Engineering professionals are experienced in energy system calculations, ROI economic calculations, determining skilled worker requirements for projects, and analysing scientific reports on climate changes.
Many articles appear in social media suggesting changes and transformation in our energy production and use, transportation infrastructure, and building design and construction to reduce the warming effect these systems are having on the planet. Techniques to reduce our carbon footprint are particularly important in the light of the recent “red alert” from the IPCC. How are we to decide on which of these many transformation and transition projects we should prioritize to achieve the greatest temperature reduction in the shortest period of time? The experts best able to plan and organize this massive effort are engineers. These professionals work with science, technology, skilled workers, and economics as daily components of their practice. “Following science” with “practical and economical” solutions is the path that requires engineering expertise. Some recent ideas from social media underline the large engineering role to achieve the benefits we need.
An article in The Economist explains why curbing methane emissions will help fight climate change. It is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and should be easier to control.
Carbon dioxide remains the heart of the climate problem. Exploring the possibilities, practicalities and dangers of solar geoengineering remains a good idea. But it is on methane emissions that progress can be made most quickly. And the world is getting ever hotter. Methane should be given priority on the agenda at the cop26 climate summit this November.1
Oliver Milman, writing in the National Observer, reports that ‘Blue’ hydrogen may pollute more than coal according to new research at Cornell University and Stanford University.
This means that the production of this hydrogen actually creates 20 per cent more greenhouse gases than coal, commonly regarded the most polluting fossil fuel, when being burned for heat, and 60 per cent more than burning diesel, according to the new paper, published in the Energy Science & Engineering journal. “It’s pretty striking, I was surprised at the results,” said Robert Howarth, a scientist at Cornell University who authored the paper alongside Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University researcher. “Blue hydrogen is a nice marketing term that the oil and gas industry is keen to push but it’s far from carbon free. I don’t think we should be spending our funds this way, on these sort of false solutions.”2
Blaine Brownell reports in Architect Magazine on designing an air conditioner that doesn't heat the earth thereby reducing the contribution of AC to the climate crisis.
For example, the engineers at Gradient, a San Francisco-based startup, want to revolutionize the window unit. Gradient’s founders aim to marry the high performance of heat pump technology with the installation convenience of a conventional window unit. The Gradient unit resembles a bench with two thick supports that you hang over a window sill. The clever design means the unit doesn't obstruct the view out the window and places the noisier components on the outside. The company claims a 75% reduction in carbon footprint compared to conventional A.C. systems when used year-round for cooling and heating. Furthermore, the device relies on a reduced-footprint refrigerant to generate more energy-efficient variable conditioning.3
The US Office of Nuclear Energy is suggesting three ways to make nuclear power plants faster and more affordable to build.
For advanced nuclear energy to realize its potential, we have to make it more affordable and scalable. Only then can it meaningfully contribute to our energy, security, and environmental imperatives. That’s why NRIC will be working with GE-Hitachi Nuclear (GEH) and other key stakeholders on the first project of the Advanced Construction Technology (ACT) initiative. The goal of this cost-shared public-private partnership is to help demonstrate several technologies that, when combined, could reduce the construction costs of building new reactors by more than 10% and significantly lower the scheduling risks and uncertainties associated with them.4
Zachary Shahan, reports on the CleanTechnica web site that carbon capture & storage (CCS) and hydrogen paradises are fossil fuel delay tactics.
The smoke screens of CCS and hydrogen create two big problems. First of all, they are money dumps, sucking up government funding that could be used for truly helpful improvements and solutions — faster deployment of solar power, wind power, and EV charging stations; procurement of electric vehicles for governmental fleets; greater incentives for consumers to install energy efficiency, renewable energy, or electric vehicle technologies. Secondly, both CCS and hydrogen hype tell people, “We don’t really have to change much. We can just capture the carbon and bury it. [No, it’s not that easy, and it’s also bloody expensive.] We can stick to a fuel-based transport system rather than switch to charging at home, work, and destination. [The latter is often actually more convenient, not less convenient, but don’t let that secret get out.]” The message with both is basically to not worry about anything, not do anything, and leave it to some obscure experts to solve all our problems for us in a few years. I can see why that’s tempting, but it is definitely misleading and counterproductive. Looking at it most cynically, the people who push so hard for CCS and hydrogen as our saviors could be specifically trying to delay the cleantech transition. Well, some of them no doubt are.5
The complexity of the claims by different sources about what is a priority in addressing the climate emergency is an opportunity for engineering analysis to plan a course of action that considers GHG effects, economics, skilled worker requirements, and relevance of scientific studies.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment