Climate change: Africa's green energy transition 'unlikely' this decade
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

Fossil fuels are set to remain the dominant source of electricity across Africa over the next decade, according to a new study.

Researchers found that around 2,500 power plants are planned, enough to double electricity production by 2030.

But the authors say that less than 10% of the new power generated will come from wind or solar.

The authors say that Africa now risks being locked into high carbon energy for decades.

They argue that a rapid, decarbonisation shock is needed to cancel many of the plants currently planned.

Until now, there has been a widely shared view that African countries would "leapfrog" directly to renewable energy sources, and away from old world coal, oil and gas....

Widely-shared view? By whom? Anyone with any sense could see the way this was going.

...But the new research indicates that this same sort of leap isn't likely to happen with green electricity over the next decade.

By 2030, the study suggests that coal, oil and gas will continue to dominate the generation of electricity across 54 African countries, with just 9.6% coming from renewable sources, excluding hydro power.

"We based our analysis on understanding the chances of the power plants that are currently being planned, being commissioned by the end of this decade," lead author Galina Alova from the University of Oxford told BBC News.

"In the next few years, we see that renewable energy power plants have, for example, lower success chances than gas and oil."

"We find that the success chances have been improving especially for solar, but for others like wind particularly, they're still quite modest."

The researchers used machine learning to analyse the factors behind the success or failure of previous power plants. They then applied this knowledge to the 2,500 projects in the pipeline.

One key element they concluded, is the size of the project. Bigger plants fail more often....

Link to the study, if interested, here

£3bn UK climate finance to be spent on supporting nature

The UK will spend at least £3bn of international climate finance on nature and biodiversity over five years, the Prime Minister has said.

Boris Johnson made the announcement in a virtual address to the One Planet Summit for biodiversity in Paris.

The PM said the investment was needed to protect nature, including marine life, forests and sustainable food production.

Prince Charles has also spoken at the event.

In his address, Mr Johnson said humanity is destroying species and habitats at "an absolutely unconscionable rate".

He said the £3bn, which forms part of the UK's £11.6bn contribution to a climate finance initiative, would go to "protecting nature, whether it's marine life or timber conservation or sustainable food production"....

I suppose the other £8.6Bn will be spent on schemes damaging nature....

Lowther Hills wind farm project rejected by government

A wind farm project described as "visually dominant and incongruous" by a council has been rejected by the Scottish government.

Developers scaled back the Lowther Hills scheme near Wanlockhead from 42 to 30 turbines.

However, Dumfries and Galloway Council still opposed the proposals which were taken to a public inquiry.

Ministers have now concluded their impact on the landscape would be "unacceptable" and refused the plans.

A public inquiry was held into the project in late 2019 to look at whether it should proceed.

Original developer Buccleuch sold its interest in the scheme to Forsa Energy prior to that.

Forsa's renewable energy portfolio was, in turn, acquired by BayWa r.e. which was taking the project forward....

...The decision has been welcomed by MP David Mundell who represents Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale.

He said it was "clearly the right decision" and reflected the views held in the area.

His son, Oliver Mundell, who is the MSP for Dumfriesshire said the scheme would have been a "blot on the landscape" and risked damaging ecology and wildlife in the area.

True, but also true of the ones that have been given permission. Large parts of the Southern Uplands are absolutely blighted by turbines, access roads, and the whole industrial palaver they spawn. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.

Most of the things being mentioned are being done but cock ups and unforseen things are turning up. A broken freezer, people not turning up for the vaccine, the allergic reactions that instigated 15 mins observation time... Bad software too. FFS why can't any of our UK governments get software right?

At the end of the day, the government is working with British people. Better than some but not as good as others.

The real game changer is the Astra Zenica vaccine (because it is easier to handle) and the Jesson one (that only needs one jab, which hopefully is due to be approved in about a month). The spread of vaccines ordered means that we get more supply at once, rather than just wait in one queue. Like the testing, things speed up because everyone gets familiar with the routine.

I really hope that they sort people to get the left overs after no shows.

tomo: hopefully those at the vaccination coalface will handle the stuff competently. Maybe that sanction should be adopted for a bit of encouragement!

I checked on the Pfizer website:
< Once a POU receives a thermal shipper with our vaccine, they have three options for storage:
- Ultra-low-temperature freezers, which are commercially available and can extend shelf life for up to six months.
- The Pfizer thermal shippers, in which doses will arrive, that can be used as temporary storage units by refilling with dry ice every five days for up to 30 days of storage.
- Refrigeration units that are commonly available in hospitals. The vaccine can be stored for five days at refrigerated 2-8°C conditions. >

Ianl: I'd agree that CO2 disposal is usually waved away with a simplistic "just pump it into old oil fields". There is much more to it, as you say, and is usually the case with so many green "solutions".

Where CO2 is captured for enhanced oil recovery specifically, the necessary pipelines, pumps etc are costed into the job.
According to the interview with Rodney Allam on the Netpower website, the US CO2 market is worth $20 bn per year. I guess that is for everything, not just EOR, and the existing sources may well be cheaper. Even so it does suggest there's a lot of potential.

The "sequestering" case, as in the UK, is more difficult as there's no cost benefit. My guess is that the govt will tweak the renewable subsidies to help the economics. Our BEIS (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) is very involved in the proposed Netpower pilot.
The initial focus is on the Northeast, presumably because of the proximity to N. Sea pipelines. As always, there's more to it. Are there any/many redundant pipelines? The major terminals are all still working so - my guess - there may not be any easy way to get CO2 from shore to the depleted fields. Then there's the question of suitability. I have a vague memory from some work in the 70s that CO2 could be a problem in pipelines due to the potential for acid corrosion if there was any moisture present.

I would like to see this new process succeed. It's an elegant bit of engineering. There could be a big potential in the Middle East as they are moving to burning gas instead of oil for power and they have a lot of EOR already in use.

Ianl/tomo; I would hope the temperature issue with the Pfizer vaccine is not the potential problem portrayed in the media.
I am sure I have.read/heard that it does not have to be kept at -70 right up to the moment of use: it is OK for up to 5 days at fridge temperatures. So it could be distributed to holding centres with low-temp facilities and distributed regionally provided it is used within the time limit.
Secondly, there are lots of means of keeping things cold. Liquid nitrogen is cheap and widely available, for example, although that might be too cold. Dry ice is probably better and, again, is not hard to come by.
Lastly it would make sense to allocate vaccine supplies broadly according to the facilities available. So the Pfizer vaccine would be best suited to hospitals and other places with low-temp capabilities while the A-Z one goes to GPs, etc.. Also that would make best use of the Pfizer's better first-shot immunisation as many of the most vulnerable will be in hospital or linked to one.
Fingers crossed this has all been thought through.....I'll spare everyone another rant!