The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production

GreenPeace, 22 September, 2016.

Oil Change International, in collaboration with 350.org, Amazon Watch, APMDD, AYCC, Bold Alliance, Christian Aid, Earthworks, Équiterre, Global Catholic Climate Movement, HOMEF, Indigenous Environmental Network, IndyAct, Rainforest Action Network, and Stand.earth

Full study here: http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2016/09/OCI_the_skys_limit_2016_FINAL_2.pdf

A new study released by Oil Change International, in partnership with 14 organizations from around the world, scientifically grounds the growing movement to keep carbon in the ground by revealing the need to stop all new fossil fuel infrastructure and industry expansion. It focuses on the potential carbon emissions from developed reserves – where the wells are already drilled, the pits dug, and the pipelines, processing facilities, railways, and export terminals constructed.

 

Key Findings:

  • The potential carbon emissions from the oil, gas, and coal in the world’s currently operating fields and mines would take us beyond 2°C of warming.
  • The reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone, even with no coal, would take the world beyond 1.5°C.
  • With the necessary decline in production over the coming decades to meet climate goals, clean energy can be scaled up at a corresponding pace, expanding the total number of energy jobs.

Key Recommendations:

  • No new fossil fuel extraction or transportation infrastructure should be built, and governments should grant no new permits for them.
  • Some fields and mines – primarily in rich countries – should be closed before fully exploiting their resources, and financial support should be provided for non-carbon development in poorer countries.
  • This does not mean stopping using all fossil fuels overnight. Governments and companies should conduct a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry and ensure a just transition for the workers and communities that depend on it.

Date set for nuclear procurement case

Engineering News, 22 September, 2016.

A high Court hearing into an application brought by the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei) and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg relating to the legality of South Africa’s nuclear procurement process has been set down for December 13 and 14.

(EG-SA Ed note: If I were a cynic I would think that this date was chosen so a to minimise the attention the case would get – but better late than never!)

The two organisations question the legality of the process followed by government and want the court to put a halt to any non-transparent attempt to procure 9 600 MW of new nuclear capacity.

Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson has indicated that a nuclear request for proposal will be released on September 30, but has refused to release documents relating to its procurement preparations to the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition.

“We are very pleased that the court understands the urgency of this matter at a critical stage in South Africa’s energy decision-making process, and appreciates that it is so much in the public’s interest”, Safcei energy adviser Liz McDaid said in a statement. 

Apologies, you can’t click here for the full article, because this is the full article! Not sure why Creamer chose to give so much coverage to Eksom’s funding fantasy and so little to the matter of inappropriate procurement?

Eskom says it can fund nuclear build ???

Engineering News, 23 September, 2016.

ESKOM can pay for the nuclear build programme because it will have accumulated a R150bn cash pile in the next 10 years, according to its head of generation, Matshela Koko.

(EG-SA Ed note: What about the balance of funds required, about R 350bn to R850bn? Where will that come from and what about the inevitable budget overruns, such as is happening with Medupi and Kusile?)

Writing for Business Day on Friday, Koko says the improvement in Eskom’s finances — including improved access to finance, improved revenue from a better operating plant and the completion of the build programme — will allow it to build substantial reserves.

(Another note: I don’t remember that accumulating funds for nuclear was among Eskom’s justifications for tariff increases – I though the reasons were to do with immediate solvency?)

… The targeted cost of nuclear energy should be R1.00/kWh, he says. The cost of wind energy is R0.69/kWh and that of solar PV is R0.87/kWh. These would need to be combined with gas — which is far more expensive — to create base-load power….

(And another note: the levelised costs for both Medupi and Kusile are already over R1/kWh, so how does anyone expect new nuclear to come in under that?  Another example is the UK’s Hinkley C’s cost which have risen from GBP 14bn in 2015 to the latest estimate of GBP 37bn, cost of the energy generated will be GBP 92.5/MWh – around R 1.67/kWh at current exchange rates, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/20/edf-to-make-return-on-hinkley-point-even-if-costs-soar-by-25pc/).

In the West and developed world, nuclear plants are now built according to generation 3 standards, with a double concrete dome to withstand the impact of an aircraft, and core catcher, which is designed to catch and contain the core in the event of it melting out of the bottom of the reactor. The new standards were introduced after the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

Generation 2 plants do not have these additional features, which are seen as responsible for huge time and budget overruns in post-Fukushima projects.

“What I’m saying is don’t go for the cutting edge. It’s going to cost you an arm and a leg. Go for a reference standard plant that is licensed already by a regulator elsewhere, from a vendor with a domestic nuclear programme that is thriving and that has a history of successfully exporting its model,” Koko said.

(And my last interruption: So the DOE is proposing we go for a Gen 2 design, similar to Fukushima, but don’t worry, it is perfectly safe, even though it will be uninsurable! Oh dear, what can the matter be…)

Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson has said the request for proposals would be issued by September 30.

However, the process is being challenged by Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities Environmental Initiative, whose application will be heard on December 13. The two seek to have the procurement declared unlawful.

Click here for the full fantasy

BOKAMOSO | Zupta’s nuclear deal: either we end it or it ends us

Mmusi Maimane, 16 September, 2016.

Jacob Zuma’s nuclear deal will be disastrous for South Africa. It will literally bankrupt us, diverting billions of rands from poverty reduction projects, while producing a nuclear white elephant in two decades’ time. But it will make a lot of money for Zuma, the Guptas and ANC cronies in the short-term and they will be long gone by the time we feel the real pain.

In Parliament last week, Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson confirmed that government is going ahead with the nuclear procurement process and Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown confirmed that information on the process will not be made public. In other words: “We’re going to tie you into far more debt that you can ever repay, but this is none of your business.”

This morning, a DA-assisted Mail and Guardian investigation has revealed the first concrete signs of corruption associated with the nuclear deal. A R171 million contract for the “Nuclear New Build Programme Management System” has been issued, potentially irregularly, to the son of Vivian Reddy, a close friend and ally of President Jacob Zuma. Click here to keep reading