The Noemi amphibious electric seaplane

I've talked about Sweden's Heart Aerospace ES-30, a four-engined electric plane capable of carrying 30 passengers for up to 200 kilometres on battery power and 800 km with hybrid assist.

Elfly's Noemi (for "no emissions") aircraft is a two-engined amphibious seaplane which can carry 9–13 passengers and up to one tonne of cargo for 200 km from city harbour to city harbour, or even, since it is amphibious, from airport to airport, needing only short distances for take-off and landing.  As they say:

City center to island? Easy. Harbor to airport? Not a problem. Sightseeing tours through fjords, natural parks, or cities with strict emission and sound regulations? By design.

With no need for bulky infrastructure, capable of taking advantage of naturally plentiful waterfronts and ubiquitous electricity, we can offer commuting, sightseeing, and cargo solutions that bolster local businesses and ecological resilience alike.

No need to commute to some faraway airport - and back again. Forget the stress of traditional flying and simply board a quiet, smooth flight right from your city harbor.

Born in Norway: A land with more than a thousand fjords and half a million lakes. With most of our population straddling a line between high mountains and the sea, it is difficult, expensive, and environmentally challenging to build adequate infrastructure. Our Noemi seaplane is an effective, non-intrusive solution born from our way of life, capable of reducing hours we’d spend in cars or trains to mere minutes in the air.

Source: Elfly

There are lots of new electric plane start-ups.  Some of them will fail, no doubt.  But this ferment of activity is very encouraging.  Technological advances happen when there is pressure to innovate, and we are clearly seeing that in the electric plane domain.  And as energy density of batteries increases, the range and payload will also increase.   Trans-oceanic flights?  Not yet.  But 200 km plus range will allow you to cross continents by hopping from airport to airport – just as they used to when the range of petrol aircraft was no better than the range of electric planes today.  With zero emissions.

GWR's New Battery Powered Train

Step by step we move away from fossil fuels in railways. 

 Electrification is overall cheaper on busy lines. To date, diesel has been cheaper on less-used lines, because the higher capital cost of installing third-rail/overhead-wire technology isn't offset by the cheaper running coats of electricity.    

I've talked before about battery-powered electric trains which charge from the overhead catenary when they travel on track with electrification, allowing them to travel some way on un-electrified track. 

 Which of these alternative approaches would be better would depend on distances travelled and how fast overhead catenary-charged batteries can charge.  In Australia, for example, rural towns are much further apart than the towns served by this line in England, which are roughly 5 miles apart.   This would require more batteries, on the train and next to the track, and more charging time.  

An alternative is a locomotive which can run on either diesel or electric power, called "electro-diesel" or "bi-mode"  locos (not to be confused with diesel-electric motors), such as the new trains in NSW (which I know I wrote about here on Volewica, but have been unable to find the article)

Is China's carbon market ambitious enough?

 From Nature

China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has launched its first national emissions-trading scheme. Such carbon-pricing mechanisms exist in around 45 countries already, but China’s scheme, which began trading last week, is the world’s biggest.

It has been plagued by delays, and researchers argue it might not be ambitious enough to enable China to meet its emissions-reduction goals, including a 2030 deadline for peak emissions and a 2060 goal of net-zero emissions.

“We can’t put all the eggs in one basket,” says Hongbo Duan, an economist at the School of Economics and Management at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. “We need to do more, like develop renewables and also CCS — carbon capture and storage.”

But Duan is hopeful that the scheme will have a far-reaching impact over time. Unlike other national mechanisms, China is using intensity of emissions (the amount of emissions per unit of energy generated) rather than absolute emissions to help reduce its impact on climate. “In the future, I think it may play a formidable role in curbing carbon emissions,” he says.

China began testing the waters in 2013, when it launched seven pilot schemes in cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen. Reports that some companies were falsifying emissions data have driven a stronger focus in the national scheme on robust monitoring and reporting, says Yan Qin, an economist and lead carbon analyst in Oslo at Refinitiv, a global company that provides data on financial markets.

China’s rules and regulations around the scheme came into force in February but online trading did not begin until 16 July.

China’s scheme is based on a cap-and-trade model, in which emitters — initially just coal- and gas-fired energy plants — are allocated a certain number of emissions allowances up to a set limit, or cap, and then either trade or buy allowances if they remain below or exceed this. The aim is to expand the plan to industries including construction, oil and chemicals in coming years.

What makes China’s scheme different from those operating in other countries and regions, such as the European Union, Canada and Argentina, is that China has chosen to focus on reducing the intensity of emissions generation, rather than absolute emissions.

Power companies are incentivized to reduce the intensity of emissions, which means producing the same or greater amount of energy while reducing their emissions or keeping them at the same level. That means the absolute emissions can still increase as energy output increases, as long as the companies are reducing the volume of emissions per unit of energy output.

A company’s initial emissions cap is a function of both its current energy output and the emissions intensity of its current operations, which is based on factors such as the type of coal and equipment it uses, says Brad Kerin, general manager at the Carbon Market Institute in Melbourne, Australia.

This then helps the authorities “look at how many allowances they offer initially, and then restrict that over time”, Kerin says. Each year, the cap is recalculated and reduced, which drives greater efficiency by requiring companies to reduce the amount of emissions they generate for the energy they produce.

“That’s the core of the emission-trading scheme: it provides incentive to more efficient generation or less carbon-intensive generation” of energy, says Qin, who explains that power companies can upgrade equipment and facilities to be more efficient and trade the emissions allowances they save, or otherwise buy allowances to cover excess emissions.

The issue for China is that its economy is expected to grow by 4–5% per year, which means a significant increase in power consumption, and therefore emissions, Qin says.

However, researchers are concerned that the initial allowances are too generous, the prices for these allowances too low, and the penalties for failing to comply are not severe enough to be a deterrent.

“The current design, this intensity-based target that you allow emissions to increase, that is not very helpful,” Qin adds. She suggests that the relatively soft opening is likely to be a concession to power producers and the fossil-fuel industry. “You need to have the thermal producers on board, but after a few years that scheme has to be tightened.”

Frank Jotzo, an environmental economist and director of the Centre for Climate and Energy Policy at the Australian National University in Canberra, says it is a positive sign that China’s emissions-trading scheme has started. It’s unlikely to have much effect on emissions in its current form, he says, “however, it establishes the infrastructure that could be used in future to effectively and quite efficiently reduce emissions in China’s power sector”.

Another challenge for China will be to ensure the integrity of reporting and monitoring of emissions, says Qin. To address issues seen under the pilot schemes, the national mechanism has a tighter standard for companies reporting their emissions, which requires them to provide detailed technical information, such as data on coal type and consumption.

When Europe first introduced its carbon-trading scheme, it had similar flaws to the Chinese model: allowances were too generous, exceptions too many, and the annual cuts in the targets too low.  Europe's carbon price only started to rise sharply 3 years ago, when the EU tightened these loopholes, and that was when emissions from the electricity sector really started to decline.  But China has other tools too.  The central government can simply forbid the construction of new coal power stations; it can broker agreements between adjacent provinces to build new HVDC interconnectors; it can close old polluting power stations on environmental grounds; it can instruct banks to refuse to lend for coal; it can encourage gas power stations instead of coal.  Alas, none of this will happen overnight.  Chinese emissions are going to go on rising for another decade.  Which makes the need for everybody else to slash emissions that much greater.

China emissions from fossil fuels and industry 1970-2019
Source: Statista

Getting to zero carbon in Germany

 From a Twitter thread by Philipp Litz:

Germany plans on going climate neutral by 2050 the latest. Most of the electricity produced will come from wind and solar. But what is the strategy on keeping the lights on, when there is no wind and sun, and coal, natural gas, or oil plants will be phased out?

First: There will still be plenty of dispatchable capacity. However, these will not be nuclear, coal or classic natural gas power plants, but primarily small, decentralized gas units that are operated with (green) hydrogen.

Second: Pump and battery storage (both stationary and mobile in cars) are becoming increasingly important. They store excess electricity in times of high wind and PV generation and make it available when it is needed. In addition, traditional demand is becoming more flexible.

Third: The European electricity market will grow even closer together than today. This means you can take advantage of balancing effects of renewable energy generation. Also, sharing backup capacities makes it cheaper for everybody.

Achieving a 50% cut in emissions

Toyota RAV4 plug-in hybrid, with 60 k's of electric range

This is from a comment I wrote about a piece in Melbourne's The Age newspaper.  It's specifically about Australia, but the same forces are operating everywhere.  A 50% cut in emissions by 2035 is easy.  The next 50% (to be achieved by 2050) might be a little harder.

In 2009, new-build solar cost 3.1 times as much as new-build coal (US data, Lazard). Now it costs 1/3rd. The ratio has completely inverted. In fact, in several countries, new-build wind and/or solar are cheaper than the *operating* cost of coal power stations. In other words. it costs more to dig up, transport and burn the coal than it does to build a new wind/solar farm from scratch. The implication is that for *economic* reasons, coal power stations are going to be closed down over the next decade. The government could, were it not a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal companies, make a virtue of the inevitability of this. "See, we're cutting emissions by a third! Aren't we green! We really care!"  Not that they do, of course.

What about the variability of wind/solar? Three points:

1. Wind and solar are complementary, in fact negatively correlated. The wind often blows when the sun doesn't shine, for example during winter in southern states. So a 50/50 wind+solar powered grid has an output profile much closer to baseload than either by itself.
2. A continent-wide grid produce much less variable output than a local one. When the wind isn't blowing in western Victoria, it is in east Gippsland. When it's raining in Sydney, it's sunny in Broken Hill or Port Augusta.
3. Battery cost are plunging. Over the last 30 months, they've fallen 60%, even after the cost impact of the fall in the A$. Storage costs are falling fast, which means the costs of "firming" the grid are too. It is now normal in the US for new solar farms to come with 4 hours of storage. As battery costs continue to slide--they should halve again over the next 3 years--solar farms will add even more storage to allow them to provide power overnight (o/n demand is 2/3rds of day demand, so in principle, 8 hours of storage will be enough)

One final point. Already simple hybrids cost only $1500-$2000 more than their (automatic/CVT) petrol equivalents (for example, the 2020 Toyota Corolla sedan), but they use 40-50% less petrol in urban driving. If your fuel bill is $100 per month, the higher cost of the hybrid engine will pay for itself within 3 years. And transitioning our vehicle fleet to simple hybrids will cut total emissions by another 10% (transport emissions are ~20% of the total.)  Plug-in hybrids are even more fuel efficient, cutting tailpipe emissions by 80% plus.  They cost just a couple of thousand dollars more than an ordinary hybrid.  A small tweak to the tax system could cut emissions from transport by 75%.

By 2030 or 2035, we could cut emissions by 50%, at no extra cost to ourselves. And look good while doing it.  But our conservative government is so beholden to fossil fuel interests that it cannot bring itself to acknowledge this.

Is climate sensitivity really that high?

Climate sensitivity is the shorthand phrase for how much temperatures will rise if atmospheric CO₂ doubles.  The estimates vary but up to now they've been between 2 and 4.5 degrees C.  Pre-industrial CO₂ averaged 280 ppm (parts per million), and it is now about 417 ppm and rising by 2.4 ppm on average each year, and this rate of increase is accelerating.  Global temperatures are rising by 0.2 degrees C since 1970, but this rate of increase also appears to be accelerating.

A post from .... and Then There's Physics:

Can climate sensitivity be really high?  The answer to the question in my post title is – unfortunately – yes. The generally accepted likely range for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 2oC – 4.5oC. This doesn’t mean that it has to fall within this range, it means that it probably falls within this range. There is still a chance that it could be below 2oC and a chance that it could be greater than 4.5oC. However, there is a difference between it possibly being higher than 4.5o and this being likely.

There’s been quite a lot of recent coverage of studies suggesting that the ECS may be higher than 5oC. My understanding is that one reason for this increase in the ECS in some climate models is an enhanced short-wavelength cloud feedback in these models. There are also some indications that these high-sensitivity models do a better job of representing some of the cloud processes than was the case for the earlier generation of models.

However, there are also indications that the high-sensitivity models struggle to fit the historical temperature record, and that lower sensitivity models (at least in terms of the transient climate responses) better match some observational constraints. As I understand it, it’s also difficult to reconcile these very high climate sensitivity estimates with paleoclimatological constraints.

So, I think it is interesting, and somewhat concerning, that some of the newest generation of climate models are suggesting that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) could be higher than 5oC. That these newer models seem to also represent some relevant processes better than the previous generation does provide some indications that it could indeed be that high. However, it’s also possible that these models are poorly representing some other processes that may be unrealistically inflating their ECS values.

Given that there are also other lines of evidence suggesting that the ECS is unlikely to be as high as 5oC makes me think that we should be cautious of accepting these high ECS estimates just yet. I do think it’s worth being aware that it could be this high, but I don’t think it’s yet time to change that the ECS is likely to fall between 2oC and 4.5oC, with it probably lying somewhere near 3oC.

Links:Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows – Guardian article about the new high climate sensitivity studies.

Short-term tests validate long-term estimates of climate change – Nature article about a recent study that tested one of these high climate sensitivity models.

CMIP6 – some of my recent posts about the newest generation of climate models.

Meanwhile, whatever the longer-term response of the system to rising CO₂ levels, the rate of increase in temperature seems to be accelerating:

If the 20-year trend continues, we'll reach 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures by 2050.  If the 10-year trend continues, that'll happen by 2035.  The problem is that the steeper path is more likely because of the steady increase in CO₂ emissions. 

We really need to start cutting emissions now.  They'll fall in 2020 over the year as a whole because of the covid crash, but we must do as much as we can to ensure the rebound in 2021 in emissions is as small as possible, while aiming for zero emissions by 2050.

Carbon capture and storage

When I first heard about this I thought it daft.  You burn the coal to harvest its energy then you try and capture the exhaust gases to save them somewhere?  Why burn the coal in the first place?  Why not avoid burning coal and use wind and solar instead?  I have seen estimates that carbon capture and storage (CCS) adds 50% to the cost of coal-fired electricity, making it even more uneconomic compared with renewables than it is already.

Actually, though, there are uses for CCS.

The first is to remove the emissions produced by making cement.  Making cement accounts for about 4% of total emissions, and the problem is that emitting CO₂ is intrinsic to the process—limestone is "cooked" to drive off its CO₂.  Even if we use renewable energy sources to "cook" the limestone, we still inevitably produce CO₂ via the process itself.  So we'll need to capture that CO₂ and remove it from the atmosphere.

The second is to remove the CO₂ from the atmosphere which was emitted before we had cheap renewables. 

An active removal of several hundred million tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere annually will be necessary for the EU to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, meaning the bloc has to start developing an adequate policy design, researchers Oliver Geden (SWP) and Felix Schenuit (Universität Hamburg) found in a study for the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). Some member states will need to have negative emissions balances by mid-century, as others need more time to reach carbon neutrality, the study found. An interesting political question will be which member states, sectors and companies will be allowed to have net-positive emissions in 2050, Geden, head of the EU research division at SWP, said at the an online presentation of the study. “Who already has to be below zero then? And who will pay?” The study highlights that “unconventional” climate action measures, such as afforestation and direct air capture, make a more flexible climate action policy possible but will exacerbate questions of burden sharing. The researchers stress that avoiding emissions must take precedence over carbon removal, arguing policymakers should subdivide targets into emission reduction and CO₂ removal targets, for example at a 9-to-1 ratio. The EU should put a focus on and increase funding for research and development of carbon removal technologies.

CO₂ removal has so far played a minor role in the European climate policy debate, although it is included in the Commission’s long-term climate strategy, which pursues the goal of becoming the first climate neutral continent by 2050. As some emissions in certain sectors, such as agriculture, aviation and industry, are seen as practically unavoidable, these will have to be tackled by removing carbon from the atmosphere – amounting to several hundred million tons per year, says SWP. In Germany, chancellor Angela Merkel had put the contentious carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology back on the agenda, saying it was crucial for the country to reach climate neutrality by mid-century.

[From Clean Energy Wire]

Currently, 54% of European emissions come from fuel combustion and "fugitive emissions" (=gas leaks).  In other words fuels burnt to produce electricity and to heat buildings, but I don't know whether that includes coal burnt to make steel for example.  Together with fuel burnt for transport, roughly 80% of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels.  It's obvious what needs to be done, and although CCS will be essential, the immediate problem is to stop burning fossil fuels.  As soon as possible.  Also, the costs of CCS will be allocated more efficiently if there is a price on carbon, as any CCS activity will earn credits, while carbon emitters will pay them.

Germany's greenhouse gas emissions at 1953 level

An interesting, detailed look at Germany's greenhouse gas emissions, from Clean Energy Wire.

I just want to show this chart:

In 2020, total emissions will be back at 1953 levels.  To reach the 2030 target, emissions will have to fall faster then they have done so far (the line will have to be steeper), but given the plunge in battery costs and the consequent rise in EV/hybrid penetration, plus the fall in renewable costs, it will prolly be achieved.   That will take emissions back to where they were in 1948, 1934 and 1905.  If we ignore the plunge in emissions in the last year of the war, another couple of years of decline will take emissions back to levels not seen for 120 years.

Note that despite these cuts in emissions, the German economy has continued to power ahead. 

Battery-powered electric trains

Siemens battery-electric train

Trains are about to go electric.

Battery-electric, that is. While electrical propulsion has been the preferred way to move trains for most of a century, the idea of moving them longer distances via battery is one that’s just now being realized.

Like long-range electric cars, it’s a reality afforded by the energy density and longevity of modern lithium-ion battery packs.

In Germany, where only about 40 percent of track is electrified, the trains will clean the air along routes that might have been impractical or prohibitively expensive to electrify, the state of Baden-Württemberg has ordered 20 two-car trains built in Germany by Siemens, who will oversee energy consumption and energy costs over a nearly 30-year service period.

It’s the first such order for battery-electric trains for Siemens Mobility, who will deliver them by June 2023. In them, a lithium-ion battery pack is mounted under the train’s floor and is charged while it moves along via overhead lines, using them to both power the train and charge the battery. When the train reaches a stretch of rail with no overhead lines, the battery takes over.

The new trains are part of Siemens’ Mireo train platform for regional and commuter rail—boasting weight reductions and improved aerodynamics. Configurations range from two to seven cars, and top speed, depending on the version, ranges from 87 to 124 mph [140 to 200 kph].

Germany and France are two markets that have started investing in battery-electric trains. Last month another company, Alstom, announced that it has a first contract to supply battery-electric regional trains for Germany’s Leipzig-Chemnitz line with three-car trains that can cover up to 75 miles and reach a top speed of 99 mph.

That same company has tested hydrogen fuel-cell power as the alternate source instead of batteries. And the Canadian company Bombardier in 2018 launched the Talent 3, an electro-hybrid train that can cover up to 62 miles on non-electrified track, with a modular approach to configuring motors and batteries.

[From Green Car Reports.  Here are two related articles: First Order for Mireo Plus B Battery, and Alstom signs first contract for battery-electric trains ]

Unfortunately, none of the articles says how long it takes to charge the batteries, or, put it another way, how many k's the train must travel using the electric catenary for each k of travel under battery power. 

Largest green hydrogen plant in the world

Ningxia Hui region

From PV magazine:

Chinese coal miner Baofeng Energy has announced the start of construction of what it claims will be the world’s largest solar-powered hydrogen plant, in the Ningxia Hui autonomous region of northwest [north-central]China.

The RMB1.4 billion ($199 million) electrolysis project is intended to produce 160 million cubic meters of hydrogen per year plus 80 million cubic meters of oxygen. Baofeng said the use of solar electricity to power the facility would save 254,000 tons of coal consumption annually, leading to a 445,000-ton reduction in carbon emissions.

The project will feature two 10,000m3/hr electrolyzers powered by two 100 MW solar plants plus a 1,000kg/day hydrogenation station and two petrol stations will be converted to also supply natural gas and hydrogen for transport purposes. The solar panels will be installed over wolfberry and alfalfa crops which will generate extra revenue, according to Baofeng.

Work on the project started this month and is slated for completion this year, with hydrogen production to start next year.

However, the company is also going to produce "brown" hydrogen from coal, which is definitely not carbon-neutral:

Baofeng is also working on a coking co-generation plant to produce three million tons of coal-based coke per year, plus 1.2 billion cubic meters of hydrogen.

Renewables 45% of UK generation in Q1

UK  solar resources.
Source: By SolarGIS © 2011 GeoModel Solar s.r.o., CC BY-SA 3.0,
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15486481

From IEEFA:

The first three months of 2020 were a landmark quarter for Great Britain, with renewable providing more power than from any other major power source, providing 45% of all electricity generation, and beating out total fossil fuel generation, including coal and gas.

The milestone moment was highlighted in European power analysts EnAppSys’ latest quarterly energy market report, covering the first three months of 2020.

In total, across the first quarter, renewable energy generated 35.4TWh, accounting for 44.6% of all power generation across Great Britain, followed by 29.1% from gas-fired power plants, 15.3% from nuclear power, 7.3% from imports, and only 3.7% from coal.

This means that not only did renewables generated more electricity than any other power source, but also means in turn that renewables beat out all fossil fuels combined (gas plus coal).

There were a number of factors which helped lead to this milestone moment, with extreme weather conditions across the first three months of the year in Great Britain resulting in consistently high levels of wind generation. Similarly, as with many countries around the world, the spreading coronavirus pandemic led to declining electricity demand in March.

Despite the contributing factors, this is nevertheless an important milestone for Great Britain’s electricity sector, as its renewable electricity generation was already on track to overtake fossil fuels this year based on historical trends.

Step by step, the world is moving towards a 100% green grid.  It's not the only thing we need to change to reach zero carbon by 2050, but it is crucial.  If the grid is carbon free, and we de-carbonise transport over the next decade, we will cut emissions by 50%.

The hybrid solution

I've been fairly dismissive of hybrids in the past.  After all, it appears to make no sense to have two engines in a car.  And eventually, battery prices will fall enough to make full-on electric the cheapest way to go.  But—the problem is that battery prices won't get cheap enough to give EVs an up-front cost advantage for 5 years (or more—see below).  Plus, the demand for batteries is so strong that there aren't enough to go round, as I discuss in The EV Bridge.  And there's the issue of range anxiety.  If you buy a Tesla, you'll have no problems.  But any other brand, here in Oz, at any rate, there are just too few chargers. 

So, while EVs are clearly the technology of the future, for the time being hybrids (whether serial or parallel, plug-in or not) are still cheaper and more popular.  And since we must cut emissions as rapidly as possible, we should encourage any electric car, hybrid (HEV) or plug-in hybrid (PHEV) or full-on electric (EV).

The price gap between hybrids and the un-hybrid version of a car model seems  to be low (see Toyota's biggest selling hybrid isn't the Prius)—just US$ 2,200.  And that will deliver a 30 to 40% cut in emissions. 

Here's the 2019 pricing of the Hyundai Ioniq in the US:

Hybrid                $22,400
Plug-in Hybrid   $25,350
EV                      $29,815

Let's assume there were a Hyundai Ioniq without an electric motor, an "un-electric" as it were.  Using the Corolla price gap, it would cost, say $20,000.  This means that the full-on electric would cost roughly 50% more than the un-electric, the plug-in hybrid 25% more.  Even though both the plug-in hybrid and the full electric will be cheaper to run than the un-electric, the sales of these cheaper electric versions of the Ioniq still wouldn't replace sales of the un-electric, because ppl have to find the up-front cost of the car, whereas the petrol costs are spread over its lifetime.  You can lease a car, but not everyone is able or willing to do that, and HP requires a deposit and the costs are still mostly up-front.

So, what to do?

Let's suppose we gave a subsidy of $2,500 to all electric cars.  Using the Ioniq as an exemple, that would remove the up-front cost disadvantage of the HEV, reduce it for the PHEV to where the HEV's is today, and reduce the cost premium of the full-on EV relative to the un-electric to 37% from 50%.  With a $2500 subsidy, rational consumers would buy electric.  At first, most would buy the simple hybrid, though some would buy plug-in hybrids, and a few would buy the full EV.  Emissions would fall by at least 40% as the car fleet transitioned.

I don't know how much the Ioniq EV's battery bank costs, but the petrol engine + gearbox + radiator + petrol tank must cost more than an electric engine—look at the small gap between the HEV and the un-electric, which represents the addition of an electric engine plus a small battery.  This means the Ioniq's EV battery bank costs, say, $12,000.  In five years' time, given that battery prices are falling by 20% per annum, it will cost just $4000, so the cost of an EV Ioniq will be close to the cost of the HEV, and below the cost of the PHEV ('cos you'll only need one engine).  At that point, the subsidy will encourage ppl to buy the 100% electric car instead of the HEV.

Eventually, the EV would be cost competitive even without subsidy.  On the Ioniq's current pricing, EVs will equal the cost of an un-electric in 8 years (longer than I had thought—I've been estimating 2023 or 2024, but this suggests 2028).  The trouble is, we haven't got 8 years to waste.  We must electrify our car fleet as soon as we can.

Instead of a subsidy, we could set rising targets for electric (of whatever kind) sales as a percentage of total sales, starting at 10% and increasing each year by 15%, so that by 2027 the EV/HEV/PHEV target would be 100% .   It works like this.  If a car wholesaler/manufacturer reached their target, there would be no penalty.  If they didn't, they would have to buy points from those who have.  Let's say the target is 10%, but they only reach 8%.  They'd have to buy points equal to 2% of their total car sales.  If they exceeded the target, they would have surplus points available for sale.  But unlike the Californian and Chinese schemes, under my scheme, the manufacturer would earn 1 point for each electric car, whatever its type, rather than 1/4 point for an HEV, 1/2 a point for a PHEV and 1 point for an EV*.

The Californian and Chinese EV targets encourage sales of EVs over PHEVs and PHEVs over HEVs, by giving more points to the EVs than lesser electric cars.  But that distinction is prolly unnecessary, and may slow the uptake of electric vehicles.  As EV costs decline, they will automatically be chosen over HEVs and PHEVs.  A target/subsidy which simply rewards buying an EV of whatever kind would lead to a much bigger take-up of electric cars than one which rewards EVs only, because hybrids are only a little more expensive than un-electrics.  As battery costs decline over the next 7 to 8 years, sales of full-on EVs would rise progressively, until 100% of electric sales are made up of EVs.  This would mean that we could start cutting emissions from transport now, not in 5 or 7 or 10 years while we wait for EVs to become cost competitive.

 If at first electric sales are mostly HEVs or PHEVs, it wouldn't matter, because each year emissions of 1/12 of the vehicle fleet (assuming a 12 year car life) would fall, by an increasing percentage, as the electric target bit deeper.  After 6 years, emissions of an additional 1/12th of the total car fleet each year would fall by 40%, rising progressively as EVs took a larger and larger market share.  This would mean that total car emissions would be falling by 3% per annum from 2025 onwards, and this decline would continue and accelerate as the percentage of EVs in the mix rises.  Over the first 10 years, the cut in emissions would come from hybrids, over the next 10 from a further step-by-step switch to EVs.

The world must, at a minimum, target a 3% per annum cut in total emissions if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe.  By being less purist about HEVs relative to EVs, we can rapidly reduce emissions from cars (and implicitly, lorries and busses) starting now.  Almost all manufacturers have one or other kind of hybrid in their line-up.  And they have them now.  The transition would be simple and easy.  And from 2026 onwards, we could take the next step: going for 100% electric.

Two reviews of the Ioniq:


Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid 2019 review

Hyundai Ioniq 2020 review: Plug-in Hybrid Premium

—————

* or rather 1 point for an HEV, 2 points for a PHEV and 4 points for an EV, which implies that the effective EV target is lower than the stated one.

Zero carbon by 2050

If we want to stop catastrophic climate change and global heating, we need to cut emissions of CO2 and methane to zero by 2050.  Let's split those 30 years up into decades, aiming to cut emissions by 1/3rd of the 2019 level each decade.

2020-2030

This will be the decade where we have to close down as many coal power stations as we can.  The good news is that in most countries, wind or solar or both are now cheaper than (new) coal.  In developed countries, most coal power stations are old, and will soon have to be retired.  When they are, they will be replaced by wind and solar.  Even with 10 hours of storage, wind and solar are the cheapest power source in the USA, except for existing coal power stations which have been fully depreciated and have had their debt paid off.  But of course, they are precisely the power stations which will need to be retired over the next decade.

Even in China, where coal is cheap, large-scale solar will this year reach grid parity, meaning it can compete with the wholesale price of electricity, which is determined by China's massive coal fleet.  China produces 35% or world CO2 emissions, and is the largest consumer of coal.   A change here will be very important for world emissions and the global climate.

So the target is that by 2030, the number of coal power stations still operating will be small.  They'll simply be too costly to keep going.  This is much faster then even the relatively optimistic BNEF forecasts (they forecast just 25% from renewables by 2030).  Nevertheless, the cost curves as well as the increasing global panic about catastrophic climate change suggest this will be likely.

During this decade, we should also try to switch heating from gas/oil to electric, and we will start the switch to electric transport.  Of which more below.   Electricity and heat production contributes 25% of global CO2 emissions, so we'll need to find more areas to cut emissions by 1/3rd by 2030.

2030-2040

This will be the decade where we electrify transport.  Battery costs are falling by 20% compound per annum.  This means that we should cross the $100/kWh battery pack cost line by 2023, which will mean that the "sticker price" of EVs will be comparable to ICEVs.  Already, in China and India (where it is very important that the growth in demand for personal transport isn't satisfied by petrol cars) small, cheap EVs are available.   Once again, the twin pincers of public anxiety about climate change and the plunging cost of EVs will rapidly squeeze fossil fuels out of the market. Assuming EVs reach 100% of new car sales by 2030, then by 2040, almost all the emissions from road transport will have stopped, assuming a 10 year vehicle life, which is lower than what it is now, but government will likely want to accelerate the transition by banning polluting cars and lorries from town centres as well as buying back aging fossil fuel clunkers.

In developed countries, these emissions are about 1/3rd of total emissions.  In developing countries, they make up a smaller proportion on average, though the percentages vary widely.  But demand for cars is growing fast in developing countries, so a transition to EVs will prevent big rises in emissions from this sector.

It will also be the decade when we make cement production and iron & steel carbon-neutral.  We have the technologies to do this now, but these processes are still more expensive than making them the old way.  Expect carbon taxes or regulations, to force a shift.

Battery technology may well have advanced far enough that we will be able to fly long distance without using jetfuel.  Or we will have shifted to carbon-friendly jetfuel.  Or we'll be flying long distance by SpaceX's suborbital shuttle, fuelled by green methane, and short distance by electric planes.  Once again, carbon taxes will help shift air travel towards zero-carbon alternatives. 

Emissions from transport and industry (iron & steel, cement, chemicals, mostly) make up another third of global emissions.  By 2040, these will have stopped.  They'll have to.  Together with what will have been done in the 2020s, total emissions will have fallen by roughly 2/3rds, a compound rate of decline of 5.5% per annum.

2015.  Source: EPA

2040-2050

By 2040, emissions from electricity generation, transport, and industry will have fallen dramatically.  But there will remain some emissions, by far the most important being agriculture, land-use, land-clearing, etc.  There's no particular reason to wait until 2040 to deal with these.  We could start transitioning now.  After all, we have alternatives to meat.  And perhaps by 2030 or so, most ppl will be terrified enough of climate change to change their personal lifestyles.  But change here will be hard.  With electricity generation, the future is already happening now.  Renewables are simply cheaper.   With EVs that will soon be the case.  But with meat, we're asking people to change life-long habits.  It'll have to be done, it's just that politicians will postpone action as long as they can get away with it.  Once again, a carbon tax would help the shift.   If you think that the outrage generated by trying to get our economy to switch to green electricity was over the top, wait till you tell people they must eat less meat.  Yet, I have hope.  Synthetic meats are taking off.  Vegetarianism and veganism are rising trends.   And if meat substitutes taste just like the real thing but don't inflict dreadful cruelty on animals and have a huge negative effect on the environment, then why not?

2020-2050

In each decade, the necessary year-on-year percentage decline will increase, even though as a percent of the starting point, the decadal declines will be roughly the same.   If we cut emissions 1/3rd by 2030, then we have to cut emissions by 1/2 from 2030 to 2040.  And from 2040 to 2050 by 100%.  These seem to be large percentages, but they will only look like that because of previous successes.

Many of the shifts will begin before the decade I've selected for each of them, though I expect my selected decade will be when they reach their culmination.  If the transitions are sped up, maybe we can reach near-zero emissions by 2040, if we move in all sectors.  And if we start massive re-afforestation we might achieve negative emissions, and will for the first time in the last 200 years see falling atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.  We must surely hope so.

The Titanic moment--beyond the point of no return

‘Knowing how long societies have to react to pull the brake on the Earth’s climate and then how long it will take for the ship to slow down is the difference between a climate emergency and a manageable problem.’ Photograph: Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

A fascinating article from the Guardian.

Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control’

When is an emergency really an emergency?

If you’re the captain of the Titanic, approaching a giant iceberg with the potential to sink your ship becomes an emergency only when you realise you might not have enough time to steer a safe course.

And so it is, says Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, when it comes to the climate emergency.

Knowing how long societies have to react to pull the brake on the Earth’s climate and then how long it will take for the ship to slow down is the difference between a climate emergency and a manageable problem.

Rather than being something abstract and open to interpretation, Schellnhuber says the climate emergency is something with clear and calculable risks that you could put into a formula. And so he wrote one:

Emergency = R × U 
R= p × D   
U = τ / T

Risk (R) = probability (p) ×  damage  (D)
Urgency (U) = reaction time (τ) /   time left to avoid a bad outcome  (T)

This is a fascinating way to look at it.  

Over the last 30 or 40 years, the perception of p and D has risen dramatically, while T has fallen sharply.  It seemed logical to many in 1970 to argue that the damage (D) from climate change would likely be low, and the thesis that CO2 would raise global temperatures, while interesting, was still untested.  It was also thought that we had lots of time (T) .  It seemed to politicians and the public that action wasn't urgent.  Now we know, as a fact, that global warming is happening, and that it's caused by rising levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and they are caused by us.  And the negative consequences of global warming are happening faster than was thought even just 10 years ago.  R has risen sharply and so has U.  And τ looks as if it is longer than we might have thought.  Getting individual countries to act is taking too long.  Denialists, either funded by fossil fuel interests, or useful idiots, continue to lie about climate change. 

The article continues:

In a comment article in the journal Nature, Schellnhuber and colleagues explained that to understand the climate emergency we needed to quantify the relationship between risk (R) and urgency (U).

Borrowing from the insurance industry, the scientists define risk (R) as the probability of something happening (p) multiplied by damage (D).

For example, how likely is it that sea levels will rise by a metre and how much damage will that cause.

Urgency (U) is the time it takes you to react to an issue (τ) “divided by the intervention time left to avoid a bad outcome (T)”, they wrote.

Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, tells Guardian Australia the work on the formula was just the “tip of a mathematical iceberg” in defining the climate emergency.

“It can be illustrated by the Titanic disaster, but it applies to many severe risks where you can calculate the do-nothing/business-as-usual probability of a highly damaging event,” he says. “Yet there are options to avoid the disaster.

“In other words, this a control problem.”

There is a time lag between the rapid cuts to greenhouse gases and the climate system reacting. Knowing if you have enough time tells you if you’re in an emergency or not.

Schellnhuber used “standard risk analysis and control theory” to come up with the formula, and he was already putting numbers to it.

“As a matter of fact, the intervention time left for limiting global warming to less than 2C is about 30 [years] at best. The reaction time – time needed for full global decarbonisation - is at least 20 [years].”

As the scientists write in Nature, if the “reaction time is longer than the intervention time left” then “we have lost control”.

Schellnhuber says: “Beyond that critical point, only some sort of adaptation option is left, such as moving the Titanic passengers into rescue boats (if available).”

[Read more here]

So let's see what kind of cuts to emissions are needed.  Instead of zero carbon by 2050, let's say we must cut emissions by 90%, to 10% of what they are today, though obviously we will go on cutting emissions after 2050.  It's just that we need to get there by 2050 or the rise in global temperatures will exceed 2 degrees C. The 10% left will be offset by tree-planting (or any other workable de-carbonisation method.)  To achieve a 90% cut in emissions, we need to cut them by a compound 7.4% per annum.  Which will be very hard to do, i.e., τ is greater than T.  Which means we have lost control.  It's an emergency.  A Titanic moment.  The iceberg is up ahead and cretins and fools are still lying about it.

What if we settle on an 80% cut by 2050?  That will require a compound rate of decline of 5% per annum.  We might be able to offset the remaining 20% by tree-planting.  Maybe.

So at a bare minimum, we must cut emissions by a cumulative compound 5% per annum, preferably more, to avoid an emergency.  How?

1. No more coal power stations must be built anywhere, ever.  That means we must lean on China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa and other laggards to stop building coal power stations now.  In the "West", coal power stations are being shuttered, because they're old and getting near the end of their lives, and new coal power stations are too costly compared to renewables and gas.  The exception is Australia, where a government of more than usual stupidity wants to build a new coal power station with a government subsidy.  Just because it'll irritate the "greenies" and "leftists".
2. The big falls in European electricity generated by coal have come about because of the European carbon price, which is (finally!) biting hard.  The moral of that story is that we need a carbon price everywhere, and countries which have one should levy taxes on imports from countries which do not.  I have no doubt that (a) a carbon price won't impact growth (see Sweden and British Columbia and Australia, when we had a carbon price) and (b) will cut emissions drastically.  It could start at $20 a tonne of CO2, rising  by $3/tonne each year thereafter. The small (in absolute) terms rise in the European carbon price has had a significant impact on coal usage.  The proceeds of a carbon tax could be distributed to the people as a monthly "carbon dividend".  This will reduce political opposition.
3. After electricity generation, vehicle emissions are the next largest, and will likely mean that this year's total global emissions won't fall, even though coal-sourced emissions will fall by 3%.  (In the USA, vehicle emissions now exceed emissions from the power sector.)  EVs should get a subsidy of $5-$10K per car when you buy a new one, falling by $1000 each year, because battery costs are plunging and subsidies won't be needed in 5 or 10 years' time.  And the carbon tax should apply to petrol (gasoline) and diesel, to make the incentive to switch even stronger.
4. We need an end to fossil fuel subsidies.  A carbon price will start to offset indirect subsidies (the cost to society of air pollution and carbon emissions) but direct subsidies (cheap govt loans, tax exemptions, export subsidies, etc.) have to be eliminated. 

Those steps will be enough for the next 10 years.  Transitioning electricity generation to renewables and our vehicle fleet to electric engines will cut emissions by 50%.  A 50 % decline over the next 15 years (eminently feasible) would be a compound annual decline of 5%.  It's what we have to do if we are to cut τ to as short a period as possible.  But if, as each year goes by, we see that emissions are not falling by the required 5-7% per annum, we will need to tighten the screws so that they do, for example by raising the annual increment in the carbon price from $3 to $5.  And we need to start working now on iron & steel, cement production, air transport and agriculture, so that in 10 years we can start cutting their emissions drastically too. 

It is unquestionably very close to a climate emergency.  Unless we act now, τ will be greater than T which means we will have lost control.   But we can act.  We are rational, we are informed, we have the technologies to slash emissions,.  Whether we'll cut τ enough remains to be seen.  Only serious, concerted, determined global action by everybody will do.  Think of that when you cast your next vote, or choose your next electricity supplier, or choose whether to have meat or vegetarian for your next meal.  

Truly carbon-neutral aviation

I talked before about carbon-neutral jetfuel, and about electric planes, here and here.  There's no doubt we can reduce emissions from aviation dramatically.  The problem is that CO₂ isn't the only greenhouse gas produced by jets, and vapor trails are also thought to add to global heating.


From Clean Energy Wire:

Powering aeroplanes with renewable fuels is crucial for making flying less climate-damaging, but it will get aviation nowhere near climate neutrality, environmental NGOs, industry representatives and researchers agreed at a conference in Berlin. They said that making synthetic fuels with renewable power – so-called power-to-liquid – is a top priority for the rapidly growing sector and requires immediate government action to get the technology off the ground to reach industrial scale so it can have a real impact soon. But experts also warned that planes' CO2 output is only part of the problem, because their "non-CO2 effects" - such as condensation trails, particles and other greenhouse gases emitted at high altitudes – contribute even more to the climate crisis. This is why Germany's environment agency (UBA) has proposed a host of measures to make flying more environmentally friendly. However, it also suggested in a new study that flying longer distances will never be climate-neutral.

Urgent action is needed around the globe to reduce aviation's often underestimated climate impact if the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement are to be met, industry experts said at a conference held in Berlin.

However, a number of factors make it particularly difficult to get emissions in the sector down. Experts singled out strong growth rates – current projections assume passenger kilometres will grow world-wide almost five percent per year –, the severe climate effects unrelated to direct CO2 emissions and caused by condensation trails and many other factors, and the need for international agreements.

"Aviation is probably the most difficult sector on the way to reaching the targets of the Paris Agreement," said Jürgen Landgrebe, head of the climate division at Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA), which hosted the conference.

Conference participants were in broad agreement that synthetic fuels made with renewables are key for significantly reducing aviation's direct CO2 emissions. But they also warned that the technology, which is often referred to as "power-to-liquid" and does not yet exist on an industrial scale, is no silver bullet.

"A single solution simply does not exist," said environment minister Svenja Schulze. "We need a whole range of measures," she said with reference to taxes and other economic incentives to push the transition, emission reduction limits, quota for renewable fuels, and shifting to alternative modes of transport.

The measures mentioned by Schulze mirrored the recommendations of a new study published by the environment agency. It recommended raising existing taxes and introducing them for kerosene, replacing domestic flights with rail travel, and supporting climate-neutral fuels. At present, air traffic taxes only amount to one tenth of that levied on other modes of transport in Germany despite air traffic's status as the most climate-damaging mode of transport, the UBA said.

"We have to build up a market for power-to-liquid. But we can only provide the initial impetus, and won't be operating international production facilities," Schulze said, adding that building up an infrastructure for renewable fuels required international cooperation and treaties.

"I'm worried that we won't have enough renewable fuels," Schulze said, adding that huge demand was also expected from the chemical and steel industries, where no alternatives existed to reach CO2 neutrality.

Non-CO2 effects mean "there will never be a truly climate-neutral flight"Focusing on power-to-liquid also posed the risk of neglecting the very climate-damaging side-effects of flying, which are unrelated to CO2 emissions – such as condensation trails, particles and other greenhouse gases emitted at high altitudes, conference participants warned.

The UBA said these so-called "non-CO2 effects" likely harm the climate twice as much as direct CO2 emissions, according to most estimates. However, these are ignored by many industry lobby groups and the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), according to the UBA.

It also remains an open question how exactly to deal with these effects, according to industry experts.

"We still have no solutions for the non-CO2 effects," the UBA's Landgrebe said. In its study, the UBA said both aviation's direct CO2 emissions and the non-CO2 effects should be integrated into the European Emissions Trading System (ETS).

Atmospheric scientist Robert Sausen from the German Aerospace Center (DLR) said it might be possible to halve aviation's non-CO2 effects on long-distance flights in the longer term. These effects depend strongly on weather conditions, altitude, time of flight, and countless other factors.

"There will never be a truly climate-neutral flight," Sausen said.

Source: Clean Energy Wire

As the energy intensity of batteries improves, electric planes will become more practical.  High speed rail, powered with green electricity, will be able to replace short- and medium-distance flights.  And long-distance flights by jets may well be replaced by SpaceX's point-to-point Starship flights, which can be fuelled by green methane, and which are in the atmosphere for only a few minutes, reducing vapour trail condensation compared to jet flights.   And yes, air flights should be subject to carbon charges.