If you listen to electric vehicle naysayers, switching to EVs is pointless because even if the cars are vastly more efficient than ones that use internal combustion engines—and they are—that doesn't take into account the amount of carbon required to build and then scrap them. Well, rest easy because it's not true. Today in the US market, a medium-sized battery EV already has 60–68 percent lower lifetime carbon emissions than a comparable car with an internal combustion engine. And the gap is only going to increase as we use more renewable electricity.

That finding comes from a white paper (.pdf) published by Georg Bieker at the International Council on Clean Transportation. The comprehensive study compares the lifetime carbon emissions, both today and in 2030, of midsized vehicles in Europe, the US, China, and India, across a wide range of powertrain types, including gasoline, diesel, hybrid EVs (HEVs), plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), battery EVs (BEVs), and fuel cell EVs (FCEVs). (The ICCT is the same organization that funded the research into VW Group's diesel emissions.)

Not too long ago, when the idea of solar and wind energy was still hotly debated, critics used to point out the limitations of these energy sources: the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. But nowadays many countries’ electricity grids are strongly supplied by renewable energy.

The challenge in creating flexible, reliable and affordable energy supply systems with renewables lies in the very different circumstances across countries and regions. Planning and expanding renewable power must consider countries’ local resources and their existing and planned infrastructure. This becomes even more interesting for countries trying to grow their grids and expand their renewables at the same time – like many in sub-Saharan Africa.

One technology that has the flexibility to complement solar and wind power production is hydropower. It can be used as a constant source of electricity, but also compensate for fluctuations in other sources. But it does need to be properly planned and managed if it’s to be sustainable. //

Can increased electricity generation be harmonised with climate change objectives?

Our research shows that combining sustainably managed hydropower plants with new solar and wind power projects is a promising option for the West African region. It could minimise the use of fossil fuels and their negative climate change impacts as the region seeks to expand access to affordable electricity. //

In our paper, we use a new model to examine the synergies of sustainable hydropower generation with solar and wind power in West Africa. The model shows how to manage these sources in combination.

We show that the region can use hydropower, rather than natural gas plants, to ensure grid reliability while increasing solar and wind power. Natural gas is often touted as a bridging fuel in the transition to sustainable energy. But global emissions need to be around zero by mid-century according to the Paris Agreement. Building more gas infrastructure therefore risks missing climate goals. //

Our paper shows one way to start the renewable transition for West Africa is by optimising the use of local solar, wind and water resources while keeping an eye on sustainability criteria. For instance, our methodology ensures that hydropower lake levels and downstream river flows remain within acceptable boundaries. It also underlines the possibility of replacing future hydropower plants with solar and wind.

This will increase the overall ecological sustainability of renewable power generation.

Seven years ago the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) proposed the Inga 3 – a 4.8GW hydropower project on the Congo River – with great fanfare. Third in a series of dams that would form the Grand Inga complex on the Congo river, the project was touted as a solution to southern Africa’s energy deficit woes and a way for the DRC to participate in regional economic development.

Seven years later, development of Inga 3 has yet to begin. The project continues to be stymied by conflicts. For example, earlier this year, one of the partners, a Spanish company, pulled out of the consortium. But DRC president Félix Tshisekedi continues to push to revive the plans.

According to South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2019), the country plans to import at least 2.5GW of electric power from Inga 3 (or more than half of the original 4.8GW design), a commitment reiterated recently by South African president Cyril Ramaphosa. The largest remaining fractions of Inga 3’s electricity generation would be purchased by the mining industry in the DRC. Less than 10% of the electricity from Inga 3 is expected to supply the DRC’s residential electricity needs. Currently 90% of the population in the DRC lacks electricity access.

Does Inga 3 make sense? //

The hydropower potential at the Grand Inga site on the Congo River, the largest remaining untapped hydropower potential in the world, has drawn the interest and attention of development banks and regional governments for the past several decades. But there’s been dramatic change in the energy sector in the past five years. In particular, the cost of alternative energy sources like wind and solar has changed the game for cost-competitive and sustainable energy generation that can be rapidly scaled up.

There are more efficient ways to address severe energy deficits quickly and cost-efficiently. For example, wind projects take only one to three years to build and most solar photovoltaic projects take a year. Both incur lower costs than similar-sized hydropower projects, which take five to 10 years to build. The latest construction time estimate for the Inga 3 is eight years. //

Longer build times lead to greater costs due to interest on capital. And analysis of data from past large hydropower dams shows that these projects cost twice the amount they quoted before the start of the project.

We found that, even without considering the large environmental and social impacts, the dam is an unsound investment based on plain economics. //

We found that a mix of wind, solar photovoltaics, and some natural gas would be more cost-effective than Inga 3 to meet future demand.

We reached this conclusion after examining the impact of several uncertain factors that could change overall costs. These included: Inga 3 performance, Inga 3 cost overruns, wind and solar performance, and the demand for electricity in the future.

The only scenarios in which Inga 3 was more cost-effective were those that assumed significantly lower than average wind energy performance. //

Of course, economics should be only one of many factors to weigh when choosing energy technologies. Like many other mega hydropower projects, the Inga 3 has been fraught with potential severe social and environmental impacts. At least 35,000 people would be displaced by Inga 3 alone.

The potential ecosystem impacts include the decline of fisheries upstream of the dam, threats to freshwater diversity and mangroves in the Congo delta, and reduced carbon sequestration through reduced organic sediment transport downstream to the ocean. ///

What about the economics of the LCOE over the life of the investment? A hydro power plant should have a life of at least 50 years, double that of any present wind or solar power system. This seems like a very short sighted analysis, very much in line with the recent switch of the World Bank et.al. from infrastructure development goals to "sustainable development", which only serves to maintain the status quo of human development in favor of the environment.

Zimbabwe is one of the African countries that hopes renewable energy technologies will help to address their energy problems. About 42% of Zimbabwe’s households are connected to the electricity grid.

The country has huge and diverse renewable energy potential. Its sustainable energy portfolio could include solar, hydro, biomass and, to a limited extent, wind and geothermal. //

For policy makers, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and some researchers, it’s a given that renewable energy technologies are the answer. They could meet Zimbabwe’s growing energy demand and achieve universal access sustainably. At face value this is appealing – but the devil is in the details.

My research looked into how renewable energy technologies are understood and how they could alleviate energy poverty in Zimbabwe.

I found that they’re only one piece of the puzzle and other pieces are habitually missing. No matter how well designed and efficient technologies are, their effectiveness is linked to the country’s political economy.

Socio-economic and political factors keep conventional energy out of reach of the poor. My study shows that they can do the same with renewable energy. These factors may even worsen inequality. Adding renewable energy technologies into the existing energy sector structures is like pouring new wine into old wine skins. //

The politics of energy and technological dependency: China has become a source of finance for large-scale energy projects in Zimbabwe. This is true for both coal-based and renewable energy generation.

What’s seldom acknowledged is the skewed nature of this relationship. China has global dominance in renewable energy technologies. For example, the Chinese solar PV cell and module makers quickly dominated global sales. And the country’s wind turbine producers are poised for significant exports. //

Energy as a tool of accumulation: For China, energy poverty in Zimbabwe is an opportunity for its economic growth. The unequal distribution of economic power keeps Zimbabwe energy poor. Accumulation is happening at one pole and energy poverty at another. //

Renewable energy technologies would work if, somehow, they did more for the poor than for the powerful. But in reality, the opposite is true.

First, the private partners (independent power producers) aren’t ordinary citizens, but the economically powerful and politically connected.

Second, the flawed nature of the tendering system cannot be overstated. It’s normally associated with corruption and political interference.

What’s more, this elite group tends to benefit from the state’s intervention.

Yesterday, the guys over at Powerline blog had this interesting little story on the practical realities as to why “renewable” energy sources like wind and solar power will NEVER generate the power needed to supply the vast electrical demands of the United States, notwithstanding all the proclamations and pledges made by moronic politicians chasing after “green votes”.

The bottom-line issue comes down to a simple calculation of the area of landmass needed to produce a specific measure of generated electricity when you employ different methods of generating that electricity.

When efficiency is measured as a function of landmass use, the form of electrical generation that is far and away the best method is nuclear power. The chart found in the Powerline story shows that when “power density” is measured as watts per square meter of land used, nuclear power produces 2000 watts, while solar power produces 10 watts of electricity per square meter of land used, and wind power produces 1 watt of electricity per square meter.

Part of the variable here is that nuclear power runs at a constant generating capacity 24/7/365, and besides nuclear fuel, the only natural resource needed is a supply of water. //

Once the math is done with regard to the relationship of the various forms of power which can be used to generate electricity, the next relatively simple mathematical calculation is to determine how much landmass will be required to generate enough electricity from wind and/or solar power to meet the electricity needs of the United States over a given period of time. That is where the problems begin.

Setting aside for the moment the question of capital costs and what that might mean for electricity rates to be paid by consumers, if the calculation is limited solely to a determination of how many square miles of wind farms would be needed to power the electrical needs of the United States such that the burning of fossil fuels to turn water into steam that drives steam turbine generators, the answer is a landmass the size of California — times 2. You take something akin to California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, cover it from top-to-bottom and side-to-side with giant wind turbines, and the rest of the country can run their air conditioners, microwave ovens, and electric power-washers without introducing another molecule of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from putting a match to fossil fuel. //

To accomplish the goals staked out in these policy prescriptions means devoting massive amounts of a scarce natural resource — land — to the re-invention of electrical generation capacity in the United States. I consider land as a “scare natural resource,” because the last time I checked, there isn’t any more of it being created. We “consume” the land when we cover it with solar panels and can’t make any other use of it.

Right now, the major metropolitan communities on the coasts are not served by electrical transmission lines from Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Oklahoma. All of that infrastructure would need to be built, as well.

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources is a geographic impossibility based on current technology. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power could likely be accomplished with currently available technology.

France has done it. France reduced its fossil fuel consumption for energy from 96% in 1966 to under 45% in 2018. In the same time period, it increased nuclear-generated energy to 49%, a program which began in the early 1970s as a result of the “1973 Oil Crisis” and the recognition by France that it produces no oil and has no oil reserves among its natural resources. //

bluestardad
3 months ago
Massive solar farms will wipe out large areas of vegetation, which converts CO2 into Oxygen and water vapor. Strike one, enviro-NAZIs. Solar panels primarily come from China because they are about the only country willing to strip mine for the raw materials to make them. Strip mining is a wasteful method and creates all kinds of ecological damage. Strike two. Solar panels only produce electricity during sunny days. Battery storage requires climate controlled facilities to house them and keep them at peak performance, and even then they have relatively short operating lifetimes. Plus battery manufacturing also requires mining for rare earth minerals (think more strip mining.) Strike three //

NickSJ
3 months ago
Notice that greens fanatically oppose the only two reliable non-CO2 producing sources of electricity - nuclear and hydro. //

coyotewise NickSJ
3 months ago
China would not get huge revenues for the rare earth material with either hydro or nuclear. Biden loves him some China, and the better they do the better he and Hunter do.

German storage system manufacturer Sonnen has published test results that indicate the longevity of its products after extended use. In laboratory tests, the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells, which are also used in the company's “solar battery,” reportedly withstood 28,000 charging cycles.

The lifespans of battery storage systems remain an issue for many potential buyers. Sonnen says that it has charged and discharged battery cells at a C rate of one and a depth of discharge of 100% over a period of eight years. This means that a full charge or discharge was completed within an hour. It noted that the test for the batteries was significantly more demanding than its use as a residential storage system.

Over the past few years, it has carried out tests in a laboratory operated by Sonnen in Wildpoldsried, Germany. According to the manufacturer, the iron phosphate battery cells still had 65% of their original capacity. As a result, the cells have not yet reached the end of their lifespans, because for this there must be a sudden drop in capacity, the manufacturer explained.

This year’s controversial documentary ‘Planet of the Humans,’ produced by Michael Moore, posed some uncomfortable questions to renewable energy enthusiasts. While the film has serious flaws, it gets one big thing right: renewables are not a magic fix-all for our energy problems.

It all comes down to what we mean by ‘renewable’. People tend to think that an energy type is renewable…

Where “doing everything” involves making investments that are slower or less cost effective, which divert resources away from preferable options, or which in some other way impede them, the result would be potentially disastrous for carbon emissions mitigation.

Amidst many uncertainties, the real questions we should be addressing are about which investments offer the most cost-effective and beneficial ways forward.

Our new paper, Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power, seeks to contribute towards this debate.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3 //

Our research explores this dilemma retrospectively, examining past patterns in the attachments (i.e. investments) of different countries to nuclear or renewable strategies. Our paper addresses three hypotheses:

A “nuclear climate mitigation” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to nuclear power will tend to have lower overall carbon emissions.
A “renewables climate mitigation” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to renewables will tend to have lower overall carbon emissions.
A “crowding out” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to nuclear will tend to have a lesser attachment to renewables, and vice versa.
Across the study countries as a whole we found that the “nuclear climate mitigation” hypothesis is not sustained by the evidence at an appropriate level of statistical significance. The renewable climate mitigation hypothesis is confirmed with substantial significance. And the crowding out hypothesis is also significantly sustained.

Put plainly – if countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritise support for renewables rather than nuclear power. Pursuit of nuclear strategies risks taking up resources that could be used more effectively and suppressing the uptake of renewable energy.

Toyota is selling the Mirai fuel cell vehicle running on hydrogen, and plans to boost tenfold the global sales of the Mirai with the second-generation Mirai.

The new Toyota Mirai will have a 30% increase in driving range to around 650 kilometers (404 miles), the carmaker said at the end of November. //

The average price for hydrogen fuel in California is about US$16/kg — gasoline is sold by the gallon (volume) and hydrogen by the kilogram (weight).

To put that in perspective, 1 gallon of gasoline has about the same amount of energy as 1 kg of hydrogen.

Wind and solar decommissioning costs are trivial. That’s yet another reason why nuclear is dead, but pretending it’s not.

Just as the national Democrat Party is chasing the imaginary pot of gold at the end of the green energy rainbow, so too are Oregon’s Democrats, and they are all-in on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power as the ONLY sources powering Oregon’s electric grid. //

The bill requires PGE and Pacific Power to submit plans to reduce emissions by 80% from a baseline amount by 2030, 90% by 2035, and completely eliminate emissions by 2040.

That’s right, you should NOT charge your electric vehicles during a heat wave in California. Why? Because, like the power supply system in many developing countries, California’s electric power generators can’t deliver enough electricity to CAISO to meet demand. //

Meanwhile, in Sacramento the governor, legislators, and regulators still think electric vehicles are vital to California’s plan to reduce emissions over the next two decades. In 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, by executive fiat, set 2035 as a target date for ending the sale of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles as a way to fight “climate change” in the state. //

California suffers from an electric grid problem, because the state has eschewed reliable fossil fuels in favor of unreliable green energy, such as wind and solar power. This presents a problem, because such sources don’t work when the wind stagnates during heat waves or at night. when there’s no sunlight. Simultaneously, the state is exacerbating this problem, creating ever more demand for electricity by promoting electric vehicles and shutting down access to natural gas appliances. //

In 2020, California’s electric grid came within minutes of collapse due to heavy loads at the same time solar power slumped at sunset. On August 17, during the CAISO Board of Governors Meeting, CAISO President Steve Berber let loose with this bit of reality.

According to the transcript, Berber said, “You are trading the loss of 3,000 megawatts for the collapse of the entire system of California and perhaps the entire West. … When you’re at the very edge and you have a contingency and you have no operating reserves, you risk entire system collapse.”

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)’s official projections assert that “large amounts of annual waste are anticipated by the early 2030s” and could total 78 million tonnes by the year 2050. That’s a staggering amount, undoubtedly. But with so many years to prepare, it describes a billion-dollar opportunity for recapture of valuable materials rather than a dire threat. The threat is hidden by the fact that IRENA’s predictions are premised upon customers keeping their panels in place for the entirety of their 30-year lifecycle. They do not account for the possibility of widespread early replacement.

Our research does. Using real U.S. data, we modeled the incentives affecting consumers’ decisions whether to replace under various scenarios. We surmised that three variables were particularly salient in determining replacement decisions: installation price, compensation rate (i.e., the going rate for solar energy sold to the grid), and module efficiency. If the cost of trading up is low enough, and the efficiency and compensation rate are high enough, we posit that rational consumers will make the switch, regardless of whether their existing panels have lived out a full 30 years. //

If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model, they can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than IRENA anticipates. That figure translates to around 315,000 metric tonnes of waste, based on an estimate of 90 tonnes per MW weight-to-power ratio.

Alarming as they are, these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger. //

The industry’s current circular capacity is woefully unprepared for the deluge of waste that is likely to come. The financial incentive to invest in recycling has never been very strong in solar. While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material. The long lifespan of solar panels also serves to disincentivize innovation in this area.

As a result, solar’s production boom has left its recycling infrastructure in the dust. To give you some indication, First Solar is the sole U.S. panel manufacturer we know of with an up-and-running recycling initiative, which only applies to the company’s own products at a global capacity of two million panels per year. With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20-30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1-2. //

The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. //

Compared with all we stand to gain or lose, the four decades or so it will likely take for the economics of solar to stabilize to the point that consumers won’t feel compelled to cut short the lifecycle of their panels seems decidedly small. But that lofty purpose doesn’t make the shift to renewable energy any easier in reality. Of all sectors, sustainable technology can least afford to be short-sighted about the waste it creates. A strategy for entering the circular economy is absolutely essential — and the sooner, the better.

By Irina Slav - Jun 11, 2021, 11:00 AM CDT
China will stop subsidizing new solar farm projects, distributed solar projects for commercial users, and onshore wind farms as soon as this year, Reuters reported, citing the central planning authority of the country.

The change will enter into effect on August 1 and is a departure from the course set late last year. The country’s finance ministry had previously committed to granting 57 percent more subsidies to solar power projects this year, although it did slash subsidies for wind power.

Turning waste plastic into fuel isn’t a new idea. Many researchers have achieved it through a process called pyrolysis, which involves heating plastic to between 300º C and 900º C in an oxygen-free environment. This breaks the substance down into fuel, along with some additional chemicals. Hongfei Lin, associate professor with The Gene and Linda Voiland School of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineering at WSU, thinks that he and his team have discovered a way to make the process more efficient and environmentally friendly. //

Pyrolysis is an old technology, Rollinson told Ars. It was used to make things like creosote and methanol from wood, prior to the widespread use of petrochemicals, he said. Since the 1950s, attempts have been made to use the process on plastics. So far, it has not worked out, according to Rollinson.

Though the paper says the process is high-efficiency, it’s likely not, Rollinson says, as it requires a good deal of hydrogen pressure. Reaching the necessary pressure requires a lot of energy. Making and storing hydrogen also takes a lot of energy, reducing any green benefits. He said that the experiment was only in a laboratory setting. It would require a far greater amount of hydrogen and energy to pressurize it, if introduced at a commercial scale.

Further, Rollinson noted that the catalyst and solvents used would also need to be scaled up for larger amounts of plastics. Hexane, the solvent, is toxic, explosive, and environmentally harmful if released into the wild, he added. There’s also an energy input in the process of making these chemicals. In an email to Ars, Lin acknowledged that solvent recovery and reuse would add costs, but the technology itself would work to keep costs low. All the same, Rollinson has his doubts.

“No way it’s a go-er at all,” he said. “For science’s sake, it’s quite interesting. But as a practical answer to plastic … it’s not workable.” //

RindanArs Tribunus Militumet Subscriptorreply2 days agoignore user
SharpieFiend wrote:
If we want to reduce the amount of oil that gets pumped out of the ground then something needs to be done about jet fuel - it's a major demand driver. Even if the process is less efficient than refining crude it can still be worth while.

Sure, but why "recycle"? We know how to make jet fuel. We can make fossil fuels with no problem. The Germans were doing it during World War II when they couldn't important gas, and we have surely only gotten better at the process. There is a reason why we don't do this though; it isn't worth the cost. The amount of energy you have to dump in isn't worth it. It's like using electrolysis for to get hydrogen. Yeah, you can technically do that, you just have to accept a massive loss of energy and cost. The process that we end up using for carbon neutral jet fuel is going to end up being whatever is cheapest at scale, and we are only going to use that once the cost of jet fuel rises so that it

We don't need to recycle things into jet fuel; we need a process that is scalable and the least energy intensive possible. If starting from a plastic component gets us there, great, but recycling shouldn't be the goal, just a happy side effect if that's the path that ends up being the cheapest. I'm skeptical that this is the cheapest. We are far better off to bury our plastic in the ground and then make carbon neutral jet fuel, then to spend extra energy to recycle plastic into jet fuel. Plastic in a landfill isn't hurting anyone. Using a bunch of energy on the other hand, especially with our current electricity mix, is definitely hurting someone.

Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but this seems like a gimmick to me. We don't need to recycle plastic into jet fuel, we need jet fuel, and maybe if someone can find something energetically worthwhile, a separate method of recycling plastic. It's okay if those are two independent and completely different steps, especially if it takes less energy. //

WickwickArs Legatus Legionisreply2 days agoReader Favignore user
I wish people would get off the idea that high-temperature processes must be low-efficiency. There's nothing that says one cannot have heat exchangers used to preheat products headed to the pyrolysis chamber. This isn't a combustion cycle. There's no requirement to reject heat to the environment to make it work.

The only thermodynamic limit is that the fuel probably has lower entropy than the plastic (though that's not a given). If it does, you have to invest in some amount of energy to execute that conversion.

A company from Australia called Graphene Manufacturing Group (GMG) has announced some interesting test results from aluminum-ion battery testing. This new type of rechargeable battery can charge ten times faster than current lithium-ion units. While charging significantly faster, the new battery type also lasts longer and doesn’t require a cooling system to operate. //

The company has been testing coin cell prototypes of the aluminum-ion battery ahead of delivering them to manufacturing partners and has disclosed some performance figures. The battery offers a power density of around 7000 W/kg, which is a massive amount of power closing in on the power density provided by ultracapacitors capable of 12,000-14,000 W/kg.

The new type of battery has an energy density of 150-160 Wh/kg, which is about 60 percent of the energy per weight of the best lithium-ion batteries available today. That spec means these batteries aren’t well-suited to electric vehicles at first glance. //

The batteries can charge extremely fast, with GMG saying that a smartphone running an aluminum-ion battery could charge fully in one to five minutes. What that would mean if aluminum-ion batteries were used in an electric vehicle is that it would only drive about 60 percent the distance of a comparable vehicle with the lithium-ion battery, but its charge speed may be so fast less driving range wouldn’t matter.

Cactus

12 Jun, 2020
The main problem with hydrogen is that it does not exist in an unbound, free form on Earth. It occurs combined with oxygen as water, or in hydrocarbons, like crude oil or natural gas. To make pure hydrogen it needs to be liberated from the compound it is in, and this takes energy. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a means to store energy.

It will be easier for everyone to make synthetic hydrocarbons using renewable or nuclear power and use these synthetic hydrocarbons directly in currently exists turbine and piston engines. //

Pete
3.3K Points

12 Jun, 2020
Hydrogen is a pain to transport and store, increasing costs significantly.

As of right now, producing H2 for fuel cell ground vehicles involves cracking it from hydrocarbons, which is still a dirty process and only shifts the pollution elsewhere. Electrolysis is the end goal, but is extremely energy intensive. We'd need to build out a fair amount of renewable and nuclear power to fulfill that increased demand.

For a home or business, the economics of installing battery storage are often challenging. While falling costs are gradually improving one end of the equation, a new study led by Stefan Englberger at the Technical University of Munich highlights the other side of the balance—optimizing the financial benefits.

Terracycle and Loop founder and CEO Tom Szaky says the economics of the recycling business are broken in key ways, but consumer and corporate interest in building a circular economy continues to grow.

Low oil prices, bans on imported recyclables in countries like China, and the latest trends in packaging design make it harder to recycle. //

Recycling may make you feel better in a very small way about your role in helping to avert a global apocalypse, but even in "friendly" places, from John Oliver to NPR podcasts, recycling, especially of plastics, is being given a hard look. More people are wondering: Does it work?

The debate is not new. For years the economics of plastic recycling have been questioned. But the problem is not going away. The globe is already producing two trillion tons of solid waste a year and is on pace to add more than a trillion more on an annual basis in the coming decades, according to World Bank data. A recent study found that the 20 top petrochemical companies in the world, among the group Exxon Mobil and Dow, are responsible for 55% of the world's single-use plastic waste, and in the U.S., specifically, we are generating about 50 kilograms of throwaway plastic a year, per person. //

Reusable versus recyclable

Economics are busted but the recycling mindset matters

The world is moving away from fossil fuels, towards large-scale adoption of clean energy technologies.

Building these technologies is a mineral-intensive process. From aluminum and chromium to rare earths and cobalt, the energy transition is creating massive demand for a range of minerals.

Copper is one such mineral, which stands out due to its critical role in building both the technologies as well as the infrastructure that allows us to harness their power. //

Relative to 2020 levels, annual copper demand from solar PV installations could more than double by 2030, and almost triple by 2050. The largest percentage increase in copper requirements comes from offshore wind farms. IRENA’s REmap scenario requires 45,000 MW of annual offshore wind installations in 2050, which translates into 432,000 tonnes of copper—a 648% increase from 2020 levels. //

According to Citigroup, the global copper market is expected to be in a 521,000 tonne deficit in 2021—and the transition to renewables is still in its early stages.

While the demand for copper comes from a range of industries, the majority of its supply comes from a few regions, making the supply chain susceptible to disruptions. Mine shutdowns in 2020 exemplified this, as copper production fell by around 500,000 tonnes.

Additionally, average ore grades in Chile, the largest producer of copper, have fallen by 30% over the last 15 years, making it more difficult to mine copper