Electricity sources and electric vehicles

A meta-analysis was recently published in the journal Sustainability on the emissions involved in producing battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and the number of kilometres it takes for a BEV to break even with fossil-fuel vehicles (diesel and petrol) in different European countries. Existing studies were reviewed in order to perform the analysis.

The difference is astounding. The key is the source(s) of electricity used in each country for making the batteries.

Although BEVs are simpler in structure and require less maintenance than fossil-fuel vehicles, they have slightly higher emissions than petrol and diesel vehicles in the manufacturing process. The scientists in this study performed life-cycle assessments of the production cycle and estimated the distances of intersection points (DIPs, measured in thousands of km) before a BEV breaks even with fossil fuel cars.

They discovered that BEVs had to be driven for 34,000 km in Iceland before they became more carbon-friendly than diesel cars, but in the UK they had to be driven for 244,000 km before they break even with diesel cars in terms of emissions. Together with Cyprus and Greece (309,000 and 312,700 km respectively), the cars would probably have reached the end of their lifetime before the break-even point is reached. It is assumed that a car’s lifetime is around 183,894 km, as in all the studies they reviewed this was the average distance driven over a vehicle’s physical lifetime.

In some countries (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Malta) the situation is so bad that “BEVs would never intersect with the compared diesel vehicle at the current electric grid emission intensity due to the use-phase emissions of the BEV being higher than those of the diesel vehicle”. The authors attribute this to the energy mix in the country concerned: for instance, in Poland 80% of the electricity comes from coal. Besides Iceland, the other countries which come well out in this analysis are Norway, France and Sweden.

For petrol cars, the DIP is lower. Iceland still comes best out, with a DIP of 18.9. The figures are lower for all countries, with the same countries coming worst out.

For those who can read Icelandic, Fréttablaðið also reported on this, but to a lesser degree.

It would be interesting to see the same analysis done for hydrogen-fuelled cars and vehicles using methane as fuel. But especially in regard to hydrogen.

Russians to retrieve “ticking time bombs” from the Arctic Ocean

Between 1959 and late 1992, around 18,000 radioactive objects of various types and sizes, including nuclear submarines, were intentionally dumped on the seabed of the Arctic Ocean by the Russians. According to the Russian nuclear agency ROSATOM, by far the majority of these now pose no danger as they have been covered by silt and the like and the level of gamma rays is similar to that of their natural surroundings, but they have decided to remove the six objects that represent 90% of the radioactive sources dumped at sea.

The objects in question are two nuclear submarines, K-27 and K-159; three nuclear reactors that powered nuclear submarines K-11, K-19 and K-140; and spent nuclear fuel from the ice-breaker Lenin.

K-27 lies on the bottom of the Kara Sea and was deliberately sunk by the Russian authorities, contrary to international regulations on the disposal of nuclear waste, while K-159 sank in the Barents Sea, off the coast of the Kola Peninsula, when being towed to Murmansk in Russia for disposal in 2003. The latter made headlines as nine people were on board and died soon afterwards from radiation poisoning.

The reactor of submarine K-27 was sealed with the chemical furfural before it was sunk, but experts say this is now eroding. Around 800 kg of spent nuclear fuel remained in the reactor powering K-159. Experts say that in both cases, a nuclear chain reaction could occur if water enters the submarines’ reactor rooms. Radioactive caesium-137 and strontium-90 could be released among other radioactive isotopes, according to a specialist from Moscow’s Kurchatov Institute

In addition, a total of 19 nuclear-powered Russian boats of various sorts lie on the ocean floor along with 14 nuclear reactors. And after the fall of the former USSR, the West assisted Russia with taking apart 197 nuclear-powered vessels, many of which lay rusting and leaking radioactivity on the sea bed.

Norway has been particularly perturbed by the situation because of the rich fishing grounds in the Barents Sea, which they utilize. They have thus been helping the Russians with radiation measurements, as even a small leak of radiation could cause havoc to their fishing industry. Today, 20 countries still don’t buy fish or seafood from Japan because of the Fukushima accident (which I covered to some extent in the updated edition of Wildlife and the Atom).

There is a lot more to this story than what I’ve written, as there are dangers when raising submarines and the Russians are still building nuclear-powered submarines. BBC Future has a long, detailed article about this matter that is well worth a read.

 

Whales to be killed commercially in Japan but not Iceland

Well, as some of the workers at the whaling station in Iceland intimated last year, Kristjan Loftsson has decided not to kill fin whales this year. One excuse given was somewhat feeble – they received permission to kill whales too late and it was thus too late to organise everything – but the main reason was that they couldn’t sell the meat that they’d sent to Japan.

The minke whalers have also decided to hunt for sea cucumbers rather than whales this year, apparently “because it suits us better”. They abandoned whaling last year early on in the season. They will import minke whale meat from Norway this year to meet customer requirements. Is anyone protesting whaling in Norway?

This is the first time in 17 years that no whaling of any kind will be happening in Iceland.

Neither Kristjan Loftsson’s company Hvalur hf. nor the minke whale outfit IP-utgerd have excluded the possibility of whaling next year.  But this year at least the whales are safe.

The decision by the two companies provides even more rationale for the fact that the report commissioned by the Icelandic government on whaling was not accurate. The authors said that both minke whaling and fin whaling should be profitable, although they acknowledged that fin whaling wasn’t profitable between and including 2014 and 2017, much of the proceeds going on wages and transport to Japan.

And the minke whalers only caught 17 and 6 minke whales in 2017 and 2018 respectively, which can hardly be profitable. Indeed, the minke whaling company has gone bust more than once.

Some whales are not safe, though. Japan started commercial whaling this morning for the first time in 31 years, with quotas for 52 minke whales, 25 sei whales and 15 Bryde’s whales – 225 whales in total. Some whales have already been caught. According to a report in Japan Times, “the quota was calculated on the basis that it would not adversely impact stocks even if Japan kept hunting the whales for 100 years”. Good grief! 100 years!!!

They intend to kill the whales in nearby waters and in their exclusive economic zone but not in the Antarctic, where they have actually killed more whales annually than are allowed now. Last year, Nanami Kurasawa from the Japanese group IKAN told me that the stopping of “research whaling” in the Antarctic and Southern Hemisphere would mean that Japan would have to give up 333 minke whales from Antarctica, 134 sei whales and 43 minke whales from the North West Pacific. Distributors were worried, she said.

Nevertheless, whale meat consumption in Japan has dropped from over 200,000 tonnes in the 1960s to around 5,000 tonnes last year.

Micro-plastics from artificial turf prove problematic in Norway

Making use of recycled car tyres has its problems, as Norway has discovered.

Norway’s Environment Agency (EA) is proposing a new regulation to prevent the spread of micro-plastic from artificial turf into the environment. The regulation will call for the collection of rubber granules from artificial turf and will come into force in January 2019.

The granules, known as crumb rubber or styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), are derived from used car tyres and are used as filler on synthetic ‘grass’ mats to get the grass to stand upright and to provide grip and damping. About 2 mm in size, the granules are used extensively in Norway’s many playing fields and are said to represent the country’s second-largest source of micro-plastic discharge, or up to 1500 tonnes annually.

The granules can be picked up by clothing and footwear and get carried down the drain when the clothing or shoes are washed. When snow is removed, crumb rubber is often removed too.

The EA propose that instead of removing snow and storing it outside of the field, the snow is stored in special snow ponds within the sports complex.

One of the proposals in the regulation is the requirement for a physical barrier around the course. The measure is effective, but can be expensive to implement.

The EA say that 10 percent of plastic infill is lost each year. “Many sports clubs are already making an effort to prevent micro-plastic discharge, but more needs to be done. It is possible to reduce emissions by up to 98 percent from such courses,” Ellen Hambro, Director of the EA, explains.

Crumb rubber is widely used in Europe for artificial turf. It has mostly been studied for its effects on health, as the granules can contain pollutants like PAH, phthalates, heavy metals and phenols, and is generally considered as safe, although a Norwegian report in 2006 concluded that it could have a significant impact on the indoor environment. Very little attention has been focused on its environmental effects up till now.

Some alternatives to crumb rubber, both chemical and organic, are already available but have their own problems. Others, such as sugar-cane granules, are currently under development and should be available soon.

Two interesting reports have been produced on the subject in the last year, one by the Norwegian EA on alternatives to crumb rubber and the other, environmental impact of artificial football turf, by the consultancy Eunomia for football association FIFA.

A modified version of this blog appeared in ENDS Europe Daily today.

Electric cars on the rise in the Nordics

I went to the annual meeting of Orkustofnun, the Icelandic National Energy Authority, last week. Interesting. Two of the talks focused on electric vehicles (EVs) in the Nordic countries. A comprehensive report on EVs in the Nordic countries can be downloaded here.

Sweden and Iceland have both seen great growth in electric cars, but Norway is still the leader. However, publicly available chargers have not increased in line with the sale of electric vehicles. Though the majority of electric vehicle owners charge up their cars at home – 75% in Norway and 85% in Iceland – publicly available chargers are vital for those who travel long-distance and for holiday-makers who hire cars. The EU aims for one charger for every 10 EVs by 2020, and 4 million EVs on the road by 2030 which could save 8 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents. Denmark and Finland have already reached this target and Sweden is not far behind. Norway and Iceland, however, still have some way to go.

Exemptions on registration taxes are common in the Nordic countries. This helps to make them more attractive to consumers. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are preferred in Sweden, Iceland and Finland whereas battery electric vehicles are most popular in Denmark and Norway.

A recent survey showed that 43% of Icelanders would consider buying an EV in the future. Iceland is now installing more charging points, so it is now possible to drive around the island in an electric car without worrying about running out of battery. Because Iceland’s electricity is 100% renewable, the CO2 output of an EV in Iceland is virtually none.

Nevertheless, 40% of new cars in Iceland are bought by car rental firms. Icelanders then buy these cars as nearly-new a year or two later. These companies have been reluctant to take on vehicles using alternative fuels such as EVs, and thus the supply of these cars in the near future is likely to be limited.

Iceland to ratify the Paris Agreement next week

Earlier this evening, the Icelandic Althingi agreed unanimously to ratify the Paris Climate Agreement which had been signed by the Environment Minister, Sigrun Magnusdottir, in April, at the same time as 169 other countries signed the Agreement. This time it will be the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lilja Alfredsdottir, who will ratify the Agreement in New York next week.

But as far as I’m aware, Iceland has not worked out a plan on how to cut its greenhouse emissions. In April, Magnusdottir said “Iceland will work to implement the objectives of the agreement. This will include action in the fields of transport, fisheries and agriculture, as well as carbon capture through reforestation and soil reclamation.” Also, Iceland and Norway will work together with the EU countries to achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030, in reference to 1990. But Iceland has not yet elucidated exactly what measures it will take, and how, in order to fulfil the Agreement, which I am sure had been the intention last year prior to COP21. The latest press release from the environment ministry just says that Iceland’s final obligations will only be decided next year after consultation with the EU and Norway. Last year Iceland said the obligations would be finalized this year….

Not much initiative or ambition there, to my mind.

Global campaign on nuclear disarmament targets Bergen

My first article to be published by In-Depth News, the flagship of the International Press Syndicate, featured an event in Bergen in Norway earlier this week that I was asked to cover. The event was the opening of an exhibition about nuclear disarmament that Soka Gakkai International are setting up in a number of countries worldwide. Each time they set up the exhibition, they get local peace organizations involved, and the event in Bergen was no exception.

But perhaps the most unexpected aspect of the event arose from a long discussion between Kimiaki Kawai from SGI and Fredrik Heldal, director of the Norwegian Peace Association, at the beginning of the evening. They discussed the need for de-politicization as a way to spread awareness of the disarmament issue.

Heidal later expanded on this in the panel discussion. “Instead of concentrating on the political side – the pros and cons of bans, lobbying and such like – we need to make it more into an ethical issue. A discussion on ethics and morals … will resonate more and it will be easier to sell the issue,” he said.

Their stance reflects the exhibition itself, which looks at the nuclear weapons issue from 12 perspectives, Kawai says the topic is relevant to everybody: “In our day-to-day life, we don’t see nuclear weapons and it is easy for people to lose interest in the question. So one of the things we emphasize is that if the money spent on nuclear weapons is spent on health and other crucial questions, life would be better.”

Unfortunately, my editor said he wanted to put the Bergen event in the context of global nuclear disarmament talks and in consequence the interesting issue of “de-politicization” as a campaign tool was omitted. Which is a pity.

The article was also published on the website of Toward a Nuclear Free World.

 

Fin whaling in Iceland is loss-making

The Icelandic fin-whaling company Hvalur hf. made a loss on its fin-whaling activities last year, according to annual accounts for the company. The company’s annual accounts show that it sold whale meat for ISK 1.055 million in 2014 but the expense of running the whaling ships and export-related expenses (presumably the shipment of whale meat to Japan on the freight ship Alma) amounted to ISK 2.011 million. The value of stock changes of whale produce was recorded as ISK 822 million, and thus the estimated loss of fin whaling was at least ISK 73 million.

Frozen supplies of whale meat were estimated as ISK 2.6 billion in September 2014.

Overall, though, Hvalur hf. recorded a profit of ISK 3 billion, mostly due to activities of its subsidiary Vogun hf. which owns a large part of the fishing companies HB Grandi and Hampiðjan.

The financial situation is not likely to improve this year either, with the ship Winter Bay being moored in Tromsö for 6 weeks. Also, Icelandic fish companies are extremely concerned at the moment because Russia is seriously considering banning the importation of Icelandic goods – most of which consist of fish – because of Iceland’s support for economic sanctions against Russia because of its role in the Ukraine crisis. Initially Russia banned imports from the EU and certain other countries but now it is considering extending the ban to Iceland. When US anti-whaling groups were encouraging boycotts of fish coming from Iceland due to Iceland’s whale-hunting activities, Icelandic fishery companies were not particularly worried because most of Iceland’s fish goes to Russia. Exports to Russia have increased almost five-fold since 2008. But now they’re really worried….

If Hvalur cannot depend on fishing profits from HB Grandi to keep it afloat, it will be in deep trouble.

UPDATE: Russia implemented the ban yesterday, August 13. And fishing concerns are extremely angry….

Whaling news from Iceland

Well, the first two fin whales have been brought back to the whaling station in Hvalfjordur, Iceland. One of the boats has already headed out to sea again. And as of June 25, 14 minke whales had been caught, though the meat from the first one was discarded due to the strike by veterinarians. Meanwhile, the boat that is carrying Icelandic fin whale meat to Japan, Winter Bay, is moored off the coast of Norway while sea ice along a possible sea route is being investigated.

The global campaigning organization, Avaaz, set up a petition last week to try and stop the boat from leaving port. The boat is sailing under the flag of St Kitts and Nevis, and Avaaz want the nation to remove its flag from the ship as that will mean the boat can’t leave port. At the time of writing, almost 850,000 signatures have been collected.

In Iceland, protestors intend to use drones to follow the whaling boats.

UPDATE: The boat finally left Tromsö last night, August 1, after being moored for 5 weeks. It is going to sail the so-called Northeast passage along the northern edge of Russia, east through the Arctic Ocean and then down to Osaka in Japan. The route is shorter than others that go between Europe and Asia but is prone to becoming blocked by sea ice. So maybe nature will stop the whale meat in its tracks.

UPDATE: The boat arrived in Japan on August 30.

Sea Shepherd to concentrate on Nordic countries this year

Last week, conservation organization Sea Shepherd said that they would be concentrating their actions this summer on the Nordic countries: the Faroe islands, Iceland and Norway. Now they say they will primarily be concentrating on the Faroe islands, like last year when they also produced a short film about the situation there. However, they will be keeping an eye on the whaling activities of Iceland and Norway.

The Dutch coordinator of the actions, Alex Cornelissen, says they are only against one person in Iceland: Kristjan Loftsson, the person behind the fin whale hunting.

They appear not to be interested in the hunting of minke whales, which is likely to begin very soon. But the minke whales don’t need Sea Shepherd to protect them at the moment – the vets from Iceland’s Food and Veterinary Authority are on strike, and they are needed to take the temperature of the meat before it can be processed. Minke whaling cannot start until the vets go back to work.

UPDATE, June 4: It now appears that two minke whales have now been caught, on the premise that the strike by vets at the Food and Veterinary Authority would end (it hasn’t). The meat of the second whale is being kept in the freezer, while meat of the first whale was destroyed.