Connect with us

Published

on

The Climate Crisis team on Quora asked me to assess which industries are ahead and behind in terms of dealing with climate solutions. I’d just finished reading Kahneman’s Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment (strongly recommended), so instead of attempting to provide a multifactorial scoring, I decided to go with a ranking mechanism instead.

And so, my list with color commentary of the major industries which are addressing or challenged to deliver or hostile to climate action, from best to worst.

1. Wind Industry

Wind energy is the biggest new source of low-carbon energy on the planet at present. About 140 GW of capacity with an average capacity factor around 40% was commissioned in 2020, 50% of that in China. As electricity is the future of all energy, being the biggest single provider of new low-carbon electricity pretty much puts you on the top of the heap.

Every MWh of wind energy displaces a MWh of fossil fuel energy with its median 750 kg of CO2 emissions, so last year’s 140 GW of capacity turns into annual CO2 emissions reductions of about 350 million tons of avoided CO2 every year for the next 30 years. Wind energy is the current work horse of CO2 avoidance, hence the reason I’ve spent so much time in the space.

Big providers in order are:

  1. Vestas – Europe
  2. Siemens Gamesa – Europe
  3. Goldwind – China
  4. GE – USA
  5. Envision – China

Hmmm… Europe and China are kicking butt and taking names here.

Ørsted gets an honorable mention in this too. It used to be an oil and gas major. Then it saw the light. Now it’s dumped the carbon blight entirely, and is the biggest offshore wind deployer in the world. Also European. Go Europe!

2. Solar Industry

Solar is the second biggest source of new low-carbon electricity in the world, about 100 GW in 2020, once again 50% in China. So that’s pretty damned skippy, and represents about 150 million tons of avoided CO2 annually for the next 30 years.

And what are the companies there?

  1. LONGi Solar – China
  2. Jinko Solar – China
  3. JA Solar – China
  4. Trina Solar – China
  5. Canadian Solar – China

Yeah, China owns this market. You have to get down to #8 before you find a non-Chinese manufacturer, First Solar from the US.

Which is why there’s this big Sinophobic lobbying push happening in the US and Europe to cast Chinese solar panels as made with coal and slave labor. I wish I was making this up, but WSJ editorials, observation of social media, and a bit of insider knowledge on my part makes it clear to me that this is occurring.

Resist the Sinophobic BS. We have about 3 billion solar panels on the planet right now, and we need a lot more. China is the only scaled manufacturer of solar panels and many other climate action necessities, and is doing a lot better on climate action than western media portrays, especially the right-wing media, so buy Chinese already.


Computer chip

Silicon Carbide, SiC wafer v8.1 OpAmp Chip in Co-fired Alumina Package for High-temperature Application courtesy NASA

After this, the pickings get a bit slimmer, and the ranking gets harder. Nevertheless, I’m going to pick:

3. Electronics

Wait. What? Electronics? Yeah, electronics.

LEDs have caused lighting and video energy consumption to virtually disappear from the radar screen. 75% energy reduction out of the box. Integrated circuits have made virtually every home appliance an energy sipper, not an energy hog. TVs and monitors? Vastly more of them, vastly less energy used.

Our smartphones replace dozens of comparatively high-energy requirement devices from tape recorders to video recorders to landline telephones to printed books to flashlights to newspapers and on and on.

People kvetch about data center energy usage, but it’s absurd how far a kWh of electricity goes in 2021 vs in 1980. Not only is the future of all energy electricity, we’ve become incredibly parsimonious about most of its uses.

Sure there’s pollution and waste. But when it comes to climate change, energy is Satan incarnate, and electronics have vastly reduced how often Satan is hanging around our homes smelling of brimstone and long-chain polymers. The biggest story in overall efficiency is electronics.

4. HVAC — Okay, Heat Pumps

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning is going through a double revolution. It’s a big honking energy consumer. But it’s shifting more and more to electricity because baseboard heaters and AC are cheap and convenient, and electricity is decarbonizing.

You can’t decarbonize natural gas or oil heat.

But the second revolution is heat pumps. There’s something called the coefficient of performance (COP). It basically says how much heating or cooling you get per unit of energy input. With natural gas or oil, the absolute maximum is a COP of 1. That means 100% of the energy heats the place.

But heat pumps get COPs of 3–5. Wait. That’s 300% to 500% of energy in output as heat or cold! How do we go over unity! Call the Thermodynamics police!

Well, it’s simple. Heat pumps don’t create heat or cold, they pump heat from one place to another. They are air conditioners, but instead of just pumping heat out, they also pump heat in. And they do it with electricity, so as grids decarbonize with wind and solar, heating and cooling of buildings with heat pumps decarbonizes further in lockstep.

And heat pumps and HVAC in general are subject in most major economies to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The who-what? The Montreal Protocol is the ozone layer saver. It replaced really nasty CFCs with HFCs in refrigerators, air conditioners, and aerosol cans globally, patching up the ozone layer as a result. And HFCs are a bit less warming than CFCs, so that was accidentally good. But a bit less warming still means 1300–14,000 times worse than CO2. Whoops.

The Kigali Amendment, which followed the Paris COP21 meeting a few months later, but in Rwanda, started to fix that. Basically, it said signatories had to start replacing high global warming potential (GWP) HFCs with lower GWP HFCs, HFOs, and CO2. Yeah, carbon dioxide. It’s a coolant when used as a refrigerant, which of course climate change deniers make into a stupidity test.

So modern heat pumps get 3–5 times the energy efficiency, their refrigerants don’t create global warming nearly as much, and they get more virtuous as the grids they are on decarbonize. Win, win, win!

5. Ground Transportation

Yeah, Tesla. And others. And 38,000 km of high speed electrified rail in China. And 430,000+ electric buses in China. And 19,000 km of high-speed rail in Europe. And 50% of all EVs being bought in China. Lots of electrified freight transport in Europe.

Electrified rail percentages by European country

Electrified rail percentages by European country courtesy EU

And lots of transit, e-bikes, e-scooters, e-unicycles, and the like everywhere in the world.

Lots of good stuff happening in ground transportation from a climate perspective, but still a long way to go.


Après nous, le déluge

So yeah, things are going downhill from here on in the rankings. There are some major industries that are poking around the edges, but not getting there rapidly enough.

Boreal forest near Shovel Point in Tettegouche State Park, along the northern shore of Lake Superior in Minnesota. Image courtesy of Kablammo (public domain) via Wikimedia Commons.

6. Forestry

Here’s the deal. Planting a trillion trees will bridge a couple of decades of human emissions. And leaving them alone will enhance long term soil carbon sequestration. Further, cutting down the mature trees and turning them into durable wood products like furniture and load-bearing beams for construction sequesters that carbon for a long time.

So the forestry industry has a big part to play. But it’s not there yet.

Canada and Scandinavia are leading in engineered wood beam construction, with approvals for 12- and 16-story buildings respectively. Think plywood load-bearing beams instead of reinforced concrete.

Canada certainly has a lot of newly planted forests. And a bunch of clear cut ones too. I’ve sat in a clear cut on the way to Tofino, shaken to my core. It’s ugly. And I’ve personally pushed 12,000 seedlings into the ground while being towed on a planting trailer behind a tractor in a single weekend. Much more uplifting.

But they are working on it. Seedling planting by drones is a thing now, although survival rates are currently low. Having met a lot of tree planters, I’m pretty sure that the machines will outperform them eventually, if they aren’t already.

China has planted an area larger than the size of France with more than 40 billion trees since 1990.

Has that sunk in yet?

I’ll repeat it nonetheless. China has planted an area larger than the size of France with more than 40 billion trees since 1990.

That’s the forestry industry in action. Unfortunately, the rest of the world isn’t doing nearly as well as China, and to be clear, China deforested all of that first.

John Deere 9R 490 tractor. Image credit: John Deere Company

7. Agriculture

There’s a lot of ugly and a lot of good in agribusiness.

The land actually under cultivation has barely changed since 1950. We’re feeding vastly more people with the same land area. And the amount of ammonia-nitrogen fertilizer has barely changed since 1950 either.

The population has tripled, but we are feeding them with close to the same land area and close to the same amount of fertilizer. Holy FSM (which I guess would be cannoli)!

Yeah, agribusiness has been totally rocking. Same inputs, massively more outputs.

But still. Agriculture is a big producer of greenhouse gases. And 40% of the total land mass of the world is used for agriculture. That land used to be a carbon sink, but now it’s a carbon emitter.

And ammonia-nitrogen fertilizer sucks from a GHG perspective. The ammonia is made from fossil-fuel derived hydrogen. The fertilizer turns into nitrous oxides with high GWPs. Something like 8x the mass of CO2 is release per pound of fertilizers. Agriculture is in the range of 8–10% of total global GHG emissions annually.

That circle is not yet squared.

However, things are changing, and pretty quickly. Agribusiness is not a conservative, slow moving industry. You don’t triple outputs and maintain inputs since 1950 without being quick to adopt innovations. And now there are three innovations pushing through the global agribusiness world.

The first is precision agriculture. GPS guided, computer-controlled dispensation of seeds, pesticides, water, and fertilizer in precise amounts as needed. Electronics again.

The second is low-tillage agriculture. Leaving the sub-surface soil alone keeps the CO2 in the root system in place longer. And leaving it in place and not disrupting the fungal soil network gives time for the glomalin protein pathway for long term soil carbon capture to work.

The third is biogenetics. Multiple firms are working on making agriculture crops and their biomes more efficient and effective. I spent 90 minutes recently with Karsten Temme, the PhD CEO of PivotBio, which genetically engineers nitrogen-fixing microbes and then brews them in beer vats to spread on fields. 20–25% fertilizer use reduction for 6–7% crop yield improvements. That’s pretty big. And its goal is 100% fertilizer reduction by 2030. (Podcast coming shortly).

Massively more efficient since 1950. And massively less CO2 emissions coming.

8. Air Transportation

Because so much of air travel is international, dealing with emissions is assigned not to flow down targets to countries, but to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It’s supposed to be acting to bring global carriers to reduced and zero emissions, but it’s incredibly slow and toothless.

To be clear, low-carbon bio- and synthetic jet fuels have been certified for use in aviation since at least 2011, but outside of a few demonstration efforts, aren’t used.

In part, this is because aviation is a hard target, not a soft one. Planes fly by throwing massive amounts of energy to get and keep high speed air flowing under a lifting surface. Doing that for up to 15 hours (my personal longest flight) is staggering.

But there is hope there. I’ll be speaking with the CEO of Heart Aerospace sometime this month or early next. The company has orders for a 19-seat regional electric plane and reasonable funding on its current round. All of the major aerospace manufacturers are looking at electric and electric hybrid. There’s even ZeroAvia, a hydrogen drivetrain startup that Gates’ Breakthrough Ventures is invested in.

We are a long way from having solved this knotty problem, but there is at least work being done.

Maersk container ship

Image credit: Maersk

9. Water Freight Shipping

We’re already seeing some short haul freight shipping electrifying, and ferries and the like are electrifying rapidly. It’s the medium and long haul shipping which remain untouched.

And they typically run on bunker oil, which is to say one of a hundred different variants of barely refined petroleum products that are below diesel and barely above crude oil. It’s nasty stuff and heavily polluting in addition to its CO2 emissions. As Mark Z. Jacobson points out, they emit a lot of unburned hydrocarbons and soot, black carbon, which has a very high global warming potential.

I spent an hour recently talking with a PhD mechanical engineer who has spent the last four years of his career designing, constructing, installing and certifying the scrubbers that go on these vessels to reduce particulate and chemical emissions down to barely tolerable levels that among other things, pass the visual test with seemingly harmless white smoke coming out of the stacks. Non-trivial and does nothing for the CO2.

Long haul oceanic shipping is one of the only modes of transportation where I consider hydrogen drivetrains to have an actual play.

But oceanic shipping is the worst of the worst of the problems. It’s all under flags of convenience, it’s usually in international waters and it’s a low-margin, competitive business.

DOW CHEMICAL PLANT ON FAR SIDE OF LAKE MICHIGAN
DOCUMERICA: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Program to Photographically Document Subjects of Environmental Concern, 1972 – 1977
Record Group 412: Records of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1944 – 2006

10. Industrial Processes

Industrial processes like cement, steel, and the Solvay process are way behind. They are poking around the edges so far, and there are enormous amounts of industrial commodities being produced in high-carbon approaches. There are bright spots of innovation that have no penetration, like renewably-powered green hydrogen reduction of iron ore into steel foam, and electrochemistry processes that displace the Solvay process for carbonates (look for the CleanTechnica three-part series publishing Aug 14/15 featuring Agora Energy Technologies which covers this). But these are early days. Lots of work to do there.


And then, ugliness ensues.

Shell refinery, image credit: Shell

Oil and gas. Coal. The fossil fuel industry is greenwashing hard and despite its claims, is massively failing to address the most pressing concern of the 21st Century.

Ørsted was mentioned earlier. They got it: oil and gas are destructive coming and going. And they got out. Now they are productive members of society.

The rest of the companies that are still standing after the bloodbath of bankruptcies and mergers of the past decade? Nothingburgers.

Carving off molecule-thin shavings of their emissions to do enhanced oil recovery, push ‘blue’ hydrogen, and promoting it into some vague semblance of green, while lobbying hard with politicians they fund to make it seem like a solution, instead of a continuation of the problem.


Much of industry is responding well to the biggest issue of this century, one we’ve jointly created over the past 300 years. But there is still much work to be done.

And that work requires strong governmental pressure through regulations, carbon taxes and active elimination of the worst emitters. There are elections coming in three major western emitting countries in the next 18 months which will be key: Canada (snap election for Sept 2021, per sources), the US 2022 mid terms, and the Australian federal election. If you aren’t already working in your country to ensure governments focused on climate action are elected, today is the best time to start.

 

 
 

Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla changes meaning of ‘Full Self-Driving’, gives up on promise of autonomy

Published

on

By

Tesla changes meaning of 'Full Self-Driving', gives up on promise of autonomy

Tesla has changed the meaning of “Full Self-Driving”, also known as “FSD”, to give up on its original promise of delivering unsupervised autonomy.

Since 2016, Tesla has claimed that all its vehicles in production would be capable of achieving unsupervised self-driving capability.

CEO Elon Musk has claimed that it would happen by the end of every year since 2018.

Tesla has even sold a software package, known as “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD), for up to $15,000 to customers, promising that the advanced driver-assist system would become fully autonomous through over-the-air software updates.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Almost a decade later, the promise has yet to be fulfilled, and Tesla has already confirmed that all vehicles produced between 2016 and 2023 don’t have the proper hardware to deliver unsupervised self-driving as promised.

Musk has been discussing the upgrade of the computers in these vehicles to appease owners, but there’s no concrete plan to implement it.

While there’s no doubt that Tesla has promised unsupervised self-driving capabilities to FSD buyers between 2016 and 2023, the automaker has since updated its language and now only sells “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” to customers:

The fine print mentions that it doesn’t make the vehicle “autonomous” and doesn’t promise it as a feature.

In other words, people buying FSD today are not really buying the capability of unsupervised self-driving as prior buyers did.

Furthermore, Tesla’s board has just submitted a new, unprecedented CEO compensation package for shareholders’ approval, which could give Musk up to $1 trillion in stock options pending the achievement of certain milestones.

One of these milestones is Tesla having “10 Million Active FSD Subscriptions.”

At first glance, this would be hopeful for FSD buyers since part of Musk’s compensation would be dependent on delivering on the FSD promises.

However, Tesla has changed the definition of FSD in the compensation package with an extremely vague one”

“FSD” means an advanced driving system, regardless of the marketing name used, that is capable of performing transportation tasks that provide autonomous or similar functionality under specified driving conditions.

Tesla now considers FSD only an “advanced driving system” that should be “capable of performing transportation tasks that prove autonomous or similar functionality”.

The current version of FSD, which requires constant supervising by the driver, could easily fit that description.

Therefore, FSD now doesn’t come with the inital promise of Tesla owners being able to go to sleep in their vehicles and wake up at their destination – a promise that Musk has used to sell Tesla vehicles for years.

Electrek’s Take

The way Tesla discusses autonomy with customers and investors versus how it presents it in its court filings and legally binding documents is strikingly different.

It should be worrying to anyone with an interest in this.

With this very vague description in the new CEO compensation package, Tesla could literally lower the price of FSD and even remove base Autopilot to push customers toward FSD and give Musk hundreds of billions of dollars in shares in the process.

There’s precedent for Tesla decreasing pricing on FSD. Initially, Musk said that Tesla would gradually increase the price of the FSD package as the features improved and approached unsupervised autonomy.

That was true for a while, but then Tesla started slashing FSD prices, which are now down $7,000 from their high in 2023:

The trend is quite apparent and coincidentally began when Tesla’s sales started to decline.

FSD is now a simple ADAS system without any promise of unsupervised self-driving. This might quite honestly be one of the biggest cases of false advertising or bait-and-switch ever.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

GM’s promised affordable EVs hit another hurdle, but there’s more to the story

Published

on

By

GM's promised affordable EVs hit another hurdle, but there's more to the story

The new Chevy Bolt EV is set to enter production later this year, with one fewer shift, following GM’s reduction in production plans at several US plants. Apart from the Bolt, GM promised a new family of affordable EVs. Are those, too, now at risk?

GM says more affordable EVs are coming, but when?

GM remained the number two EV maker in the US after back-to-back record sales months in July and August. However, with the $7,500 federal tax credit set to expire at the end of the month, the company expects a slowdown.

On Thursday, GM sent a note to employees at its Spring Hill plant in Tennessee, outlining plans to reduce output of two Cadillac electric SUVs, the Lyriq and Vistiq.

A source close to the matter confirmed the news to Reuters, saying the production halt will begin in December. GM will significantly reduce output during the first five months of 2026, according to the source.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

GM is also delaying the second shift at its Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, where the new Chevy Bolt is slated to enter production later this year. The Bolt will be the first of a new series of affordable EVs that GM intends to build in Kansas.

GM-affordable-EVs
GM plans to build a “next-gen affordable EV) in Kansas (Source: GM)

However, those too, may now be in jeopardy. According to local news outlets, GM Korea Technical Research Center (GMTCK), a spin-off of GM’s Korean subsidiary, was recently cut out of a secret small EV project it was developing.

GMTCK president Brian McMurray reportedly announced internally last month during a trip to the US that the project was cancelled and only 30% to 40% complete.

A GM Korea spokesperson clarified that “the EV project being led by GMTCK was a global undertaking, not undertaken solely by GM Korea. The spokesperson added, “The project itself has not been canceled; the role of the Korean team has simply changed.”

The new electric car, dubbed “Fun Family,” was scheduled to launch under the Chevy and Buick brands, using a single platform. Production was expected to begin in 2027 with deliveries starting in 2028.

Chevy-Bolt-EV
2022 Chevy Bolt EUV (Source: GM)

GM Korea exports over 90% of the vehicles it makes to the US, but with the new auto tariffs, the subsidiary is expected to play a drastically smaller role, if any at all. The news is fueling the ongoing rumors that GM could withdraw from Korea altogether.

In addition to the tariffs, South Korea’s recently passed “Yellow Envelope Law” could make it even more difficult for GM with new labor laws.

Chevy-Equinox-EV-discounts
Chevy Equinox EV LT (Source: GM)

Will this impact the affordable EVs GM is promising to launch in the US? They are scheduled to be built in Kansas, but with the R&D Center, GM’s second largest globally, following the US, claiming to be excluded from a major global EV project, it can’t be a good sign.

In the meantime, GM already has one of the most affordable electric vehicles in the US, the Chevy Equinox EV. Starting at under $35,000, the company calls it “America’s most affordable” EV with over 315 miles of range.

With the $7,500 federal tax credit still available, GM is promoting Chevy Equinox EV leases for under $250 a month. Nowadays, it’s hard to find any vehicle for under that.

Source: Newsworks Korea

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Connecticut, Rhode Island sue Trump to save 80% complete offshore wind farm

Published

on

By

Connecticut, Rhode Island sue Trump to save 80% complete offshore wind farm

Connecticut and Rhode Island are suing the Trump administration to overturn its “baseless” decision to halt Revolution Wind, a nearly completed offshore wind farm set to deliver clean power to New England.

Attorneys General William Tong of Connecticut and Peter Neronha of Rhode Island announced Thursday that they’ll file suit in Rhode Island federal court to overturn the August 22 stop-work order from the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM). The order abruptly shut down construction without citing any violation of law or safety threats. Instead, BOEM vaguely referred to “concerns” under its Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act authority, offering no explanation.

Revolution Wind is 15 nautical miles off Rhode Island and expected to come online in 2026. Once complete, the $6 billion project would supply 350,000 homes with electricity and save ratepayers in Connecticut and Rhode Island hundreds of millions of dollars over 20 years. The project supports more than 2,500 jobs across the US, including over 1,000 union construction jobs, and has already cleared every required state and federal review. Construction is already 80% complete.

The lawsuit, to be filed against the Department of the Interior, BOEM, and their nominated leaders, argues that the stop-work order violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the agency’s authority under OCSLA. The complaint says the government’s action is arbitrary, capricious, and undermines both states’ legal and financial commitments.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

“Revolution Wind is fully permitted, nearly complete, and months from providing enough American-made, clean, affordable energy to power 350,000 homes. Now, with zero justification, Trump wants to mothball the project, send workers home, and saddle Connecticut families with millions of dollars in higher energy costs,” Tong said. “This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we’re suing to stop it.”

Neronha added, “With Revolution Wind, we have an opportunity to create good-paying jobs for Rhode Islanders, enhance energy reliability, and ensure energy cost savings while protecting our environment. And yet, this stop-work order is not even the latest development in this administration’s all-out assault on wind energy. Just yesterday, we learned of reports that the Administration is pulling in staff from several different unrelated federal agencies, including Health and Human Services, to do its bidding. This is bizarre, this is unlawful, this is potentially devastating, and we won’t stand by and watch it happen.”

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont said the administration has offered no explanation nearly two weeks after the order. “We hoped to work with the Administration to lower energy costs, strengthen grid reliability, create jobs, and drive economic growth, but only if they share those goals. But if they do not, we will act to preserve this vital project and protect the energy future of Connecticut and the entire New England region,” he said.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) called the shutdown “insane, illogical, and illegal,” while Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, “The Revolution Wind project has already made it through exhaustive reviews by multiple federal agencies, and I doubt Trump’s flimsy excuses for scuttling this project will stand up to legal scrutiny.”

Danish renewables developer Ørsted, which owns a 50% share in Revolution Wind, also announced Thursday that it’s suing the Trump administration in a bid to restart construction on the blocked wind farm.

Read more: Trump’s latest offshore wind cancellation is a threat to the grid – ISO New England


The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending