Connect with us

Science & Environment

Burning household rubbish now UK’s dirtiest form of power, BBC finds

Published

on

Burning household rubbish now UK’s dirtiest form of power, BBC finds


BBC / Getty Images A composite image showing a mechanical claw hovering above a pile of rubbish and a waste incinerator plant, all on a background suggesting yellow flames.BBC / Getty Images

Burning household rubbish in giant incinerators to make electricity is now the dirtiest way the UK generates power, BBC analysis has found.

Nearly half of the rubbish produced in UK homes, including increasing amounts of plastic, is now being incinerated. Scientists warn it is a “disaster for the climate” – and some are calling for a ban on new incinerators.

The BBC examined five years of data from across the country, and found that burning waste produces the same amount of greenhouse gases for each unit of energy as coal power, which was abandoned by the UK last month.

The Environmental Services Association, which represents waste firms, contested our findings and said emissions from dealing with waste are “challenging to avoid”.

Advertisement

Nearly 15 years ago, the government became seriously concerned with the gases being produced from throwing away household rubbish in landfill and their contribution to climate change. In response, it hiked the taxes UK councils paid for burying waste.

Facing massive bills, councils turned to energy-from-waste plants – a type of incinerator that produces electricity from burning rubbish. The number of incinerators surged – in the past five years the number in England alone has risen from 38 to 52.

These incinerators were described by the waste disposal industry as a green alternative to landfill.

Advertisement

This is certainly the case for food waste, which produces less harmful greenhouse gases when burned, but it is not the case for plastic waste. Plastic is made of fossil fuels and burning it, rather than burying it in landfill, produces high levels of greenhouse gases.

In the past few years, more plastic has been going to incinerators and less food waste – which councils are now sending to anaerobic digesters or to be composted. But the government’s own calculations continue to assume that we send the same mix of rubbish as we did back in 2017 – potentially underestimating the scale of the issue.

The BBC’s five-year analysis used data on actual pollution levels recorded by operators at their incinerators, and found that energy-from-waste plants are now producing the same amount of greenhouse gases per unit of electricity as if they were burning coal.

Graph showing the CO2 per unit of electricity for different types of power generation, with coal and waste incineration the highest at over 700 gCO2e/kWh, gas at about half that amount, and renewables and nuclear with very low emissions

For the past three decades, the UK has been reducing its use of coal because of how polluting it is – and last month closed its last coal plant. The government hopes this will help it achieve its target of ensuring electricity generation produces no carbon emissions by 2030.

This now leaves waste incineration as the dirtiest way the UK produces power. According to the BBC analysis, energy produced from waste is five times more polluting than the average UK unit of electricity.

Advertisement

About 3.1% of the UK’s energy comes from waste incinerators – but the government’s independent advisory group, the UK Climate Change Committee, warns that incineration will make up an increasing part of emissions from electricity generation.

It’s an “insane situation”, said Dr Ian Williams, professor of applied environmental science at the University of Southampton.

“The current practice of the burning of waste for energy and building more and more incinerators for this purpose is at odds with our desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

“Increasing its use is disastrous for our climate.”

Advertisement
Getty Images A mechanical claw collecting waste for incineration at a Veolia plant in south LondonGetty Images

Nearly half the UK’s household waste now goes to incinerators

Lord Deben, the Conservative environment minister who introduced the landfill tax in 1996, told the BBC: “We’ve got too many [incinerators], and we shouldn’t have any more… they begin to distort our ability to recycle.”

And yet, incinerators are still being built in England. The UK government approved a new £150m site in Dorset last month, overturning the local council’s decision to block it.

Dorset Council leader Nick Ireland told the BBC at the time that it “kneecaps” the county’s efforts to achieve their “net zero” target – the goal of no longer adding to carbon emissions by 2050.

In the past few years, Wales and Scotland have introduced bans on new incinerator plants over environmental concerns, and there have been increasing calls from leading academics and environmental groups for the same to happen in England and Northern Ireland.

Advertisement

These include the UK Climate Change Committee, which has recommended that no more plants be built without efforts to capture all their carbon emissions.

There are currently only four out of 58 incinerators in the UK with approved plans to capture their emissions and one pilot project that is operating. This project at Ferrybridge EfW collects one tonne of carbon dioxide annually – but the site produces more than half a million tonnes of CO2.

Incinerators getting dirtier and bigger

Without action, it is expected that the use of incinerators in the UK will continue to grow and they will probably get more polluting.

Advertisement

There are currently dozens of new plants going through the planning process, and existing ones are growing in capacity. The BBC investigation found nearly half of all incinerators in the UK have managed to get a capacity increase approved by the Environment Agency without applying for a new permit – which requires public consultation.

The waste they are burning is increasingly made up of plastic, according to local government data. Because plastic is produced from fossil fuels, it is the dirtiest type of waste to burn.

According to the government’s own statistics, burning plastic produces 175 times more carbon dioxide (CO2) than burying it in landfill.

Prof Keith Bell, who sits on the UK Climate Change Committee, said after reviewing the BBC’s findings: “If the current government is serious about clean power by 2030 then… we cannot allow ourselves to be locked into just burning waste.”

Advertisement
Getty Images A view of waste being burned inside the Veolia incineration plant in south LondonGetty Images

Increasing amounts of plastic waste are making incineration more polluting

In April, a temporary ban on permits for new incinerators was introduced in England by the previous Conservative government, while it reviewed the role of burning waste, but when the ban lapsed in May it was not continued.

It appears that the current government has yet to decide its position on the issue.

In a letter last month, senior civil servants at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said they were unable to decide whether to approve a proposed incinerator in North Lincolnshire until the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had decided the government’s policy on burning waste for power.

Considering the Dorset incinerator was approved by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, this letter raises questions about the consistency of the government’s approach on this issue.

Advertisement

In response to a request for comment, a Defra spokesperson said: “We are considering the role waste incineration will play as we decarbonise and grow the economy.”

Councils ‘locked in’ to burning waste

The challenge is that even if local authorities wanted to move away from the use of energy-from-waste plants they are often unable to due to restrictive, long-term contracts.

The BBC made Freedom of Information requests to every UK local authority responsible for disposing of waste, which revealed that they have at least £30bn-worth of contracts with waste operators involving incinerators, some lasting more than 20 years.

Advertisement

These arrangements have been criticised by the House of Commons public accounts committee for locking councils into financially burdensome arrangements.

Dr Colin Church, who led an independent review of incineration for the Scottish government which resulted in the ban, said: “‘Lock-in’ is a real issue, the energy-from-waste sector swears blind it’s not, but it is.”

In 2019, Derbyshire County Council and Derby City Council terminated their contract with waste company RRS because an incinerator it had built for them did not pass initial tests, with residents complaining about the smell and noise.

Although the plant had never been used, the councils were were ordered to pay £93.5m in compensation to RRS’s administrators for terminating the contract early.

Advertisement

The BBC also found that dozens of councils had clauses in their contracts which demand a minimum amount of waste to be sent to incinerators for burning – known in the industry as “deliver or pay”.

In 2010, Stoke-on-Trent Council was left facing a £329,000 claim from Hanford Waste Services for not sending enough waste to be incinerated.

The council declined to say if it paid the claim but told us the clause has since been removed from its contracts with the operator.

BBC / Jon Parker Lee The waste incinerator at Runcorn, seen at the end of a street with houses on either sideBBC / Jon Parker Lee

Local authorities have more than £30bn of contracts involving incinerators, some lasting more than 20 years

But the Local Government Association (LGA) – representing local authorities in England and Wales – expressed concerns to the BBC that these contracts have left councils unable to explore the use of more environmental solutions, such as recycling, for fear of a fine for breach of contract.

Advertisement

Joe Harris, vice chair of the LGA and leader of Cotswold District Council, said: “If we can adapt those contracts which allows us to reduce the amount of waste going to incineration and if we can boost recycling we want to do that, but we can’t have councils facing financial penalties.”

For the past 10 years recycling rates have failed to increase, remaining stuck at about 41% in England – despite a previous commitment by the previous Conservative government for 65% of the UK’s household waste to be recycled by 2035. Wales is the only nation to have hit the 65% target.

But the Environmental Services Association, the waste industry body, said burning rubbish for energy has been “complementary to efforts to recycle more” over the past decade and that “stagnant recycling rates are only indicative of a failure to develop recycling policies”.

A Defra spokesperson told the BBC: “We are committed to cutting waste and moving to a circular economy so that we re-use, reduce and recycle more resources and help meet our emissions targets.”

Advertisement

How we calculated the emissions

In order to calculate the emissions produced per unit of energy from England’s incinerators, the BBC needed to obtain the emissions produced and the power output from these sites.

Each incinerator in the UK produces annual monitoring reports, which record key statistics associated with the plant including its total emissions.

But in a few cases the emissions were not recorded in the annual monitoring report and so the figures recorded in the government’s pollution inventory report were used.

Advertisement

The IPCC, the UN climate science body, recommends that “biogenic” emissions – which come from burning organic matter like food – are not included in calculations because they are recorded under the emissions for the land and forestry sector.

So we had to remove these biogenic emissions from the total by working out what share of the waste being burned was organic.

Some operators recorded this, but in the cases where they did not the government guidelines advise applying a factor based on the share of household waste that was recorded as biogenic during a 2017 survey by the environmental NGO WRAP.

This gave the BBC the total fossil emissions – meaning those associated with burning the “fossil” waste (or non-organic waste) at the site, including plastic.

Advertisement

Then we calculated a carbon intensity figure – the carbon emissions per unit of energy generated – for every site, by dividing the total fossil emissions by the energy generated.

Methodological support was provided by Francesco Pomponi, professor of sustainability science at Edinburgh Napier University; Massimiliano Materazzi, associate professor of chemical engineering at University College London; and Dr Jim Hart, sustainability consultant.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Science & Environment

Trump crypto project World Liberty Financial set to open to investors

Published

on

Trump crypto project World Liberty Financial set to open to investors


Collect Trump Cards

Source: Collecttrumpcards.com

Advertisement

With shares of his nascent social media business in the midst of a sharp rebound and with just three weeks until the presidential election, Donald Trump is bringing his latest proposed money-making endeavor to market, this time in crypto.

On Tuesday, the former president and current Republican nominee aims to launch WLFI, the token accompanying his new crypto project called World Liberty Financial. Over the weekend, Trump pumped the sale in a post on X, telling his followers that it’s a “chance to help shape the future of finance.”

Prospective investors can be forgiven for having little idea about what they’re being asked to support.

People involved with WLF have described it as a sort of crypto bank, where customers will be encouraged to borrow, lend and invest in crypto. No official white paper or formal business plan has been released to the public, and about all that’s been disclosed is that investing in the project will give users voting rights over the yet-to-be-launched WLF platform.

Advertisement

In a roadmap given to prospective investors that was first viewed by The Block, the WLF proposal says the coin is looking to raise $300 million at a $1.5 billion valuation in its initial sale. CNBC reached out to WLF for comment but didn’t hear back.

World Liberty Financial is separate and apart from Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of social media platform Truth Social. Trump Media, known by ticker symbol DJT, started trading in March, after going public through a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). It’s been a rocky road for the stock, which peaked at close to $80 in late March, before falling all the way down to $12.15 last month.

But since bottoming on Sept. 23, DJT shares are up close to 150% at $29.95, giving the company a market cap of $6 billion. That’s on revenue of less than $1 million a quarter and after the company lost more than $16 million in the latest period.

The Nasdaq Market site is seen on the day that shares of Truth Social and Trump Media & Technology Group start trading under the ticker “DJT”, in New York City, U.S., March 26, 2024.

Advertisement

Shannon Stapleton | Reuters

While DJT shares can be purchased by anyone, the digital coin WLFI will be a Regulation D token offering, following a provision that makes it possible to raise capital without first registering a security with the SEC. Certain conditions must be met, such as limiting the size of the sale and restricting it to accredited investors, defined in part as having a net worth of over $1 million.

Trump owns about 57% of DJT’s outstanding shares, but his potential control over World Liberty Financial is more opaque. WLF’s website, which is currently a landing page to register for know-your-customer verification to buy the coin, includes some of the fine print that indicates the financial incentive for the founders.

Co-founder Zachary Folkman, who previously had a company called Date Hotter Girls and reportedly helped develop crypto project Dough Finance, has said that 20% of WLF’s tokens would be allotted to the founding team, which includes the Trump family.

Advertisement

And there appears to be another way they can make money.

“DT Marks DEFI, LLC and its affiliates including Donald J. Trump and his family members has or may receive tokens from World Liberty Financial, and will be entitled to receive significant fees for services provided to World Liberty Financial, which amount cannot yet be determined,” the website says.

On Monday, less than 24 hours before the planned token launch, the WLF team convened a conversation on X Spaces to share details of the sale. About 12,000 people tuned in to listen to the more than hourlong chat about the overarching goals of the project.

Advertisement

Folkman reiterated what he said in a prior Spaces event, telling attendees that WLFI is a governance token that allows holders to vote on decisions regarding the protocol, including initiatives like promotional partnerships. He said token ownership “isn’t equity” and “doesn’t represent economic right.”

Folkman said the token sale will exclusively take place on World Liberty’s website, and that only those who had been whitelisted after signing up will be able to participate. He said “well over 100,000 people” are on the whitelist and that it’s not too late to register. Folkman added that WLF would publish the “long-awaited” roadmap for the project on Tuesday, in tandem with the token sale.

Last week, WLF began the process of getting its crypto bank approved by the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem known as Aave.

Aave is open source and, in DeFi, is one of the longest-running and most-trusted crypto lending platforms.

Advertisement

“The protocol itself is permissionless, so I’m kind of less opinionated about integrations, because that’s the whole idea of decentralized finance,” Aave founder Stani Kulechov told CNBC in an interview at the Permissionless Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Kulechov joined Monday’s X event and said he’s “excited that WLF is using and relying on” Aave.

‘”That’s a strong signal that what we build is fairly useful, so we’re super excited,” he said.

In a 400-word post to Aave’s governance forum, the WLF team presented a brief outline of its objectives, which include promoting “DeFi to a wider audience through its marketing efforts,” and introducing “a new class of users to over-collateralized borrowing and lending.” The proposal is currently at the preliminary stage of consideration known as “Temp Check,” and Aave’s users are able to comment on the plan.

Advertisement

In the comments section, a number of users raised concern over the project’s deep ties to the Trump family.

How Trump was ‘orange-pilled’ by three bitcoiners in Puerto Rico

“I believe this proposal poses significant risk to the Aave protocol for little gain,” according to one comment that’s since been deleted. The commenter then questioned the rationale of having “the largest and most trusted protocol in DeFi” working with a group led “by people of questionable backgrounds … including several convicted criminals.”

Folkman helped start WLF with long-time business partner Chase Herro. CoinDesk reported that the pair previously worked on Dough Finance, which was also built on top of Aave and suffered a $2 million hack in July. Herro also launched another crypto trading business a decade ago called Pacer Capital, which appears to now be defunct.

For World Liberty to proceed, it must pass multiple rounds of consideration and approval, each decided by a vote among existing AAVE token holders.

At this stage in the process, the token sale is akin to an IOU. Those who buy in now have a claim to the token if and when the platform is approved and launched.

Advertisement

WATCH: Crypto warms to Kamala Harris

Crypto donors warm up to Kamala Harris



Source link

Continue Reading

Science & Environment

Google inks deal with nuclear company as data center power demand surges

Published

on

Google inks deal with nuclear company as data center power demand surges


People take photos in front of a giant Google logo at Google’s Bay View campus in Mountain View, California on Aug 13, 2024 where the “Made by Google” media event was held today.

Josh Edelson | AFP | Getty Images

Advertisement

Google said Monday that it will purchase power from small modular reactor developer Kairos Power, as tech companies increasingly turn to nuclear power as a way to fulfill the growing energy demands from data centers.

The tech giant said it will purchase power from a fleet of SMRs made by Kairos Power. Google said purchasing from multiple SMRs sends an “important demand signal to the market,” while at the same time making a long-term investment to accelerate commercialization.

“We believe that nuclear energy has a critical role to play in supporting our clean growth and helping to deliver on the progress of AI,” Michael Terrell, senior director for energy and climate at Google, said on a call with reporters. “The grid needs these kinds of clean, reliable sources of energy that can support the build out of these technologies. … We feel like nuclear can play an important role in helping to meet our demand, and helping meet our demand cleanly, in a way that’s more around the clock.”

The company did not disclose the financial terms of the deal.

Advertisement

There are only three SMRs that are operating in the world, and none in the U.S. The hope is that SMRs are a more cost-effective way to scale up nuclear power. In the past, large, commercial-scale nuclear reactor projects have run over budget and behind schedule, and many hope SMRs won’t suffer that same fate. But it is uncharted territory to some extent.

Kairos Power, which is backed by the Department of Energy, was founded in 2016. In July, the company began construction on its Hermes Low-Power Demonstration Reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Rather than use water as the reactor coolant – as is used in traditional nuclear reactors – Kairos Power uses molten fluoride salt. 

Google said the first reactor will be online by 2030, with more reactors going live through 2035. In total, 500 megawatts will be added to the grid. That’s much smaller than commercial reactors — Unit 4 at Plant Vogtle, which came online this year, is 1.1 gigawatts, for example — but there’s a lot of momentum behind SMRs. Advocates point to lower costs, faster completion times, as well as location flexibility as reasons.

Monday’s announcement is another example of the growing partnership between tech companies and nuclear power. Data centers need 24/7 reliable power, and right now nuclear is the only source of emissions-free baseload power. Many hyperscalers have ambitious emissions-reduction targets, which is why they’re turning to nuclear power.

Advertisement

Constellation Energy is restarting Three Mile Island to power Microsoft data centers, while Amazon bought a data center from Talen Energy that’s powered by the Susquehanna nuclear power plant. Bill Gates, Sam Altman and Jeff Bezos have all backed nuclear companies.

Earlier this year, Google said its emissions have grown nearly 50% relative to 2019 thanks in part to an increase in data center power consumption. 

“It is an incredibly promising bet, and one that, you know, if we can get these projects to scale and then scale globally, will deliver enormous benefits to communities and power grids around the world,” Terrell added.

Don’t miss these energy insights from CNBC PRO:



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science & Environment

Russian oil trade rises with record volumes of ‘dark fleet’ crude

Published

on

Russian oil trade rises with record volumes of 'dark fleet' crude


A Russian-chartered oil tanker in the sea off Morocco in an area identified by maritime technology company Windward as a hub for smuggling oil.

Europa Press | Getty Images

Advertisement

Recent data shows the discount on Russian oil narrowing and exports increasing despite the G-7 price cap on Russian petroleum exports and U.S. sanctions.

According to Clearview Energy Partners, Russian crude prices over the last four weeks have averaged about six cents below the Brent crude price. That is far off the trading discount when the cap was first put in place. When the cap was fully phased in, in February 2023, Russian crude was selling at a 30% discount. A year ago, the discount was about 16%.

Ukraine allies, including the U.S., have banned the import of Russian crude, while a price cap imposed on Russian oil by the G7 countries, the European Union and Australia bans the use of Western maritime services such as insurance, flagging and transportation when tankers carry Russian oil priced at or above $60 a barrel to nations where a ban is not enforced.

In a recent report to clients, Clearview Energy Partners characterized the G-7 price cap on Russian petroleum exports to third countries as “increasingly loose.”

Advertisement

Kevin Book, managing director of research at Clearview Energy Partners, told CNBC that despite the G-7’s June and September calls for improving the price cap, and recent guidance urging parties to Russian petroleum transactions to better scrutinize cargoes, “a U.S. pinch on Russian petroleum seems unlikely until after the election.”

“A cap enforcement crackdown runs the risk of driving up crude prices,” he said. “Plus, using ‘secondary’ sanctions to enforce the cap could push reputable insurers out of the Russian crude game entirely, leaving the market to potentially insolvent stand-ins.”

Book explained that part of the narrowing of the discount is a result of Russian oil finding additional buyers, including India and China.

Record volumes of sanctioned Russian oil were carried by the “dark fleet” and known sanctioned tankers without known insurance over September, according to a recent report from Lloyd’s List.

Advertisement

The Lloyd’s List Intelligence unit analysis of data from energy cargo tracking firm Vortexa revealed that 69% of all crude shipped in September was carried on dark fleet tankers and 18% was carried on tankers owned by Russian government-controlled Sovcomflot. It is the most volume moved since tracking of the monthly dark fleet data began in mid-2022 (measured by deadweight capacity of vessels.) In May, 54% was recorded, the previous high.

Chinese and Indian oil traders, refiners, and port authorities were the drivers of this growth.

Lloyd’s List determines if a tanker is part of the dark fleet based on factors including if the ship is 15 years or older, is anonymously owned or has a corporate structure designed to conceal ownership, is handling sanctioned oil trade, and is using deceptive shipping practices. Its analysis showed a flurry of flag-hopping, where a vessel changes its country registration, as well as ownership and management changes amongst the vessels in the dark fleet to avoid detection.

The dark fleet data does not include Russia’s Sovcomflot or Iran’s National Iranian Tanker Co.

Advertisement

Its data revealed that 5% of all Russian oil in September was transported by 11 tankers, with nine of those vessels sanctioned by the UK or EU between July and September and owned by the Russian government-controlled tanker company Sovcomflot. The remaining vessels were sanctioned by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control for breaching sanctions on Syrian and Iranian oil. Those vessels are the Eternal Peace and Nebulax.

Some of the Sovcomflot tankers that Lloyd’s List identified in its report were sanctioned by the UK or EU between July and September. Some tankers changed vessel names, reflagged the vessel’s origin to Barbados, or redomiciled registered ownership to Seychelles and changed their ship management to a newly incorporated UAE-based ship manager, Avebury Shipmanagement.

Greece-owned tankers have shipped 23% of oil from Russia in September, consistently over the last three months, according to Lloyd’s List. The majority of the UK- and EU-sanctioned tankers have already discharged their oil in China.

Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, said despite the price cap, some ship owners have decided that it was extremely profitable to have their vessels become part of the dark fleet and risk United States and EU sanctions.

Advertisement

“After all, Russian oil continues to be purchased by Chinese and Indian refiners with little repercussions from the U.S. or EU,” said Lipow.

A Treasury spokesperson told CNBC, “Two years since the price cap was implemented, it is unsurprising that Putin is still sinking money into building and maintaining a shadow fleet to escape the Coalition’s sanctions: that evasion costs the Kremlin, and diverts money that would otherwise be going to the battlefield. The Price Cap Coalition continues to engage with industry to ensure compliance with the price cap and to increase Putin’s costs of going outside it.”

The number of uninsured vessels carrying sanctioned oil also increased, according to Lloyd’s List, with some 201 of the 310 tankers tracked not having insurance with the 12 clubs that form the International Group of P&I Clubs. That represented 68% of the vessels when measured by deadweight, and the lowest number of tankers tracked with IG club insurance, surpassing 67% uninsured recorded in July and August.

Lipow said the oil market is pricing in a greater probability of a war between Iran and Israel that could impact supply.

Advertisement

“The biggest risk to the oil market is the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, and while unlikely, if it were to happen, oil prices would rise $30 per barrel,” he said. Despite the hostilities, oil prices remain under pressure, he said, as increased production from the U.S., Canada and Guyana adds to the supply picture while OPEC+ delays the restoration of its production cuts.

The increased use of dark fleet vessels comes with greater maritime safety and environmental risks.

Lloyd’s List warned in a recent note that shipping safety has become a “casualty of economic sanctions” with attempts to enhance sanctions policy leading to greater ranks of tankers determined to evade it.

Insurance giant Allianz said in May that dark fleet tankers had been linked to more than 50 accidents.

Advertisement

Lipow told CNBC if these vessels were to be involved in an accident that resulted in an oil spill, the owners — assuming they could be identified and found — would simply walk away, leaving the mess and subsequently the cleanup for someone else to do.

Sanctions are a limited tool unless you want to harm your own economy, says 'Punishing Putin' author



Source link

Continue Reading

Science & Environment

WTI, Brent fall after China press briefing

Published

on

WTI, Brent fall after China press briefing


China driving oil markets in a 'different way' this year: S&P Global

Crude oil futures fell more than 2% on Monday after a press briefing by China’s finance minister disappointed the market.

Traders have been banking on more robust stimulus in China to boost the world’s second-largest economy. Soft demand in the world’s largest crude importer has weighed on the market for months.

“China’s monetary stimulus measures failed to stimulate and the weekend’s pledge from the finance ministry to borrow more was long on cliches and phrases but short on reassuring and convincing details,” Tamas Varga, analyst at oil broker PVM, told clients in a note.

Advertisement

Here are Monday’s energy prices:

  • West Texas Intermediate November contract: $73.93 per barrel, down $1.63, or 2.16%. Year to date, U.S. crude oil has gained about 3%.
  • Brent December contract: $77.44 per barrel, down $1.60, or 2.02%. Year to date, the global benchmark is little changed.
  • RBOB Gasoline November contract: $2.1044 per gallon, down 2.19%. Year to date, gasoline is little changed.
  • Natural Gas November contract: $2.572 per thousand cubic feet, down 2.28%. Year to date, gas is ahead more than 2%.

The market, meanwhile, continues to monitor the Middle East in anticipation of a retaliatory strike by Israel against Iran. U.S. officials told NBC News that Israel has narrowed down the targets it plans to hit. These include military and energy infrastructure, the officials told NBC.

Don’t miss these energy insights from CNBC PRO:



Source link

Continue Reading

Science & Environment

The first U.S. commercial-scale offshore wind project

Published

on

The first U.S. commercial-scale offshore wind project


GREENPORT, N.Y. – Roughly 35 miles off the east coast of Montauk, New York, 12 turbines gently spin in the wind at Orsted’s newly developed South Fork Wind farm. The project, which connected to the grid earlier this year, is the first commercial-scale offshore wind farm in the U.S., providing enough power for 70,000 homes annually.

It’s a needed bright spot for the U.S. offshore wind industry, which has faced a number of challenges getting off the ground. Rising interest rates and supply chain snags have changed project economics, forcing some developers to return to the market in search of higher contracted prices. Other projects have been canceled entirely.

Advertisement

Soren Lassen, head of offshore wind research at Wood Mackenzie, said the U.S. offshore wind industry is going through a needed readjustment, and that while the long-term outlook remains intact, progress has been pushed out. South Fork Wind offers tangible evidence that wind projects can work.

A long-term investment

Traveling by way of a high-speed ferry from Greenport, New York, it takes about two hours to get to South Fork Wind. It’s hard to get a sense of just how large these turbines are until you’re right under one: they tower 460 feet above the water, with blades that are each longer than a football field. And that’s just what the eye can see. Underwater, each tower sits atop a custom foundation drilled into the seabed. Apart from the gentle “swoosh” of the blades – only audible when right next to the turbine – the wind farm is otherwise quiet in the middle of the ocean.

South Fork Wind’s substation, which is connected to the power grid in East Hampton via a subsea and then underground cable.

Pippa Stevens | CNBC

Advertisement

Each turbine is connected to an offshore substation – the first of its kind built in the U.S. – which is connected to the local power grid in East Hampton, New York, via a 65-mile subsea and underground cable.

South Fork Wind was not without opposition. The waters off the Long Island coast have long been a place for recreational and commercial fisherman alike, some of whom opposed the project. Residents in Wainscott – the summer community where the cable comes ashore – also fought it. This led to Orsted adding extra space between each turbine so that the area remains open both to transit by pleasure and fishing boats, and the company buried the onshore cable beneath the beach and local roads.

Denmark-based Orsted is not new to the area. The company developed the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm, which is northwest of South Fork Wind, in 2016. And northeast of South Fork Wind sits Revolution Wind – a 65-turbine project that Orsted broke ground on in 2023. In July, Orsted began construction on Sunrise Wind, which is also in federal waters off the New York coast.

Offshore wind projects are long-term investments, with work starting years before a single foundation is even drilled into the seabed. Securing the necessary permits is a lengthy process.

Advertisement

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management first awarded the leases for South Fork Wind in 2013, which where acquired by Deepwater Wind. Orsted acquired the company in 2018 and partnered with Eversource Energy to start building the project. Onshore construction began in February 2022, with offshore construction following in 2023. In September, Skyborn Renewables, a Global Infrastructure Partners portfolio company, acquired Eversource’s 50% stake in both South Fork Wind and Revolution Wind.  

South Fork Wind, which is 35 miles East of Montauk, New York.

Pippa Stevens | CNBC

Offshore wind developers typically use power purchase agreements, which are signed ahead of construction. Put simply, it’s a long-term agreement between the owner and a third party who agrees to pay a specific price for the power – oftentimes for 20 years or more. At South Fork Wind, the power is being sold to Long Island Power Authority.

Advertisement

While this model provides long-term certainty, it can also be a huge obstacle if project costs balloon. Orsted is developing Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind, but last year it walked away from Ocean Wind 1 and 2, which were slated to be built off the coast of Atlantic City, New Jersey.

“Macroeconomic factors have changed dramatically over a short period of time, with high inflation, rising interest rates, and supply chain bottlenecks impacting our long-term capital investments,” David Hardy, CEO Americas at Ørsted, said in October 2023. “As a result, we have no choice but to cease development of Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2.”

In May, Orsted agreed to pay New Jersey a $125 million settlement.

The financial problems are not unique to Orsted. Equinor and BP ended a joint venture to develop a project in waters off the coast of New York in January. Equinor took sole ownership of the project and re-entered the market in search of better prices – securing a deal for Empire Wind 1, but not for Empire Wind 2, which remains on pause.

Advertisement

High rates, supply chain struggles

The two main obstacles around building offshore wind farms are interest rates and the supply chain. Offshore wind is capital intensive: it takes a lot of money to build one of these projects in the middle of the sea, and as interest rates rose companies’ cost of capital surged. At the same time, raw material and labor costs accelerated out of the pandemic. It’s hard to begin construction without a PPA locked in, but if costs rise significantly above initial estimates, the PPA might not be high enough for the project to be feasible.

Each turbine at South Fork Wind rises 460 feet above the water.

Pippa Stevens | CNBC

‘Not disappearing’

Offshore wind port hubs are also popping up, including the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, the Port of Virginia and Connecticut’s Port of New London. Orsted’s domestic supply chain now spans more than 40 states, and work for South Fork Wind took place in New York, South Carolina, Texas, Rhode Island and Connecticut, among other states.

The U.S. Department of the Interior recently approved its tenth offshore wind project – this one in Maryland – in what it called a “major milestone.” But the Biden administration’s goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by the end of this decade remains far off.

South Fork Wind’s offshore substation is the first-of-its-kind built in the U.S.

Advertisement

Pippa Stevens | CNBC

Vineyard Wind, off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, Massachusetts, is the only other commercial-scale offshore wind project currently powering homes. Developer Avangrid had to pause construction over the summer after a blade broke off and fell into the ocean, with parts ultimately washing ashore on Nantucket beaches. GE Vernova, which made the blade, called it a “manufacturing deviation” related to “insufficient bonding” in the blade.

Two other projects – Block Island Wind Farm and Dominion’s two-turbine Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Pilot Project – are operational, although they are much smaller, powering 17,000 and 3,000 homes, respectively.

The U.S. does have 58 gigawatts of capacity under development, according to American Clean Power, but some of those projects won’t come online for years, and there is no guarantee all of them will be built. The industry group estimates that $65 billion will be invested in offshore wind by 2030, supporting 56,000 jobs – up from 1,000 today.

Advertisement

“There are cycles in everything, and now we’re going through a negative cycle,” said Wood Mackenzie’s Lassen, in an interview. “That means that what is now driving the adjustments to price are, instead of success, failures.”

But Lassen is encouraged projects are pushing forward.

“The positive thing is that then there is some readjustment,” he said. “That means the sector is not disappearing. It’s bouncing back, but it is different.”

Orsted’s Block Island Wind Farm. The turbines are supported by jacket foundations, rather than the monopiles used at South Fork Wind.

Advertisement

Pippa Stevens | CNBC

Don’t miss these energy insights from CNBC PRO:



Source link

Continue Reading

Science & Environment

Protecting whales from ship strikes

Published

on

Protecting whales from ship strikes


Protecting whales from ship strikes – CBS News

Watch CBS News

Advertisement



Endangered whale species (like blue whales, humpbacks, and fin whales) face a major threat on the high seas: cruise and container ships that have difficulty avoiding collisions with whales. Correspondent David Pogue talks with a marine ecologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, whose fleet of autonomous vehicles helps track whales in shipping lanes; and finds out how container ships may be able to reduce striking whales.

Advertisement

Be the first to know

Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.




Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com