Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Why build nuclear power in place of old coal, when you could have pumped hydropower instead?

News Feed
Monday, March 17, 2025

Phillip Wittke, ShutterstockAustralia’s energy policy would take a sharp turn if the Coalition wins the upcoming federal election. A Dutton government would seek to build seven nuclear power plants at the sites of old coal-fired power stations. The Coalition says its plan makes smart use of the existing transmission network and other infrastructure. But solar and wind power would need to be curtailed to make room in the grid for nuclear energy. This means polluting coal and gas power stations would remain active for longer, releasing an extra 1 billion to 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. So is there another option? Yes: pumped hydro storage plants. This technology is quicker and cheaper to develop than nuclear power, and can store solar and wind rather than curtail it. It’s better suited to Australia’s electricity grid and would ultimately lead to fewer emissions. Drawing on our recent global analysis, we found the technology could be deployed near all but one of the seven sites the Coalition has earmarked for nuclear power. The Coalition is likely to spend anywhere from A$116 billion to $600 billion of taxpayers’ money to deliver up to 14 gigawatts of nuclear energy. Experts say the plan will not lower power prices and will take too long to build. Our findings suggest cheap storage of solar and wind, in the form of pumped hydro, is a better way forward. This way, we can continue to build renewable energy capacity while stabilising the grid. More than 45GW of solar and wind is already up and running, with a further 23GW being supported by the Capacity Investment Scheme until 2027. Only a handful of the pumped hydro sites we found would be needed to decarbonise the energy system, reaching the 1,046 gigawatt-hours of storage CSIRO estimates Australia needs. Building pumped hydro storage systems near old coal-fired power generators has some advantages, such as access to transmission lines – although more will be needed as electricity demand increases. But plenty of other suitable sites exist, too. Filling the gaps Pumped hydro is a cheap, mature technology that currently provides more than 90% of the world’s electrical energy storage. It involves pumping water uphill from one reservoir to another at a higher elevation for storage. Then, when power is needed, water is released to flow downhill through turbines, generating electricity on its way to the lower reservoir. Together with battery storage, pumped hydro solves the very real problem of keeping the grid stable and reliable when it is dominated by solar and wind power. By 2030, 82% of Australia’s electricity supply is expected to come from renewables, up from about 40% today. But solar panels only work during the day and don’t produce as much power when it’s cloudy. And wind turbines don’t generate power when it’s calm. That’s where storage systems come in. They can charge up when electricity is plentiful and then release electricity when it’s needed. Grid-connected batteries can fill short-term gaps (from seconds to a few hours). Pumped hydro can store electricity overnight, and longer still. These two technologies can be used together to supply electricity through winter, and other periods of calm or cloudy weather. Two types of pumped-storage hydropower, one doesn’t require dams on rivers. NREL Finding pumped hydro near the Coalitions’s proposed nuclear sites Australia has three operating pumped hydro systems: Tumut 3 in the Snowy Mountains, Wivenhoe in Queensland, and Shoalhaven in the Kangaroo Valley of New South Wales. Two more are under construction, including Snowy 2.0. Even after all the cost blowouts, Snowy 2.0 comes at a modest construction cost of A$34 per kilowatt-hour of energy storage, which is ten times cheaper than the cost CSIRO estimates for large, new batteries. We previously developed a “global atlas” to identify potential locations for pumped hydro facilities around the world. More recently, we created a publicly available tool to filter results based on construction cost, system size, distance from transmission lines or roads, and away from environmentally sensitive locations. In this new analysis, we used the tool to find pumped hydro options near the sites the Coalition has chosen for nuclear power plants. Mapping 300 potential pumped hydro sites The proposed nuclear sites are: Liddell Power Station, New South Wales Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria Tarong Power Station, Queensland Callide Power Station, Queensland Northern Power Station, South Australia (small modular reactor only) Muja Power Station, Western Australia (small modular reactor only). We used our tool to identify which of these seven sites would instead be suitable for a pumped hydro project, using the following criteria: low construction cost (for a pumped hydro project) located within 85km of the proposed nuclear sites. We included various reservoir types in our search: new reservoirs on undeveloped land (“greenfield” sites) repurposing existing reservoirs (“bluefield” sites) repurposing existing mining pits (“brownfield” sites). Exactly 300 sites matched our search criteria. No options emerged near the proposed nuclear site in Western Australia, but suitable sites lie further north in the mining region of the Pilbara. One option east of Melbourne, depicted in the image below, has a storage capacity of 500 gigawatt-hours. Compared with Snowy 2.0, this option has a much shorter tunnel, larger energy capacity, and larger height difference between the two reservoirs (increasing the potential energy stored in the water). And unlike Snowy 2.0, it is not located in a national park. Of course, shortlisted sites would require detailed assessment to confirm the local geology is suitable for pumped hydro, and to evaluate potential environmental and social impacts. More where that came from We restricted our search to sites near the Coalition’s proposed nuclear plants. But there are hundreds of potential pumped hydro sites along Australia’s east coast. Developers can use our free tool to identify the best sites. So far, the Australian electricity transition has mainly been driven by private investment in solar and wind power. With all this renewable energy entering the grid, there’s money to be made in storage, too. Large, centralised, baseload electricity generators, such as coal and nuclear plants, are becoming a thing of the past. A smarter energy policy would balance solar and wind with technologies such as pumped hydro, to secure a reliable electricity supply. Timothy Weber receives funding from the Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics.Andrew Blakers receives funding from the Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other organisations.

Research reveals most of the sites the Coalition has earmarked for nuclear power plants would be suitable for pumped hydropower plants.

Phillip Wittke, Shutterstock

Australia’s energy policy would take a sharp turn if the Coalition wins the upcoming federal election. A Dutton government would seek to build seven nuclear power plants at the sites of old coal-fired power stations.

The Coalition says its plan makes smart use of the existing transmission network and other infrastructure. But solar and wind power would need to be curtailed to make room in the grid for nuclear energy. This means polluting coal and gas power stations would remain active for longer, releasing an extra 1 billion to 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

So is there another option? Yes: pumped hydro storage plants. This technology is quicker and cheaper to develop than nuclear power, and can store solar and wind rather than curtail it. It’s better suited to Australia’s electricity grid and would ultimately lead to fewer emissions. Drawing on our recent global analysis, we found the technology could be deployed near all but one of the seven sites the Coalition has earmarked for nuclear power.

The Coalition is likely to spend anywhere from A$116 billion to $600 billion of taxpayers’ money to deliver up to 14 gigawatts of nuclear energy. Experts say the plan will not lower power prices and will take too long to build. Our findings suggest cheap storage of solar and wind, in the form of pumped hydro, is a better way forward.

This way, we can continue to build renewable energy capacity while stabilising the grid. More than 45GW of solar and wind is already up and running, with a further 23GW being supported by the Capacity Investment Scheme until 2027. Only a handful of the pumped hydro sites we found would be needed to decarbonise the energy system, reaching the 1,046 gigawatt-hours of storage CSIRO estimates Australia needs.

Building pumped hydro storage systems near old coal-fired power generators has some advantages, such as access to transmission lines – although more will be needed as electricity demand increases. But plenty of other suitable sites exist, too.

Filling the gaps

Pumped hydro is a cheap, mature technology that currently provides more than 90% of the world’s electrical energy storage.

It involves pumping water uphill from one reservoir to another at a higher elevation for storage. Then, when power is needed, water is released to flow downhill through turbines, generating electricity on its way to the lower reservoir.

Together with battery storage, pumped hydro solves the very real problem of keeping the grid stable and reliable when it is dominated by solar and wind power.

By 2030, 82% of Australia’s electricity supply is expected to come from renewables, up from about 40% today.

But solar panels only work during the day and don’t produce as much power when it’s cloudy. And wind turbines don’t generate power when it’s calm. That’s where storage systems come in. They can charge up when electricity is plentiful and then release electricity when it’s needed.

Grid-connected batteries can fill short-term gaps (from seconds to a few hours). Pumped hydro can store electricity overnight, and longer still. These two technologies can be used together to supply electricity through winter, and other periods of calm or cloudy weather.

Illustration of two open and closed-loop hydro storage systems. Closed-loop systems use two reservoirs rather than running water.
Two types of pumped-storage hydropower, one doesn’t require dams on rivers. NREL

Finding pumped hydro near the Coalitions’s proposed nuclear sites

Australia has three operating pumped hydro systems: Tumut 3 in the Snowy Mountains, Wivenhoe in Queensland, and Shoalhaven in the Kangaroo Valley of New South Wales.

Two more are under construction, including Snowy 2.0. Even after all the cost blowouts, Snowy 2.0 comes at a modest construction cost of A$34 per kilowatt-hour of energy storage, which is ten times cheaper than the cost CSIRO estimates for large, new batteries.

We previously developed a “global atlas” to identify potential locations for pumped hydro facilities around the world.

More recently, we created a publicly available tool to filter results based on construction cost, system size, distance from transmission lines or roads, and away from environmentally sensitive locations.

In this new analysis, we used the tool to find pumped hydro options near the sites the Coalition has chosen for nuclear power plants.

Mapping 300 potential pumped hydro sites

The proposed nuclear sites are:

  • Liddell Power Station, New South Wales
  • Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales
  • Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria
  • Tarong Power Station, Queensland
  • Callide Power Station, Queensland
  • Northern Power Station, South Australia (small modular reactor only)
  • Muja Power Station, Western Australia (small modular reactor only).

We used our tool to identify which of these seven sites would instead be suitable for a pumped hydro project, using the following criteria:

  • low construction cost (for a pumped hydro project)

  • located within 85km of the proposed nuclear sites.

We included various reservoir types in our search:

Exactly 300 sites matched our search criteria. No options emerged near the proposed nuclear site in Western Australia, but suitable sites lie further north in the mining region of the Pilbara.

One option east of Melbourne, depicted in the image below, has a storage capacity of 500 gigawatt-hours. Compared with Snowy 2.0, this option has a much shorter tunnel, larger energy capacity, and larger height difference between the two reservoirs (increasing the potential energy stored in the water). And unlike Snowy 2.0, it is not located in a national park.

Of course, shortlisted sites would require detailed assessment to confirm the local geology is suitable for pumped hydro, and to evaluate potential environmental and social impacts.

More where that came from

We restricted our search to sites near the Coalition’s proposed nuclear plants. But there are hundreds of potential pumped hydro sites along Australia’s east coast.

Developers can use our free tool to identify the best sites.

So far, the Australian electricity transition has mainly been driven by private investment in solar and wind power. With all this renewable energy entering the grid, there’s money to be made in storage, too.

Large, centralised, baseload electricity generators, such as coal and nuclear plants, are becoming a thing of the past. A smarter energy policy would balance solar and wind with technologies such as pumped hydro, to secure a reliable electricity supply.

The Conversation

Timothy Weber receives funding from the Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics.

Andrew Blakers receives funding from the Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other organisations.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Flooding in the Sahara, Amazon tributaries drying and warming tipping over 1.5°C – 2024 broke all the wrong records

The atmosphere now has the highest carbon dioxide levels in the last 800,000 years – and global heat records have toppled yet again. Coincidence? Of course not

Climate change is the most pressing problem humanity will face this century. Tracking how the climate is actually changing has never been more critical. Today, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its annual State of the Climate report, which found heat records kept being broken in 2024. It’s likely 2024 was the first year to be more than 1.5°C above the Earth’s pre-industrial average temperature. In 2024, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit the highest point in the last 800,000 years. The combination of heat and unchecked emissions, the organisation points out, had serious consequences. Attribution studies found a link between climate change and disasters such as Hurricane Helene, which left a trail of destruction in the southeastern United States, and the unprecedented flooding in Africa’s arid Sahel region. Slowing these increasingly dangerous changes to Earth’s climate will require a rapid shift from fossil fuels to clean energy. The record heat of 2024 From the North Pole to the South Pole, the oceans and our land masses, the report catalogues alarm bells ringing ever louder for Earth’s vital signs. Steadily rising global average temperatures show us the influence of the extra heat we are trapping by emitting greenhouse gases. The ten warmest years on record have all happened in the past ten years. The report shows 2024 was the warmest year since comprehensive global records began 175 years ago. The planet was an estimated 1.55°C (plus or minus 0.13°C) warmer than it was between 1850 and 1900. Together, 2023 and 2024 marked a jump in global mean temperature from previous years. There was a jump of about 0.15°C between the previous record year (2016 or 2020 depending on the dataset) and 2023. Last year was even warmer – about 0.1°C above 2023. Last year was the first year the planet was likely more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This doesn’t mean we have broken the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of holding warming under 1.5°C – temperatures would need to be sustained over a number of years to formally lose that fight. But it’s not good news. There are a few extra factors at play in this record-breaking global temperature, including an El Niño event boosting eastern Pacific Ocean temperatures in the first part of 2024, falling pollution from shipping leading to less cloud over the ocean, and a more active sun as well. Researchers are hard at work unpicking why the Earth’s average temperature jumped in 2023 and 2024. But it is clear the 2024 record-breaking warmth and most other damning statistics in the report would not have occurred if it wasn’t for human-induced climate change. Much of the Northern Hemisphere was more than 2°C warmer in 2024 than 1951-1980 levels and many equatorial areas saw new annual temperature records. NASA GISS, CC BY-NC-ND Carbon dioxide up, glacial melt up, sea ice down It’s not just global temperatures breaking records. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached 427 parts per million last year. Sea level rise has accelerated and is now about 11 centimetres above early 1990s levels, and the oceans are at their highest temperatures on record. Seasonal sea-ice in the Arctic and around Antarctica shrank to low levels (albeit short of record lows) in 2024, while preliminary data shows glacial melt and ocean acidification continued at a rapid pace. Almost all parts of the world were much warmer in 2024 than even recent averages (1991–2020) and much of the tropics experienced record heat. From cyclones to heatwaves, another year of extreme events In the English-speaking media, extreme events affecting North America, Europe and Australia are well covered, such as the devastating Hurricane Helene in the US and the lethal flash flooding in Spain. By contrast, extreme weather and its fallout in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia get less coverage. In September 2024, Super Typhoon Yagi killed hundreds and caused widespread damage through the Philippines, China and Vietnam. Later in the year, Cyclone Chido struck Mayotte and Mozambique causing more than 100,000 people to be displaced. Hundreds died in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan due to spring floods following an unusual cold wave. Unusual flooding hit parts of the arid Sahel and even the Sahara Desert. Meanwhile the worst drought in a century hit southern Africa, devastating small farmers and leading to rising hunger. Much of South and Central America was hit by significant drought. Huge tributaries to the Amazon River all but dried up for the first time on record. Severe summer heat hit much of the Northern Hemisphere, while more than 1,300 pilgrims died during the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca as heat and humidity pushed past survivable limits. Globally, extreme weather forced more people from their homes than any other year since 2008, which had widespread floods and fires. Did climate change play a role in these extreme events? The answer ranges from a resounding yes in some cases to a likely small role in others. Scientists at World Weather Attribution found the fingerprints of climate change in Hurricane Helene’s large-scale rain and winds as well as the flooding rains in the eastern Sahel. Paying the price for decades of inaction This report is a dire score card. The numbers are sobering, scary but sadly, not surprising. We have known the basic mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the planet for over 100 years. The science behind climate change has been around a long time. But our response is still not up to the task. Currently, our activities are producing ever more greenhouse gas emissions, trapping more heat and causing more and more problems for people and the planet. Every fraction of a degree of global warming matters. The damage done will keep worsening until we end our reliance on fossil fuels and reach net zero. Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather and the National Environmental Science Program. Linden Ashcroft has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather

CO2
Climate
Pollution

South Dakota Action Threatens Massive Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Proposed for Midwest

South Dakota's governor signed a bill into law Thursday that bans the taking of private property for building carbon dioxide pipelines

South Dakota's governor signed a bill into law Thursday that bans the taking of private property for building carbon dioxide pipelines, a blow to a sprawling Midwest pipeline network that ethanol producers see as key for their future.The new law muddies the waters for Summit Carbon Solutions and the planned $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) pipeline that already has approvals in three other states.Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden said the measure restricting eminent domain “does not kill” Summit's proposed project, and he encouraged the company to view the bill as “an opportunity to reset.”“I made my decision based on my own consideration of the facts, the policy arguments, legislative history, my own opinions and experience and my judgment about what is best for South Dakota,” Rhoden said.In a statement, Summit lamented the bill signing as changing the rules in the middle of the game. The company is seeking approval from South Dakota regulators for its proposed route in the state.“This kind of regulatory uncertainty creates real challenges — not just for our project, but for the ethanol plants in South Dakota that now face a competitive disadvantage compared to their counterparts in neighboring states," the company said. “While this presents obstacles, our project moves forward in states that support investment and innovation, and we will have more news on that soon.”The company's proposed pipeline system would transport planet-warming emissions from dozens of ethanol plants in five states for burial deep underground in North Dakota.Property rights have been a passionate issue in South Dakota, where voters last year rejected a suite of regulations that opponents said would deny local control over such projects and consolidate authority with state regulators. Supporters called it a “landowner bill of rights.”The bill states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, a person may not exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way for, construct, or operate a pipeline for the preponderant purpose of transporting carbon oxide.”Eminent domain is the taking of private property with compensation to the owner.Summit has approvals for its routes in Iowa and North Dakota, a leg in Minnesota and underground storage in North Dakota. In 2023, South Dakota regulators rejected Summit's permit application. New proceedings are underway.It isn't clear how Summit would move forward with its project if it could not build in South Dakota.Supporters see carbon capture projects such as Summit's pipeline as a way to fight climate change and to help the ethanol industry. Opponents question carbon capture's effectiveness at large scale and say it allows the fossil fuels industry to continue with little meaningful change.Some opponents argue the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered through the process would make little difference and could lead farmers to grow more corn despite environmental concerns about the crop.Dura reported from Bismarck, North Dakota.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

CO2
Climate
Water

A Straightforward Climate Fix Hits Another Setback

Cutting down emissions of planet-warming methane from oil and gas production was supposed to be relatively simple. It hasn’t worked that way.

For the oil and gas industry, cutting emissions of one of the most potent greenhouse gases was supposed to be relatively straightforward.But last week Congress voted to roll back the “methane fee,” a penalty on excess methane emissions passed during the Biden administration. The decision removed what was supposed to be an incentive for polluters to reduce their environmental impact, though the fee had not yet gone into effect.And the move comes amid efforts across the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations and boost fossil fuel production, which, in turn, could lead to the release of more methane.Methane is considered a “superpollutant” because it can trap around 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide can in the short term, and it’s responsible for about a third of the global temperature rise since the preindustrial era.A big chunk of global methane emissions caused by human activity comes from the energy sector, where methane is released during the production and transportation of fossil fuels.Over the last few years, cutting back on energy-sector methane has become a focal point for policymakers looking for the cheapest, fastest and easiest ways to reduce emissions globally. New satellites and cameras can quickly and accurately locate large emissions events, and fixing the problem is sometimes as simple as twisting a knob on a valve.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

CO2
Energy
Transportation

Minimizing the carbon footprint of bridges and other structures

MAD Design Fellow Zane Schemmer writes algorithms that optimize overall function, minimize carbon footprint, and produce a manufacturable design.

Awed as a young child by the majesty of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, civil engineer and MIT Morningside Academy for Design (MAD) Fellow Zane Schemmer has retained his fascination with bridges: what they look like, why they work, and how they’re designed and built.He weighed the choice between architecture and engineering when heading off to college, but, motivated by the why and how of structural engineering, selected the latter. Now he incorporates design as an iterative process in the writing of algorithms that perfectly balance the forces involved in discrete portions of a structure to create an overall design that optimizes function, minimizes carbon footprint, and still produces a manufacturable result.While this may sound like an obvious goal in structural design, it’s not. It’s new. It’s a more holistic way of looking at the design process that can optimize even down to the materials, angles, and number of elements in the nodes or joints that connect the larger components of a building, bridge, tower, etc.According to Schemmer, there hasn’t been much progress on optimizing structural design to minimize embodied carbon, and the work that exists often results in designs that are “too complex to be built in real life,” he says. The embodied carbon of a structure is the total carbon dioxide emissions of its life cycle: from the extraction or manufacture of its materials to their transport and use and through the demolition of the structure and disposal of the materials. Schemmer, who works with Josephine V. Carstensen, the Gilbert W. Winslow Career Development Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT, is focusing on the portion of that cycle that runs through construction.In September, at the IASS 2024 symposium "Redefining the Art of Structural Design in Zurich," Schemmer and Carstensen presented their work on Discrete Topology Optimization algorithms that are able to minimize the embodied carbon in a bridge or other structure by up to 20 percent. This comes through materials selection that considers not only a material’s appearance and its ability to get the job done, but also the ease of procurement, its proximity to the building site, and the carbon embodied in its manufacture and transport.“The real novelty of our algorithm is its ability to consider multiple materials in a highly constrained solution space to produce manufacturable designs with a user-specified force flow,” Schemmer says. “Real-life problems are complex and often have many constraints associated with them. In traditional formulations, it can be difficult to have a long list of complicated constraints. Our goal is to incorporate these constraints to make it easier to take our designs out of the computer and create them in real life.”Take, for instance, a steel tower, which could be a “super lightweight, efficient design solution,” Schemmer explains. Because steel is so strong, you don’t need as much of it compared to concrete or timber to build a big building. But steel is also very carbon-intensive to produce and transport. Shipping it across the country or especially from a different continent can sharply increase its embodied carbon price tag. Schemmer’s topology optimization will replace some of the steel with timber elements or decrease the amount of steel in other elements to create a hybrid structure that will function effectively and minimize the carbon footprint. “This is why using the same steel in two different parts of the world can lead to two different optimized designs,” he explains.Schemmer, who grew up in the mountains of Utah, earned a BS and MS in civil and environmental engineering from University of California at Berkeley, where his graduate work focused on seismic design. He describes that education as providing a “very traditional, super-strong engineering background that tackled some of the toughest engineering problems,” along with knowledge of structural engineering’s traditions and current methods.But at MIT, he says, a lot of the work he sees “looks at removing the constraints of current societal conventions of doing things, and asks how could we do things if it was in a more ideal form; what are we looking at then? Which I think is really cool,” he says. “But I think sometimes too, there’s a jump between the most-perfect version of something and where we are now, that there needs to be a bridge between those two. And I feel like my education helps me see that bridge.”The bridge he’s referring to is the topology optimization algorithms that make good designs better in terms of decreased global warming potential.“That’s where the optimization algorithm comes in,” Schemmer says. “In contrast to a standard structure designed in the past, the algorithm can take the same design space and come up with a much more efficient material usage that still meets all the structural requirements, be up to code, and have everything we want from a safety standpoint.”That’s also where the MAD Design Fellowship comes in. The program provides yearlong fellowships with full financial support to graduate students from all across the Institute who network with each other, with the MAD faculty, and with outside speakers who use design in new ways in a surprising variety of fields. This helps the fellows gain a better understanding of how to use iterative design in their own work.“Usually people think of their own work like, ‘Oh, I had this background. I’ve been looking at this one way for a very long time.’ And when you look at it from an outside perspective, I think it opens your mind to be like, ‘Oh my God. I never would have thought about doing this that way. Maybe I should try that.’ And then we can move to new ideas, new inspiration for better work,” Schemmer says.He chose civil and structural engineering over architecture some seven years ago, but says that “100 years ago, I don’t think architecture and structural engineering were two separate professions. I think there was an understanding of how things looked and how things worked, and it was merged together. Maybe from an efficiency standpoint, it’s better to have things done separately. But I think there’s something to be said for having knowledge about how the whole system works, potentially more intermingling between the free-form architectural design and the mathematical design of a civil engineer. Merging it back together, I think, has a lot of benefits.”Which brings us back to the Golden Gate Bridge, Schemmer’s longtime favorite. You can still hear that excited 3-year-old in his voice when he talks about it.“It’s so iconic,” he says. “It’s connecting these two spits of land that just rise straight up out of the ocean. There’s this fog that comes in and out a lot of days. It's a really magical place, from the size of the cable strands and everything. It’s just, ‘Wow.’ People built this over 100 years ago, before the existence of a lot of the computational tools that we have now. So, all the math, everything in the design, was all done by hand and from the mind. Nothing was computerized, which I think is crazy to think about.”As Schemmer continues work on his doctoral degree at MIT, the MAD fellowship will expose him to many more awe-inspiring ideas in other fields, leading him to incorporate some of these in some way with his engineering knowledge to design better ways of building bridges and other structures.

CO2
Education
Mountains

CO2 emissions from new North Sea drilling sites would match 30 years’ worth from UK households

New research comes as dozens of small potential fields have received some form of license from the governmentPotential new North Sea oil and gas fields with early stage licences from the UK would emit as much carbon dioxide as British households produce in three decades.The finding has led to calls to the government to reject demands from fossil fuel producers for the final permits needed to allow their operations to go ahead. Continue reading...

Potential new North Sea oil and gas fields with early stage licences from the UK would emit as much carbon dioxide as British households produce in three decades.The finding has led to calls to the government to reject demands from fossil fuel producers for the final permits needed to allow their operations to go ahead.Dozens of small potential sites, and several controversial large projects such as the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, have received some form of licence, though they are not yet operational.If they all went aheadthe resulting emissions would have a global impact on the ability to stave off catastrophic levels of climate change, according to research by the campaigning group Uplift.Sites that have been licensed for drilling but have not yet been developed are estimated to hold up to 3.8bn barrels of oil equivalent. If burned, this would release 1.5bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Emissions from the UK’s 28m households amount to about 50m tonnes a year.Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, said: “The scale of the planned drilling by fossil fuel companies in the North Sea is alarming. How can it be right that, while we strive to reduce our climate impact – and household emissions fall from people installing solar panels and switching to heat pumps – the oil and gas industry is given a free pass to generate massive emissions?”The government has pledged not to issue any new licenses to oil and gas fields, but has stopped short of rescinding licences currently in the pipeline. Under the UK’s licensing regime, exploration licences can be issued at an early stage, and it can often take years or decades before progressing to the next stage of receiving the production permits necessary for operation.The previous government’s enthusiasm for licensing – and vow to drain “every last drop” from the North Sea – has meant that the pipeline is well stocked with potential new fields.Under the Conservatives, fields were subject to climate checks before being given the green light, but these checks did not take account of the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from burning the oil and gas produced from the fields.That changed in June, shortly before the general election, when a landmark ruling by the supreme court – called the “Finch ruling” after the campaigner Sarah Finch, who brought the initial case – found that such emissions must be taken into account.When Labour took power, the government issued fresh advice to operators, that they must include emissions from burning the oil and gas in their environmental assessments. A government consultation to establish in detail how potential new fields should be treated is now under way, and will close in early January.The new research by Uplift, seen by the Guardian, is the first to expose the impacts of the potential pipeline of new fields. Khan said ministers should make clear they would effectively shut down new fields.“We finally have a government that is willing to apply common sense and accept that the emissions from burning oil and gas should be factored into decisions on whether or not to approve new drilling,” she said. She called on the UK to send a strong signal to other countries, which are also considering new drilling.“Governments around the world also know that we have discovered more fossil fuels than are safe to burn and that some reserves need to be kept in the ground if we are to stay within safe climate limits. There is compelling evidence that the emissions from new North Sea drilling are incompatible with these limits,” she said.The ban on new licences – which applies to potential fields that have not yet received any form of permit – should prevent about 4bn barrels of oil being produced. The government will consult next year on how to implement this ban.Labour faces stiff challenges, however, from the oil and gas industry, and from oil and gas workers and the unions which represent them.Mark Wilson, operations director for Offshore Energies UK, which represents the oil and gas industry, said: “UK oil and gas demand is forecast to outstrip domestic production, even if these resources are brought to market. Limiting the production and therefore the supply of UK oil and gas within a mature and declining basin like the North Sea is not an effective way to address the challenge of delivering a net zero energy future.“Preventing the development of existing reserves and resources won’t fix the climate challenge, but it will threaten UK jobs, communities and income and negatively impact the livelihoods of the skilled people whose expertise we need to deliver the UK’s net zero goals.”Uplift’s Khan said the government must provide a “just transition” for workers, but pointed out that the future of the North Sea would be one of steep decline, even if resources were poured into extraction.“New drilling is not the answer for the UK’s energy workers. In the past decade, despite new fields being approved and hundreds of new licenses being handed out, the number of jobs supported by the industry has more than halved as the North Sea declines,” Khan highlighted.“What supply chains, workers, and their communities have long needed is a proper plan to create good quality, clean energy jobs in the places that need them most. This is the critical job for government. Approving new drilling delays the UK’s transition and distracts from the urgent action that workers need today.”A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “Our priority is a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea in line with our climate and legal obligations, which drives towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs. We will not revoke existing oil and gas licences and will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan, and we will not issue new oil and gas licences to explore new fields.”The spokesperson added: “Clean, homegrown energy is the best way to protect bill payers and secure Britain’s energy independence while tackling climate change, which is why we announced the biggest ever investment in offshore wind and are moving ahead with new North Sea industries like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen.”

CO2
Government
Energy

Suggested Viewing

CO2? CO-Nee!

Joep van Dijk is a passionate climate scientist. He likes to search for extreme examples that show how life can be lived sustainably. This documentary follows Joep on his CO2-neutral journey from Amsterdam to the United States of America and shows how this choice inspires himself and others to live a climate conscious life.

Climate
CO2
Sustainable

The Carbon Chronicles

The Carbon Chronicles: Who owns the air? The Carbon Chronicles is an experimental animated visualisation of the build-up of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses has radically altered the Earth’s atmosphere. It is a collaboration between artists from the Manifest Data Lab and scientists from the British Antarctic Survey. The animation maps from the industrial revolution to the present day the regions contributing most to the climate crisis, which can be traced through the stalagmite growths representing CO2 emissions growing out from the different countries. Beginning with the UK in the 1750s, emissions from coal start enveloping the planet, other regions soon follow. By the late 1800s through to the current period, growing industrial and extraction activity in the Global North is responsible for 92% of CO2 with 8% coming from the Global South. The spread of CO2 described in the animation mirrors the wider historic processes of power distribution visited on poorer countries and shows that the atmosphere is as contested a space as the territories beneath it. The work describes a living breathing planet, under the pressure of human produced exhalations of CO2. It attributes responsibility in ways that can inform the need for equitable solutions to the climate crisis that are mindful of the historic consequences of carbon exploitation and its impacts. The Carbon Chronicles informs the need for equitable solutions to the climate crisis that are mindful of the historic consequences of carbon exploitation to ask: Who Owns the Air?

Animation
CO2
Experimental

A Low Carbon Future for China’s Furnace Cities

China’s economic development and rapid urbanization has led to a dramatic rise in energy consumption due to excessive heating and air-conditioning causing carbon emissions of immense proportions. China’s government has set the ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40–45% by 2020 against the 2005 baseline. A UK/China-funded team working on how to solve the problem in some of the most extreme climate regions in China. The team discovers groundbreaking solutions using computational-fluid-dynamics simulations.

CO2
Energy
Climate

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants
CO2
Animation

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.