, and construction, with both developed and developing regions contributing to its growth.

Access Full Report :https://www.marketdigits.com/checkout/21?lic=s

Major Classifications are as follows:

Offering:

Software

Footprint Management

Carbon Accounting Software

Others

Service

By Application

Energy

Greenhouse Gas Management

Air Quality Management

Sustainability

Others

By End-user Verticals

Oil and Gas

Manufacturing

Healthcare

IT and Telecom

Others

Key Region/Countries are Classified as Follows:

◘ North America (United States, Canada,) ◘ Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina,) ◘ Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India, and Southeast Asia) ◘ Europe (UK,Germany,France,Italy,Spain,Russia,) ◘ The Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria, and South

Key Players of Carbon Management System Market

Simble Solutions Ltd, IBM Corporation, ENGIE Impact, GreenStep Solutions Inc., SAP SE, Enablon SA, IsoMetrix, , Electric SE, Salesforce.com Inc., Greenstone+ Ltd, Microsoft Corporation, and Others

Market Drivers in Carbon Management System Market

Regulatory Compliance: Increasing government mandates, like carbon pricing, cap-and-trade programs, and carbon tax, are driving demand for carbon management systems.

Corporate Sustainability Initiatives: Companies are prioritizing sustainability in their operations, fueling the need for carbon management solutions.

Technological Advancements: Innovations in AI, IoT, and big data analytics are enhancing carbon tracking and reporting capabilities.

Market Challenges in Carbon Management System Market

High Implementation Costs: The cost of implementing and maintaining carbon management systems can be prohibitive for small to mid-sized companies.

Lack of Standardization: Varying standards and regulations across regions can create challenges for global companies implementing carbon management systems.

Data Accuracy and Integration Issues: Ensuring accurate data collection and integration across complex supply chains can be a challenge for companies.

Market Opportunities of Carbon Management System Market

Expanding into Developing Regions: Many developing countries are focusing on sustainability, presenting new market opportunities.

Emergence of Carbon Offsetting Programs: Increased demand for carbon credits and offsetting programs creates additional revenue streams.

Technological Integration: Leveraging AI, IoT, and cloud computing offers opportunities for innovation in real-time emissions tracking and predictive analytics.

Conclusion

The Carbon Management System Market is poised for substantial growth, driven by regulatory pressures, corporate sustainability commitments, and technological advancements. While the market faces challenges such as high costs and regulatory uncertainty, there are significant opportunities for expansion, especially in developing regions and emerging sectors. With climate change being a global priority, carbon management systems will play a vital role in reducing emissions and meeting international climate targets.

.

[dan6085]

By 2030, the global energy mix is expected to shift significantly as countries work to reduce carbon emissions and transition to more sustainable sources of power. This transformation will differ across regions based on policies, infrastructure, and resources. Here’s a projection of the potential energy mix for wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and coal in various regions by 2030:

### 1. **United States**

The U.S. is on track to significantly increase its share of renewable energy in its overall energy mix by 2030, driven by federal policies and state-level mandates.

- **Wind**: Expected to contribute about 25% of the total electricity generation, thanks to large-scale wind farms in states like Texas, Iowa, and the Midwest.

- **Solar**: Rapid growth, with estimates suggesting around 15-20% of electricity generation. Utility-scale projects, alongside residential solar, will play a key role.

- **Geothermal**: Modest growth, contributing around 2%, mainly from geothermal hotspots in California and Nevada.

- **Nuclear**: Likely to remain relatively stable, contributing around 17-20%. While few new plants will come online, many existing plants will continue operating.

- **Coal**: Expected to decline significantly, providing less than 10% of the energy mix, as many coal plants are being retired and replaced with cleaner alternatives.

### 2. **Europe**

Europe is a global leader in renewable energy adoption due to strong political support and ambitious climate goals.

- **Wind**: Likely to be one of the dominant sources, contributing up to 30-35% of electricity generation, especially in countries like Germany, Spain, and the UK.

- **Solar**: Expected to grow to 20-25% as Europe continues to invest heavily in solar capacity, particularly in southern countries like Spain, Italy, and Greece.

- **Geothermal**: Limited growth, contributing around 1-2%, primarily in regions with geothermal potential such as Italy and Iceland.

- **Nuclear**: Mixed outlook. Some countries (e.g., France) will continue relying on nuclear energy, contributing around 15-20%, while others (like Germany) are phasing out nuclear plants.

- **Coal**: Europe is actively reducing coal usage, and it could fall below 5% of the energy mix as countries shift to cleaner sources and implement carbon pricing policies.

### 3. **World (Global Outlook)**

Globally, the shift towards renewable energy is accelerating, although progress will vary by region.

- **Wind**: Expected to make up around 20-25% of global electricity generation by 2030, with strong growth in the U.S., Europe, China, and India.

- **Solar**: Could account for 15-20% of global energy generation, driven by large investments in Asia and increasing efficiency in solar technology.

- **Geothermal**: A minor player globally, contributing around 1-2%, with the majority of capacity in regions like the U.S., Philippines, and parts of East Africa.

- **Nuclear**: Expected to maintain a global share of around 10%, with new plants coming online in China and other developing nations, while older plants are retired in developed countries.

- **Coal**: Despite declines in Europe and North America, coal will still account for 25-30% of the global energy mix, primarily due to its dominance in Asia (China and India).

### 4. **Asia**

Asia’s energy future is marked by the balancing act between growing energy demand and efforts to decarbonize.

- **Wind**: Likely to contribute 15-20% of electricity generation by 2030, with China and India leading in wind power capacity additions.

- **Solar**: Could rise to 25-30% of the energy mix, especially in China, which is the world leader in solar installations. India and Southeast Asian nations are also ramping up solar investments.

- **Geothermal**: Limited growth, accounting for around 1-3%, with potential expansion in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan.

- **Nuclear**: Expected to grow to around 7-10%, driven by new plants in China, India, and possibly South Korea.

- **Coal**: While many Asian countries are shifting towards renewables, coal will still play a significant role, making up 40-50% of the energy mix by 2030, particularly in China and India, though there will be a gradual decline.

### 5. **Philippines**

The Philippines has ambitious goals to increase its share of renewables, though challenges such as cost and infrastructure remain.

- **Wind**: Modest growth, contributing around 5-10% of electricity by 2030. There is potential in the northern regions like Ilocos, but expansion has been slow.

- **Solar**: Expected to grow rapidly, potentially contributing 15-20%, as the government pushes for more solar projects and rooftop installations.

- **Geothermal**: The Philippines is already one of the world’s largest geothermal producers, and it is expected to maintain or slightly increase its contribution, making up 10-15% of the energy mix by 2030.

- **Nuclear**: Uncertain. There has been ongoing discussion about reviving the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, but it remains unclear if the Philippines will add nuclear energy to its mix by 2030.

- **Coal**: Still likely to play a significant role, contributing 30-40% of the energy mix. However, the country is trying to phase out coal gradually in favor of cleaner sources.

---

### Summary of Key Trends by Region (2030 Estimates)

| **Region** | **Wind** | **Solar** | **Geothermal** | **Nuclear** | **Coal** |

|---------------------|----------|-----------|----------------|-------------|----------|

| **United States** | 25% | 15-20% | 2% | 17-20% | <10% |

| **Europe** | 30-35% | 20-25% | 1-2% | 15-20% | <5% |

| **Global** | 20-25% | 15-20% | 1-2% | 10% | 25-30% |

| **Asia** | 15-20% | 25-30% | 1-3% | 7-10% | 40-50% |

| **Philippines** | 5-10% | 15-20% | 10-15% | 0% | 30-40% |

---

### Key Factors Influencing the 2030 Energy Mix

1. **Government Policies**: Countries with stronger climate policies (e.g., the EU’s Green Deal or the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act) will see more rapid adoption of renewables.

2. **Technological Advancements**: Improvements in energy storage, grid infrastructure, and efficiency will drive the uptake of wind and solar.

3. **Economic Considerations**: Developing countries may still rely heavily on coal due to cost and availability, though international pressure and green financing could reduce this dependence.

4. **Public Opinion**: In regions where public support for nuclear energy is high (such as China and some parts of Europe), nuclear energy will play a significant role. In contrast, regions with strong anti-nuclear sentiment (e.g., Germany) will see a decline.

5. **Fossil Fuel Availability**: In places with abundant coal reserves (e.g., Asia), coal will remain a significant part of the energy mix, though its share will gradually decrease.

This dynamic landscape reflects the global push toward cleaner energy sources, with renewables like wind and solar poised for strong growth, even as traditional sources like coal and nuclear face mixed futures depending on the region.

[ankitab]

Green Hydrogen Market Forecast: Unlocking the Potential of Renewable Energy

The green hydrogen market is experiencing unprecedented growth, driven by increasing demand for fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), burgeoning chemical production needs, and robust government initiatives aimed at achieving net zero emissions. Despite the high production costs that currently restrain market expansion, significant investments in electrolysis development and the growing adoption of green hydrogen due to its zero-carbon footprint present substantial opportunities. However, complex and expensive storage and transportation challenges continue to pose significant hurdles.

Download free Sample report here: https://www.meticulousresearch.com/download-sample-report/cp_id=5580?utm_source=article&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=product&utm_content=27-08-2024

Increasing Demand for Green Hydrogen in Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs)

In the realm of transportation, green hydrogen is emerging as a pivotal solution for sustainable mobility. Fuel cells not only enhance vehicle efficiency but also contribute to quieter operation. Green hydrogen enables vehicles to travel longer distances with less frequent refueling. Government initiatives to reduce air pollution by promoting the use of cleaner, low-emission fuels are further fueling this demand. Prominent automobile manufacturers are increasingly venturing into the production of hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). For example, in May 2023, HYVIA introduced the Renault Master Van H2-TECH, a green hydrogen-powered vehicle designed to accelerate the decarbonization of road mobility. The burgeoning need to improve vehicle efficiency, cut fuel costs, minimize pollution, and advance hydrogen-powered FCEVs is significantly contributing to the growth of the green hydrogen market.

Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis: Poised for the Highest CAGR

Among the various generation processes, the proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis segment is projected to witness the highest compound annual growth rate (CAGR) during the forecast period. The escalating use of PEM, attributed to its environmentally friendly nature and superior effectiveness compared to existing alternatives, is a key growth driver. Rapid advancements in low-carbon hydrogen production projects and an intensified focus on fuel cell technology further bolster this segment's expansion.

Hydropower: The Leading Energy Source Segment

When segmented by energy source, the hydropower sector is anticipated to register the highest CAGR. The growing adoption of renewable energy, soaring global electricity consumption, and increasing government initiatives aimed at reducing dependency on fossil fuels for power generation are pivotal factors driving the growth of this segment.

Browse in depth: https://www.meticulousresearch.com/product/green-hydrogen-market-5580?utm_source=article &utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=product&utm_content=27-08-2024

Fueling: The Fastest-Growing Application Segment

Within the application spectrum, the fueling segment is expected to record the highest CAGR. The rising adoption of green hydrogen, which produces less smoke during combustion, and robust government initiatives promoting clean energy sources to support zero-carbon energy are critical to the growth of this segment.

Transportation: Leading the End User Segment

The transportation segment is poised to achieve the highest CAGR among end users. The increasing use of green hydrogen to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, reduce oil dependence, and lower air pollutants, coupled with rising demand for green hydrogen to curb carbon emissions and growing fueling solutions for various transportation applications, underscores the growth of this segment.

Asia-Pacific: The Fastest-Growing Regional Market

In 2023, North America is projected to dominate the green hydrogen market, followed by Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. However, the Asia-Pacific region is anticipated to experience the fastest growth rate during the forecast period. The rapid infrastructural development in countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, and India, coupled with the swift growth of regional economies, technological advancements, substantial investments in electrolysis development, and strategic alliances for a clean hydrogen economy, are key drivers for this regional market's accelerated growth.

Key Players in the Green Hydrogen Market

The competitive landscape of the green hydrogen market is shaped by extensive assessments of the key growth strategies adopted by leading market participants over the past few years. Prominent players in the green hydrogen market include:

FuelCell Energy, Inc. (U.S.) Bloom Energy Corporation (U.S.) Plug Power Inc. (U.S.) Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (U.S.)  China Petrochemical Corporation (China) L’AIR LIQUIDE S.A. (France) Linde plc (Ireland) Green Hydrogen Systems A/S (Denmark) McPhy Energy (France) ITM Power PLC (U.K.) Nel ASA (Norway) Ballard Power Systems Inc. (Canada) ENGIE SA (France) Repsol S.A. (Spain) Iberdrola, S.A. (Spain)

Quick buy: https://www.meticulousresearch.com/Checkout/62065285?utm_source= article&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=product&utm_content=27-08-2024

These companies are at the forefront of innovations and strategic initiatives that are shaping the future of the green hydrogen market.

Conclusion

The green hydrogen market is on a remarkable growth trajectory, fueled by increasing demands from the transportation sector, advancements in electrolysis technologies, and significant government initiatives. While challenges such as high production costs and complex storage and transportation remain, the potential for green hydrogen to revolutionize energy consumption and contribute to a sustainable, zero-carbon future is immense. As market players continue to invest and innovate, the green hydrogen market is poised to reach unprecedented heights by 2030.

Related research:

Hydrogen Market: https://www.meticulousresearch.com/product/hydrogen-market-5808?utm_source=article&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=product&utm_content=27-08-2024

Contact Us: Meticulous Research® Email- sales@meticulousresearch.com Contact Sales- +1-646-781-8004 Connect with us on LinkedIn- https://www.linkedin.com/company/meticulous-research

[dbunicorn]

Hmmm as an actor the words, pedophile, fucking pig, me too, lying sack of shit,money launderer, rapist, liable, culpable, child endangerment, lowest form of scum come to mind

Fucking retard

You have neurons that fire right? Your grasp of the UN charter, the constitution, legal precedent are amazing!

Might as well tell me to kill myself, a whore go spit at some shiny children, tell me to go home, run small children off the road and have a fundraiser to support children in Africa. How Oprah! For 10 years. Fuck yeah retard. The moral high ground. Maybe even a bribe and bank bailout. 🔥🥳🙏

Oh Susan rice......

Image ne being a fly on the wall of your sick lives. Bile.....a word trumps rape, sexual harassment, sociopathic greed, waste, resource explotation, the failure to your young fans. What a fucking joke you are.

A decarbonized future doesn't have much in the way of obscene wealth idiot. You're obsolete. Good riddance.

[jcmarchi]

A delicate dance

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/a-delicate-dance/

A delicate dance

In early 2022, economist Catherine Wolfram was at her desk in the U.S. Treasury building. She could see the east wing of the White House, just steps away.

Russia had just invaded Ukraine, and Wolfram was thinking about Russia, oil, and sanctions. She and her colleagues had been tasked with figuring out how to restrict the revenues that Russia was using to fuel its brutal war while keeping Russian oil available and affordable to the countries that depended on it.

Now the William F. Pounds Professor of Energy Economics at MIT, Wolfram was on leave from academia to serve as deputy assistant secretary for climate and energy economics.

Working for Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, Wolfram and her colleagues developed dozens of models and forecasts and projections. It struck her, she said later, that “huge decisions [affecting the global economy] would be made on the basis of spreadsheets that I was helping create.” Wolfram composed a memo to the Biden administration and hoped her projections would pan out the way she believed they would.

Tackling conundrums that weigh competing, sometimes contradictory, interests has defined much of Wolfram’s career.

Wolfram specializes in the economics of energy markets. She looks at ways to decarbonize global energy systems while recognizing that energy drives economic development, especially in the developing world.

“The way we’re currently making energy is contributing to climate change. There’s a delicate dance we have to do to make sure that we treat this important industry carefully, but also transform it rapidly to a cleaner, decarbonized system,” she says.

Economists as influencers

While Wolfram was growing up in a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota, her father was a law professor and her mother taught English as a second language. Her mother helped spawn Wolfram’s interest in other cultures and her love of travel, but it was an experience closer to home that sparked her awareness of the effect of human activities on the state of the planet.

Minnesota’s nickname is “Land of 10,000 Lakes.” Wolfram remembers swimming in a nearby lake sometimes covered by a thick sludge of algae. “Thinking back on it, it must’ve had to do with fertilizer runoff,” she says. “That was probably the first thing that made me think about the environment and policy.”

In high school, Wolfram liked “the fact that you could use math to understand the world. I also was interested in the types of questions about human behavior that economists were thinking about.

“I definitely think economics is good at sussing out how different actors are likely to react to a particular policy and then designing policies with that in mind.”

After receiving a bachelor’s degree in economics from Harvard University in 1989, Wolfram worked with a Massachusetts agency that governed rate hikes for utilities. Seeing its reliance on research, she says, illuminated the role academics could play in policy setting. It made her think she could make a difference from within academia.

While pursuing a PhD in economics from MIT, Wolfram counted Paul L. Joskow, the Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and former director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, and Nancy L. Rose, the Charles P. Kindleberger Professor of Applied Economics, among her mentors and influencers.

After spending 1996 to 2000 as an assistant professor of economics at Harvard, she joined the faculty at the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley.

At Berkeley, it struck Wolfram that while she labored over ways to marginally boost the energy efficiency of U.S. power plants, the economies of China and India were growing rapidly, with a corresponding growth in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. “It hit home that to understand the climate issue, I needed to understand energy demand in the developing world,” she says.

The problem was that the developing world didn’t always offer up the kind of neatly packaged, comprehensive data economists relied on. She wondered if, by relying on readily accessible data, the field was looking under the lamppost — while losing sight of what the rest of the street looked like.

To make up for a lack of available data on the state of electrification in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, Wolfram developed and administered surveys to individual, remote rural households using on-the-ground field teams.

Her results suggested that in the world’s poorest countries, the challenges involved in expanding the grid in rural areas should be weighed against potentially greater economic and social returns on investments in the transportation, education, or health sectors.

Taking the lead

Within months of Wolfram’s memo to the Biden administration, leaders of the intergovernmental political forum Group of Seven (G7) agreed to the price cap. Tankers from coalition countries would only transport Russian crude sold at or below the price cap level, initially set at $60 per barrel.

“A price cap was not something that had ever been done before,” Wolfram says. “In some ways, we were making it up out of whole cloth. It was exciting to see that I wrote one of the original memos about it, and then literally three-and-a-half months later, the G7 was making an announcement.

“As economists and as policymakers, we must set the parameters and get the incentives right. The price cap was basically asking developing countries to buy cheap oil, which was consistent with their incentives.”

In May 2023, the U.S. Department of the Treasury reported that despite widespread initial skepticism about the price cap, market participants and geopolitical analysts believe it is accomplishing its goals of restricting Russia’s oil revenues while maintaining the supply of Russian oil and keeping energy costs in check for consumers and businesses around the world.

Wolfram held the U.S. Treasury post from March 2021 to October 2022 while on leave from UC Berkeley. In July 2023, she joined MIT Sloan School of Management partly to be geographically closer to the policymakers of the nation’s capital. She’s also excited about the work taking place elsewhere at the Institute to stay ahead of climate change.

Her time in D.C. was eye-opening, particularly in terms of the leadership power of the United States. She worries that the United States is falling prey to “lost opportunities” in terms of addressing climate change. “We were showing real leadership on the price cap, and if we could only do that on climate, I think we could make faster inroads on a global agreement,” she says.

Now focused on structuring global agreements in energy policy among developed and developing countries, she’s considering how the United States can take advantage of its position as a world leader. “We need to be thinking about how what we do in the U.S. affects the rest of the world from a climate perspective. We can’t go it alone.

“The U.S. needs to be more aligned with the European Union, Canada, and Japan to try to find areas where we’re taking a common approach to addressing climate change,” she says. She will touch on some of those areas in the class she will teach in spring 2024 titled “Climate and Energy in the Global Economy,” offered through MIT Sloan.

Looking ahead, she says, “I’m a techno optimist. I believe in human innovation. I’m optimistic that we’ll find ways to live with climate change and, hopefully, ways to minimize it.”

This article appears in the Winter 2024 issue of Energy Futures, the magazine of the MIT Energy Initiative.

[zvaigzdelasas]

This region located in the east of the central African nation contains as much as a quarter of known global reserves of [manganese] ore, according to [Comilog], a subsidiary of the French group Eramet which operates the site.[...]

The silvery metal has gained star status thanks to its emerging role in rechargeable car batteries. As decarbonization goes into higher gear, Gabon's economy could benefit from the metal boom.[...]

Manganese is an important raw material in the iron and steel industry as it is used for hardening steel and prevents it from rusting. [...]

Poorly regulated mining leads to environmental damage and encourages child labour [...]

A longstanding problem remains that Africa is typically used as a source of raw materials, and rarely for processing them into goods of higher value.

27 Oct 22

[lovelypol]

"Strategic Insights into the MENA Hydrogen Electrolyzer Market: 2024-2033"

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is emerging as a global leader in hydrogen production, spearheaded by the rapid development and deployment of hydrogen electrolyzers.

These devices, which use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, are at the heart of producing green hydrogen—a clean, renewable energy source that is crucial for reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change. The MENA region, with its abundant solar and wind resources, is uniquely positioned to generate the vast amounts of renewable electricity required for this process, making it a hub for sustainable energy innovation. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Morocco are investing heavily in large-scale hydrogen projects, aiming to not only meet their own energy needs but also become key exporters of green hydrogen. This shift is set to revolutionize the region's energy landscape, diversify economies traditionally reliant on oil and gas, and contribute significantly to global decarbonization efforts. As these projects come to fruition, the MENA region is poised to play a pivotal role in the global transition to sustainable energy, driving advancements in hydrogen technology and establishing itself as a cornerstone of the future energy economy.

#HydrogenEconomy #GreenHydrogen #MENAInnovation #RenewableEnergy #HydrogenElectrolyzer #CleanEnergy #SustainableFuture #MiddleEastEnergy #NorthAfricaRenewables #SolarPower #WindEnergy #CarbonReduction #EnergyTransition #HydrogenProduction #GlobalDecarbonization

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Anthropocene Magazine:

Nearly ten times as many people in America now work at Starbucks than dig for coal. Coal mining has long been a canary of America’s energy transition—it lost hundreds of thousands of workers in the 20th century, and has shrunk in half again since 2012. 

Losing dirty, dangerous coal jobs is one thing, but the wholesale dismantling of our fossil fuel economy promises to be far more disruptive. True, but there’s a huge caveat. The bright light on the horizon is that most estimates of new clean energy jobs dwarf even the largest oil refineries and auto plants. 

Winners

1. Everyone (on average). 2021 was a big year for energy jobs globally—it was the first time that more people around the world were working in clean energy jobs than fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Authority (IEA). While the US is still lagging behind that curve, clean energy jobs here are growing at twice the rate of the rest of the energy sector, says the Department of Energy (DOE). And the future looks rosy. Researchers at Dartmouth College calculate that a low carbon economy in the US would create two or even three green energy jobs for every fossil fuel job lost. (That fits with an earlier study out of Berkeley, which found that renewable and sustainable power sources inherently require more people per gigawatt hour of electricity generated, compared to fossil fuel plants).

2. Solar installers and battery makers. Photovoltaic and energy storage companies have been on a tear, adding tens of thousands of workers last year in the US. When considered along with wind, EVs, heat pumps and critical minerals supply, solar power and batteries accounted for over half of all job growth in global energy production since 2019. And the IEA expects these sectors to add tens of millions more jobs by the end of the decade.

3. Some surprise hires. Don’t count out Big Oil and Big Auto just yet. Both the IEA and the DOE expect the fossil fuel industry (particularly natural gas) to hire more workers in the immediate future, albeit at slower rates than clean energy jobs and tailing off in years to come. The IEA notes that if fossil fuel companies could successfully transition to hydrogen, carbon capture, geothermal and biofuels processing, they could almost offset decreases in core oil and gas employment all the way to 2030. It also expects car makers to pivot to EV production, retraining workers and safeguarding many jobs.

Losers

1. Oil workers. Changing careers means more than just a quick retraining session. Morgan Frank at the University of Pittsburgh went down the rabbit hole of what transferring US fossil fuel employment to green jobs would actually mean, and the answer isn’t pretty. His team’s paper in Nature found that green energy jobs are not co-located with today’s oil and gas workers, leading them to predict that almost 99% of extraction workers would not transition to green jobs. And any workers that do make the change face a financial hit. The IEA notes that workers moving from oil and gas to wind, solar and hydrogen today would see pay cuts of 15 to 30%.

2. Petro-states. The shift to green energy will be difficult for economies that rely heavily on fossil fuel extraction and processing. Consultancy EY has an illuminating, interactive webpage allowing you to compare employment in regions around the world, under different decarbonization scenarios. Spoiler alert—oil producing nations in the Middle East and Australia are likely to see employment slump, and even Africa could experience a destabilizing wobble unless it accelerates production of green hydrogen and EV battery materials. “Due to the transition, socio-economic sustainability risks will likely increase as the employment rate drops,” warns author Catherine Friday.

3. Homer Simpson. Some low-carbon energy sectors aren’t exactly booming. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) expects the employment of nuclear technicians to decline 6% from 2023 to 2033. The US hit peak nuclear power stations in 2012 and has been declining ever since, as facilities age into decommissioning without being replaced. Meanwhile, a planned new generation of safer, cheaper and more efficient fission reactors continues to suffer cost overruns, red tape and delays, and commercial nuclear fusion remains a decades-distant dream. D’oh!

What To Keep An Eye On

1. Labor shortages. Workers skilled in green energy jobs won’t just appear from nowhere. Projects are already facing delays in the EU and the US from labor shortages. Biden’s omnibus Inflation Reduction Act included incentives for partnering with apprentice programs and other funding that could be used to train maintenance workers, and installers for clean energy projects. But millions of workers will be needed, and in short order.

2. Carbon capture. The IPCC estimates that between 350 and 1200 gigatons of CO2 will need to be captured and stored this century. No one really knows yet what the technologies needed to achieve that will look like, but they will likely involve a lot of new workers. Climate research firm Rhodium Group estimated that each gigaton captured could translate to 1.5 million construction and 500,000 operation jobs.

3. Chat (and other) bots for hire. Any predictions about the future workplace should be taken with a large pinch of AI and robotics. The BLS just issued a report that shows dozens of occupations employing hundreds of thousands of Americans are likely to shrink in the years ahead. Top of the list are clerks and supervisors, but there are plenty of manufacturing and production roles at risk, too, that could affect the green energy roll-out.