By Patty Smith* Around the world, people use many gallons of fresh water every day. Yet many have only a basic knowledge about the availability of fresh water, its proper management, or the processes and technologies that regulate the accessibility and conservation of this precious resource. The Earth is literally awash in water—71% of its surface is liquid, representing more than 326 million trillion gallons of water. However, a minuscule amount of that vast resource is available as fresh water. According to data from Pennsylvania State University, only 3% of the Earth’s water is fresh, with the remaining 97% salinated or ocean water. Of that 3% fresh water, 69% exists within glaciers, and 30% is underground, which means less than 1% of fresh water is readily accessible for use in lakes, swamps, and rivers. Where is the fresh water used? A report published in 2021 by the United Nations-affiliated organization, UN-Water, stated that globally, 72% of all water withdrawals are used by agriculture, 16% by municipalities for households and services, and 12% by industries. Individuals can evaluate their personal, household water usage with this free online water-use calculator offered by GRACE Water Scarcity is a Global Concern When discussing the availability and use of fresh water, attention should be paid to the scarcity of water around the world. The numbers are sobering. An area is said to be “water-stressed” when it withdraws 25% or more of its freshwater resources. According to the UN-Water report, 2.3 billion people live in water-stressed countries, of which 733 million live in critically water-stressed countries. According to UNICEF, 1.42 billion people—including 450 million children—live in areas of high or extremely high water vulnerability. In addition, a report published in 2020 by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization said that 3.2 billion people live in agricultural areas with high to very high water shortages or scarcity, and 1.2 billion people—roughly one-sixth of the world’s population—live in severely water-constrained agricultural areas. These numbers underscore the need for effective water management and water conservation practices. Effective Water Management Systems Can Help The first step in water conservation is evaluating water management systems. Effective water management means water resources are allocated judiciously with the goal of ensuring sufficient water for human and environmental needs. The elements of an efficient water management strategy are: access to water, control of pollution, and water efficiency or reducing the amount of water that is wasted. Moreover, water management planning should be aware of current engineering technologies and relevant political, economic, and social agendas. The following are a few reliable water conservation systems and practices that have stood the test of time. Rainwater harvesting (RWH) Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is one of the simplest and oldest methods of supplying water to households, farms, schools, public facilities, neighborhoods, and communities. As the name suggests, RWH is the collection and storage of rain to be used as a supply of fresh water—a practice that’s been used for thousands of years. Rainwater is typically collected from roof-like surfaces and directed towards a tank, cistern, barrel, or other containers for storage. RWH systems range in complexity from basic systems that can be installed with little more than minimal plumbing skills, to automated systems that require professional installation. The advantages of RWH systems are that it is an independent water supply during times of water restrictions or drought; it is cost-effective and can be affordable; and it is eco-friendly and does not cause pollution. The RWH limitations are that only minimal quantities of water can be harvested in periods of low precipitation. Also, although rainwater is a relatively clean source of water compared to groundwater or water from lakes and rivers, untreated rainwater is unsuitable for drinking or cooking. Water collected from roofs can be polluted with bird feces, mosses, lichens, and windblown dust, and the rainwater itself can carry bacteria, viruses, parasite, and toxic chemicals. Thus, water from RWH must be filtered and purified before consumption. One of the ways that developed countries have used to access water is by creating a rainwater distribution system to capture rainwater for immediate and future use. Countries worldwide have already completed the task of implementing designs to capture rainwater. By creating funding opportunities for local governments and individual homes, rainwater distribution has become an avenue to utilize water sources in a conservation manner. One company, Chaitanya Rainwater Products and Systems, has designed systems used in Singapore, Japan, Germany, and Australia to capture rainwater for commercial use; its products can be scaled for individual use. Reusing “greywater” Reusing “greywater” is another way to substantially conserve water. Greywater refers to the wastewater produced in households or office buildings from activities such as washing one’s hands, showering, using a dehumidifier, and washing laundry. Greywater does not include water from toilets or urinals and does not contain fecal material. Since greywater contains fewer pathogens than domestic wastewater, it is generally safer and easier to treat and reuse for such non-potable purposes as irrigation or flushing the toilet. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) reports that greywater accounts for approximately 75% of sewage, accounting for 69% domestic household use. The average person uses about 100 liters (a little over twenty-six gallons) of water per day or close to 146,000 liters (approximately 39,000 gallons) for a family of four per year. Current technology designs can capture this water for agriculture and landscape irrigation, household uses, and artificially recharging aquifers. Different systems have been used globally to minimize freshwater resources in water-scarce regions and alleviate water pollution, particularly in low-poverty areas. The NCBI has collected data reflecting the current uses of greywater systems for various countries. Desalination Desalination is any process that removes salts and minerals from saline water, and is another way to provide fresh water to areas of water scarcity. The US Geological Survey (USGS) cites a report from the International Desalination Association stating that as of June 2015, there were 18,426 desalination plants worldwide, contributing 86.6 million cubic meters per day (approximately 23 million gallons) of fresh water. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United States, have already invested in building desalination plants and funding research and development of new technologies. The processes of desalinating seawater are generally more expensive than obtaining fresh water from surface water, groundwater, water recycling, or water conservation practices. Yet, these alternatives are not always available. While new technologies are in development, two of the more common methods of desalination are thermal technology, a method invented 2,000 years ago, and membrane technologies designed in the 1960s. Thermal technology uses heat to extract salt from water in various methods, such as multi-stage flash distillation, multi-effect distillation, and vapor compression distillation. Membrane technology passes saltwater through specially designed fiber “membranes” to eliminate salt compounds using methods such as electrodialysis, electrodialysis reversal, and reverse osmosis. Although membrane designs have come a long way, the costs of implementation and maintenance are high, and other technology areas are being explored. One example is the work by Dr. Thomas Hinkebein, a water-desalination expert who is associated with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The NCBI has recognized his “roadmap” to implementing different desalination techniques, like concentration and reuse/recycle technologies, that may be more cost-effective than current technologies. A key point is to keep the costs of desalination technologies comparable to those of existing wastewater management, so governments and industries can accept desalination as an economical option for gaining access to water. Wise management of water resources, already a priority in most parts of the world, can only grow in importance in the coming decades. According to the World Bank, the world population, now around 8 billion people, is expected to rise to nearly 10 billion by 2050. With this predicted increase in population, individuals, communities, and governments must take a more significant role in managing their water sources. *Patty Smith is a freelance writer in St. Petersburg, Florida, specializing in environmental issues, water concerns, and the effects of climate change on Florida's Gulf Coast.

By Paramita Mandal, Sarmistha Adhikari and Rojina Yasmin* Type 2 diabetes (T2D) impacts the lives of millions worldwide, especially since it became a risk factor for severe and fatal COVID-19 outcomes. The Earth & I asked scientists from the Biomedical Genetics Laboratory at The University of Burdwan, India to share some of the science behind T2D, how it relates to COVID-19 and the environment, and simple steps we can take to reduce the likelihood of contracting this disease. What Is Type 2 Diabetes? Long before a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), invisible changes begin to take place in the body. One of the most important changes is called insulin resistance. Insulin, a hormone that regulates our blood sugar level, is a key player in the development of T2D. The food we eat is broken down into sugar (glucose) that enters the bloodstream. This process triggers the β cells of the islets of Langerhans of the pancreas to release insulin. The circulating insulin helps cells utilize blood sugar and signals the liver to store blood sugar for later use. As sugar levels in the blood decrease, insulin levels decrease too. At low insulin levels, the liver releases stored blood sugar, thus making energy available to the body. But this finely tuned system can quickly be thrown out of balance when our cells become resistant to insulin. When the blood sugar level is high, the pancreas increases its output of insulin to get cells to respond to the elevated concentration of sugar in the blood. Eventually, however, the pancreas will cease to work properly under these circumstances. When the pancreas no longer supplies sufficient insulin, sugar levels continue to rise, leading to T2D. If this situation is prolonged, the liver directs excess blood sugar to fat cells to be stored as fat. This process of creating increased fat stores is why obesity is linked to rates of T2D. The Rapid Global Rise of T2D The number of people with T2D worldwide has doubled during the past twenty years. According to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), by 2040 that number will be almost 642 million. The prevalence of obesity-related diabetes is expected to reach 300 million by 2025. Due to an increase in inactive lifestyles, obesity, and other risk factors, the frequency of T2D has more than quadrupled in the past thirty-five years. The disease tends to occur more often in specific human ethnic groups like Pima Indians, African Americans, Asian Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Americans, Latinos, and Native Hawaiians. Obesity is the Major Risk Factor of T2D According to the World Health Organization (WHO), obesity accounts for 44% of global diabetes cases. Obese individuals have higher rates of micronutrient deficiencies despite their excessive consumption of high-calorie diets. Recent studies found that deficiencies of some micronutrients, like vitamin D, biotin, thiamine, etc., can be correlated to T2D. Increased availability of low-cost, high-calorie, high-in-dietary-fat, and nutrient-poor popular foods, as well as consumption of sweetened beverages, is associated with obesity and insulin resistance. Other health-related conditions may contribute to insulin resistance. Sleep disorders derived from excessive stress are associated with metabolic changes, body weight, and insulin resistance. Some studies suggest that prolonged exposure to air pollution and noise pollution may trigger inflammation and insulin resistance. Lifestyle and Chemical Exposure May Influence T2D Development Specific variable factors have been shown to be epidemiologically associated with the onset of T2D, including stress (mental/emotional) and socioeconomic variables, low-grade infection, and environmental toxins/pollutants. Exposure to organic pollutants or toxins in heavily polluted air is a factor for developing insulin resistance and inducing cardiovascular morbidity in T2D patients. Although not shown to be linked epidemiologically, excessive intake of fatty acids like palmitic acid (a saturated fat in meat, dairy, and palm oil) and oleic acid (a monounsaturated fatty acid in the fats and oils of animals and vegetables) can be risk factors for T2D in a high-fat diet. Palmitic acid is known to increase levels of “bad” cholesterol or LDL; LDL causes the synthesis of damaging complex lipids (organic compounds that include fats and oils) and impairs cellular functions leading to lipotoxicity (lipid-associated toxicity) and lipoapoptosis (lipid-associated programmed cell-death). Excessive intake of palmitic acid and oleic acid is also associated with impaired glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. T2D as a Risk Factor for COVID-19 Morbidity T2D is a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19. Population-based studies have shown that people with T2D who contract COVID-19 are at higher risk for a worse prognosis and outcome, and intensive-care hospitalization. Tragically, studies have also shown T2D patients have twice the risk of COVID-19-related death compared with non-diabetic patients. T2D patients often live with low-grade chronic inflammation triggered by excessive deep fat, known as visceral adipose tissue (VAT). VAT wraps around abdominal organs, such as the kidneys and liver, and affects glucose regulation and peripheral insulin sensitivity, a form of insulin resistance. There is still insufficient data to determine whether T2D increases the risk of contracting COVID-19. However, a number of studies may explain why T2D is a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19. Chronic hyperglycemia, a condition of excess glucose in the blood, and inflammation linked to T2D can induce several physiological changes that may contribute to a heightened severity of COVID-19 in diabetic people. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, enters cells by binding to the ACE-2 cell surface receptor. Chronic hyperglycemia and inflammation can lead to aberrant modification of ACE-2, an event that may in turn enhance susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Chronic hyperglycemia and inflammation may decrease the body‘s ability to clear a viral infection by lowering the activity of T-cells, and they may act to trigger something called a cytokine storm, a type of over-reactive immune response and hyper-inflammation. A cytokine storm is a life-threatening development because it interferes with pathogen-eating (phagocytic) immune cells. In addition, a cytokine storm can cause overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β and TNF-α), which can damage tissues and organs, thus promoting insulin resistance and pancreatic β cell damage. What Changes Can Individuals and Families Make to Reduce Environmental Risks for T2D? T2D is known as a sedentary lifestyle-related disorder, so it is important to lead a healthy lifestyle with a focus on regular exercises. In addition to exercise, healthy eating patterns, stress reduction, weight loss, and anti-inflammatory strategies may be adopted by individuals and families to lower the risk of T2D. Additional References K. Hodgson, J. Morris, T. Bridson, B. Govan, C. Rush, and N. Ketheesan. February 2015. “Immunological mechanisms contributing to the double burden of diabetes and intracellular bacterial infections.” Immunology 144(2): 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.12394 C-P. Liang, S. Han, T. Senokuchi, and A. Tall. June 2007. “The Macrophage at the Crossroads of Insulin Resistance and Atherosclerosis.” Circulation Research 100(11): 1546–1555. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.107. *Paramita Mandal: Dr. Paramita Mandal has held the position of Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India for the last five years. She has worked in the field of biomedical genetics for the last twelve years. Her research interests are in the areas of complex disease genetics and cancer genomics. She has handled independent research projects on human genetics and published research articles in peer reviewed journals. Sarmistha Adhikari: Ms. Sarmistha Adhikari has been a researcher in the Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India for the last four years. She is currently working in the area of complex disease genetics. She is passionate about the role of environmental factors on complex disease pathogenesis and has published research articles in peer reviewed journals. Rojina Yasmin: Ms. Rojina Yasmin is a researcher in the Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India. She is interested in the area of complex human disease pathogenesis. She is also passionate about the impact of lifestyle factors on the pathogenesis of multifactorial disorders.

By Paramita Mandal, Rojina Yasmin and Suvanjana Ghosh* Just a few decades ago, as the dual specters of food insecurity and associated malnutrition continued to haunt war-torn global populations, it was unimaginable that much of the world would soon face an obesity epidemic. That time has now arrived: The World Health Organization (WHO) reports 1.6 billion overweight and obese people in the world, with about 40% or 650 million people in the heavier category. This is a global problem, WHO says, noting that more people are obese than underweight in every region except sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Happily, there is a powerful remedy to unwanted weight gain that is also simple, free, and available to most: the habit of walking. The Rise of Obesity Today, having too much to eat—especially highly processed foods with little nutritional value—is rapidly overtaking food scarcity as a major contributor to malnutrition and poor health. This modern version of malnutrition comes with its own, unique health impacts. Eating too many nutritionally poor foods has given rise to unhealthy weight gains that can lead to obesity and other chronic health conditions. Obesity has even been identified as a risk factor for COVID-19 mortality. Obesity is more than just being overweight. WHO defines obesity as an abnormal or excessive fat accumulation in the human body that may pose a health risk for many chronic diseases and conditions. How is obesity determined? Health professionals often use Body Mass Index (BMI) to screen for obesity. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), BMI is a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A person with a BMI of 30 or above is considered to be obese, while 25 to 30 is considered to be overweight. Recent Aggravating Factors The 2020 COVID-19 protocols contributed to the issue, as well. The stay-home and social distancing policies were intended to protect people from disease transmission. But the outcomes—requiring people to work from home, closing schools, restricting exercise outdoors or in gyms—led to an uptick in sedentary lifestyles, a major risk factor for weight gain. When behaviors such as watching TV, indulging in sweet or salty snacks, and consuming sugary beverages—especially when not hungry—were added in, it can’t be a surprise that many people saw their body weights creep up. This is especially true in urban settings, WHO says. Health Impacts of Obesity Carrying extra fat can lead to serious health consequences, mainly heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, and some types of cancers. Bone density and muscle mass may also deteriorate, causing osteosarcopenic obesity—marked by bone, muscle, and adipose tissue impairment—with higher risk of fractures and physical disability. Obesity is also associated with serious health conditions like high blood pressure, higher levels of LDL (“the bad cholesterol”) and triglycerides, and lower levels of HDL (“the good cholesterol”). An obese person is also prone to mental health conditions, such as depression or anxiety. Eating may become a pathway to coping with stress but, if not controlled, can cause weight gain. Although there is some cultural pushback on “fat-shaming,” obese people can suffer stigmatization by society. Such experiences lower self-esteem and may discourage participation in activities of a positive nature, such as exercise and involvement in club activities. There is, however, something that many can do to help in the treatment of obesity. It’s called walking. Benefits of Walking It may seem simplistic to suggest daily walking as a protocol to address obesity, but as people spend more of their time sitting—at home, studying, working, or driving—it may be helpful to go over the benefits of standing up and moving around. To begin with, walking improves blood pressure and can help lower BMI, thus lowering the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and more. Brisk walking is a popular moderate-intensity, low-impact version of walking for those who want to avoid injuries—such as straining joints—associated with high-impact workouts. With just thirty minutes of brisk walking daily, one can burn about 150 more calories per day. Studies have also shown that walking assists with fat-burning and can reduce waist circumferences of obese women. Walks not only improve the physical health of an individual, but they are also beneficial for mental health. Studies have found that walking was an effective treatment for depression, anxiety, and psychological stress. It has also been shown that walking has a positive effect on self-esteem, and psychological well-being. Walking has also helped in maintaining the social health of individuals. It's also best if walking is done outdoors—if possible and appropriate—especially in more natural settings, such as in a park or forest. Reconnecting with nature reduces stress, calms nerves and lowers blood pressure. It imparts a sense of peace and lifts one’s spirit. Buddhist monks practice walking meditations, i.e., concentrating on the movement of the arms or legs while walking. Walking in the Morning Impacts Health There is something special about an early morning walk—for good reason. Walking in the morning, when the air is much cleaner and free from pollution, facilitates better metabolism and the burning of extra calories. Walking in the first hour of the sun’s rays also provides fresh vitamin D, which builds up bone strength, among other benefits. Starting the day with a morning walk enhances mood for the rest of the day. Getting Started Starting a new walking regimen isn’t always easy, but expect some good things to happen. When one starts walking, the body begins to release hormones, such as dopamine, serotonin, estrogen, and testosterone, that make a person feel better physically, mentally and emotionally. Thus, it can be said that a morning walk is the road to a better overall lifestyle. It is wise for an obese person to start out with short walks with light intensity and gradually build up to longer walks or walks with more vigorous intensity. Extra weight demands extra strength for movement. Walkers should warm up for a few minutes before setting out; this is even true for those who are capable of walking briskly. In addition, if individuals suffer from comorbidities, such as osteoarthritis and cardiovascular disease, these conditions need to be factored in. So, before taking up walking, it is important to consult a physician about duration, length, and other factors, and remember to stop and seek help if dizziness, palpitations, or breathing problems occur. As part of a walking regimen, a person should learn to walk consciously, one step at a time. It’s good to set goals, both in exercise and diet. With the right support and professional guidance, stand up and start walking. It is one of the keys to a healthy life. Finally, one way to help loved ones who seek to return to a normal weight is to take up morning walks with them. This will benefit both walkers and provide companionship, assistance, and motivation. Morning walks can help most everyone maintain a healthy lifestyle. *Paramita Mandal is an Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India, who has worked in the field of biomedical genetics for the last twelve years. Her research interests are complex disease genetics and cancer genomics. She has conducted independent research projects on human genetics and published her research in peer- reviewed journals. Rojina Yasmin is a researcher, Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Her research interests are in the area of complex human disease pathogenesis, and she studies how lifestyle factors impact disease. Suvanjana Ghosh is a researcher, Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Her research interests are in the area of cancer biology. She is passionate about examining the impacts of environmental factors on the pathogenesis of complex disorders.

By Dr. Om Parkash Yadav* India’s wind-swept, mostly waterless arid regions are among the toughest places in the world to farm. However, the productivity outlook is looking up. India’s arid regions enjoy a unique and rich biodiversity of adapted plants and livestock species, a treasure trove of indigenous farming knowledge, and plenty of sunlight. Given these resources, India is giving high priority to research and development in its northwestern arid ecosystems. Endless challenges to farmers India’s northwest regions are famous for their high heat, strong winds and encroaching sand dunes. Farmers face erratic and scant annual rainfall and scarce surface water resources such as ponds and marshes. Groundwater quality is poor and groundwater tables are receding. Moreover, the sandy native soils, faced with evaporation and erosion pressures, are low in fertility with poor water-holding capacity. Add land degradation and climate change into the mix and India’s arid region farmers are uniquely challenged. Still, modern efforts to harness the land for growing crops appear to be paying off. More crops, more resilience So, how does India do it? It starts with her arid region farmers’ adoption of an integrated farming system (IFS). Well-suited to the physical characteristics of India’s drylands, IFS avoids single-season crops, or what is called mono-cropping, opting instead for diversified commodities—crops, livestock, and woody perennials that can absorb a farm’s economic risks and stabilize its ecosystems. The IFS co-generates food products of grains and seeds, fruits and vegetables, and meat and dairy. It also generates green and dry animal feed (fodder) and fuel (wood and biogas). Together, these products increase the self-sufficiency of farmers and meet their basic demands for nutrition and employment security. A two-decade long Indian study combined several drylands farming systems, such as farming with forestry or agriculture with pasture. The study’s results? The IFS fulfilled most of a family’s typical requirements for food and fuel wood. The adoption of India’s IFS has been widespread. Almost all of the arid region’s farmers have at least three components of IFS going for them, namely crops, agro-forestry, and livestock. Half are involved in fruit cultivation. Variety means income security IFS is good for a farmer’s wallet. Income from farming mono crops is seasonal, with money coming in at a particular time of the year. Because IFS involves sales of a variety of farm products, it brings in money throughout the year. IFS also keeps farmers working. Single-crop production has peak labor requirements during the planting and harvesting seasons. For the rest of the year, single-crop farmers are hard pressed for employment income. IFS utilizes labor steadily and efficiently with its many products and overlapping growing seasons. Results of a five-year study showed IFS generated roughly twice the employment of sole crop production in India’s arid northwest. Impacts on climate change IFS may have a big impact on climate change. Through something as simple as planting trees on agricultural land, IFS can achieve climate change mitigation, or reduction, and climate change adaptation. Studies suggest that introducing certain trees to arid farmland can impact climate change by capturing and storing carbon from the atmosphere, not only above ground through photosynthesis but also in soil through tree roots. Meanwhile tree roots are hard at work, enriching soil with nutrients drawn from deep in the ground. Indigenous ingenuity India’s drylands farmers get a lot of help from the past. There are ancient, indigenous traditions to protect the trees and preserve these deeply revered, sacred lands, called the orans. Indigenous people also have a wealth of information on what to plant and when and where to plant it. Mixing crops with woody perennials and livestock, for instance, is an indigenous farming tradition that eliminates the risk of single crop failure. Indigenous people in arid India have long had a genius for water. In Western Rajasthan, where rainfall is insufficient to grow crops, khadin, a system of runoff-farming, has been in use since the fifteenth century. The khadin system collects rainwater in highlands that have good water runoff potential. The water is sent down spillways to lower plains with deep soil that receives the runoff and stores it for crops. Once India’s annual monsoons end, the accumulated water begins to recede and crops are cultivated according to the depth of the impounded water. R&D boosts productivity India has spent decades on scientific research and development to enhance the productivity of arid farms. A key strategy is identifying the right crops and cultivars for the challenges of the region. Take the crop-growing period in Rajasthan, for instance. It is a mere six weeks to twelve weeks and sometimes even less! Identifying cultivars that mature quickly (before the water dries up) has been crucial for farm resilience. Happily, improving cultivars has resulted in yield increases of fifteen to fifty percent. Flipping the fodder supply Livestock, too, are an integral part of the arid regions’ agrarian economy, but good quality fodder is in short supply. Enhancing the feed supply is crucial. Community grazing lands have been the primary source of fodder, but most areas are so degraded that they hardly produce 300 to 400 kilograms of annual fodder per hectare. Hope is not lost, however. Farmers have several means to restore these grazing lands. Some best practices include: Growing “live” fencing. Growing edible woody perennials as field boundaries can produce a lot of fodder. Reseeding common lands with suitable grazing species. Scientifically developing new fodder crops. One crop, known as Hybrid Napier, has the potential to yield 400 annual tons of fodder per hectare. Planting with high-yield cropping sequences, such as cowpea/oat/pearl millet, capable of producing eighty-seven annual tons per hectare of green fodder. Growing dual-purpose crops that yield both grain and straw, such as pearl millet. Achieving ‘more crop per drop’ What could be more crucial to drylands farming than harvested water? The introduction of water harvesting systems for irrigation, such as inter-plot and inter-row systems, is already improving yields of rainfed crops in the arid northwest. Supplemental irrigation during dry spells is especially crucial during critical crop growth stages. Some methods have proven better than others: Sprinkler and drip methods are far more efficient than surface methods of irrigation. That's important for regions that receive as little as 200 millimeters of rainfall annually. Fortunately for these arid farmers, even less water is often used to get the best outputs. So-called deficit irrigation (DI) provides less water than is needed for normal transpiration (evaporation through pores in plant leaves), but surprisingly, studies show that DI had up to 20% greater water production than did full irrigation, achieving water savings of 20%. Enemy at the gates Desertification is a perennial challenge in the hot arid northwest. Today, 60% of western Rajasthan is stressed by desertification. Land degradation fuels desertification. The main culprits, wind and water erosion, have been joined in recent decades by the impacts of mining and industrial contamination. Excess irrigation, coupled with inadequate drainage, has caused water logging along India’s important irrigation canals. Some soils near the canals have become so salty as to be useless for farming. When you irrigate continuously with canal water, geogenic salts from lower layers of earth come to surface leading to soil degradation. There are a host of other causes of desertification, including deep ploughing over large areas and unrestricted grazing. India has a huge cattle population, and herds will leave the land bare by grazing. When wind or water reach the topsoil, there’s nothing to hold it in place. Also, many Indians in arid areas use vegetation for fuel. The loss of those plant roots and their water-holding capacity opens even more land to erosion. And then there are the sand dunes. In India’s northwest, sand dunes were constantly on the move. This threatens marginal lands, with about 58% of arid Rajasthan under sand dune cover. The ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute has developed methods for holding the dunes in check. One method is to erect small wind breaks. The wind breaks are fashioned into checkerboard patterns from local dried brush and installed across prevailing winds. Another strategy is to seed or transplant suitable species or grasses to grow between trees. Shelterbelts Shelterbelts are used by farmers throughout the world to reduce wind speeds and the damage that winds cause. Shelterbelts are strips of multiple rows of trees and/or shrubs that blunt the assault of wind. They have been successfully raised on a large scale in arid India along roads, railway tracks, and canals. Trees to the rescue—again Water erosion can be a big problem in India’s hot arid regions. It can be caused by monsoons, sudden rainfall outbreaks, or, as mentioned before, by faulty irrigation. India has developed several techniques, such as terracing land or seeding along land contours, to slow down the process. Once again, trees offer an excellent solution. How is that? By planting select tree species with deeper roots that serve as “bio-pumps.” Deep tree roots stabilize groundwater levels by drawing excess water into the tree’s roots, up its trunk, and into its branches, releasing all that moisture through the tree’s leaf pores. Seed research It’s a win-win when science hands farmers technologies that sustain agriculture and halt desertification. Seed technologies offer a window into successful arid farming. As planting time nears, farmers should consider their seed rate management or knowing the optimum number of seeds to plant for preferred yields. A farmer needs to know when to plant the seeds as well, but that changes from year to year. There are also seed density and seed planting patterns to consider, depending on a farm’s particulars. And before considering any of the above, some seeds require soaking and even incubating before they are planted. Once the seeds have sprouted and begun to grow, integrated nutrition and weed and pest and insect control must then be considered. Carefully considered technologies are being continuously developed to address these important issues with productivity and resilience in mind. Combined impact So how has India been doing? There are no economic indicators to quantify what all these technologies achieve together. We do know, however, that they have provided some impressive ecosystem services over the past few decades. For instance, there was a substantial increase in areas sown in arid Rajasthan from 8.36 million ha in 1960-61 to 11.2 million ha in 2018-19, and the number of annual dust storms in the region declined from seventeen in 1966 to less than three in 2000. Areas affected by wind erosion were reduced from 75% in 1990 to 73% in 2013, and sand dune coverage was reduced from 54% in 1990 to 48% to 2013. Cost-benefit ratio analyses have shown that these technologies are all cost-effective, as well. The next target It took a team of technological innovators from ages past, scientists, public participants, and policymakers, but desertification at the margins of India’s arid lands has been in retreat for the last few decades. Building on this success should go a long way toward reaching the UN’s land degradation neutrality target, set out in its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Editor’s Note: This article is based on a presentation by Dr. Yadav given at the Twenty-Seventh International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences held in April 2021. *Dr. Om Parkash Yadav is the Director of the ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

By Nnamdi Anyadike* COP26 Smiles on Nuclear Power The prospects for a resurgent nuclear power industry across the globe are arguably the best they have been for some years. This comes in the wake of a noticeable increase in support for nuclear power at the two-week UN climate change conference, COP26, in Glasgow, Scotland that ended November 13, 2021. Commenting on the new mood, compared with COP25 in Madrid two years earlier, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN-affiliated body responsible for promoting nuclear generation and safety, said, "This COP is perhaps the first where nuclear energy had a chair at the table.” He commended the fact that nuclear energy is now able to be considered and that perspectives could be exchanged, “without the ideological burden that existed before.” At the event, US President Biden’s administration provided a major boost to the global industry with announcements made to support Poland, Kenya, Ukraine, Brazil, Indonesia, and a number of other countries in the building up of their nuclear power capacities. The Oregon-based NuScale also signed an agreement with Romania’s Nuclearelectrica to help deploy the first small modular reactor (SMR) in Europe. France Embraces Nuclear Future France’s 56 nuclear reactors produce over 70% of the country’s electricity, making it one of the world’s most nuclear-dependent countries. However, many of these reactors are nearing the end of their lives. This has sparked a lively debate between the pro-nuclear camp looking to replace them with the next generation of small nuclear reactors and ecologists pressing for renewable energy. At COP26, French President Emmanuel Macron emphatically put an end to all speculation as to France’s future energy direction by announcing his intention to build up to six new SMRs by 2030. These reactors will each generate less than 300 megawatts (MW) of energy, far less than the 950 and 1300 MW produced by the current generation of European Pressurized Water Reactors (EPR) that are in service domestically. The announcement took many in the energy industry by surprise. The government had previously said it would not launch any new reactor projects until the state-owned nuclear energy company, EDF, completed its much delayed “third generation” EPR nuclear power plant in Flamanville in north-western France. However, the French media believes that Macron’s hand may well have been forced in October by Europe's gas crisis and the knock-on effect on household spending power. At COP26, French President Emmanuel Macron announced his intention to build up to six new small modular nuclear reactors by 2030. France believes small nuclear reactors can be useful for water desalination and hydrogen production, in addition to producing energy directly. France is also aware that its nuclear power technology is under threat from Chinese competition. Therefore, switching to SMRs could be the strategic pivot that enables France to deal with competition from countries like China. Recently, Beijing has unveiled increasingly sophisticated nuclear power ambitions. France, on the other hand, believes it has identified a niche export opportunity in the use of small nuclear reactors for purposes other than energy generation. Nicolas Mazzucchi, an energy specialist at France’s Foundation for Strategic Research pointed out, “These reactors can be used for water desalination—a highly important task in places like the Middle East and even India—as well as to produce hydrogen to heat homes in colder parts of the world.” UK Awards Rolls-Royce Consortium Contract to Build SMRs For decades, nuclear energy has been an integral part of the United Kingdom’s electricity system. Currently, nuclear energy provides around 20% of its electricity. However, most of the UK’s Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) built in the 1970s and 1980s are due to be decommissioned in the coming decade. In light of this—and given the construction delays at the UK’s proposed $27 billion flagship Sizewell C nuclear plant project in Suffolk, eastern England—some opponents of the UK’s nuclear power generating industry suggested nuclear power should be de-prioritized. However, by late September 2021, it was clear that the UK government was looking to give the sector a new lease on life. First, the government revealed plans to remove the Chinese state-owned China General Nuclear Power Group from the Sizewell C project. The Chinese company currently has a 20% stake in Sizewell C, and the UK government is in negotiations to hold the stake until it can be sold to institutional investors, as reported by the Financial Times. In November 2021, the Rolls-Royce consortium announced plans to develop and deploy a fleet of small modular reactors throughout the UK. Each power station would be able to generate low-carbon electricity for about 1 million homes. Then, in November, an industry consortium led by Rolls-Royce announced it is to pump £405 million into the development of a fleet of SMRs over the coming years. Rolls-Royce has secured funding from US energy company Exelon Generation and privately held BNF Resources. The Rolls-Royce consortium will use the initial funding to put its SMR design through the UK’s rigorous nuclear regulatory regime. According to the Financial Times, this process is expected to take up to four years “but would keep the consortium on track to complete its first 470MW plant by the early 2030s. Each mini-power station would be capable of generating enough low-carbon electricity for about 1 million homes.” Rolls-Royce estimates at least 16 SMRs could be installed at operational and mothballed nuclear sites in Britain. The company expects the first five SMR reactors to cost £2.2 billion each, falling to £1.8 billion for subsequent units. It estimates that the program could create as many as 40,000 jobs in the UK regions by 2050. The new venture will continue to seek further backers and has said it is in talks with a potential fourth investor, which would raise the consortium’s commitment from £195 million to £250 million. Jacobs in the US and the UK’s Laing O’Rourke are expected to become supply chain partners, Rolls-Royce said. Nuclear Industry Seeks Waste Breakthrough Ever since the first nuclear power generating plants were commissioned to great fanfare in the 1950s, the industry’s trajectory has been far from smooth. Indeed, by the 1970s and 1980s, it had reached its nadir following accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the Ukraine. However, the new generation of small reactors are claimed to be safer than large reactors from the older generation as they contain less nuclear material. Politically, there is a growing acknowledgement that, in order for the world to achieve “net-zero,” greater attention needs to be placed on nuclear power as a leading source of emissions-free energy. On the other hand, there is still the problem of what to do with nuclear waste. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that some 370,000 metric tons of heavy metal of spent fuel, considered high-level waste (HLW), has been produced by the civil nuclear industry since the advent of civil nuclear power production. Of this amount, only 120,000 tonnes has been reprocessed. Deep geological disposal is the preferred option for many countries in Europe, but a major sticking point is public acceptance. The European Commission is also not fully sold on the idea. Although its Joint Research Centre (JRC) Science for Policy Report 2021 concluded that deep geological formation disposal of long-lived radioactive waste was “an appropriate and safe means of isolating it from the biosphere for very long-time scales,” its Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental, and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) said there was insufficient research and a lack of modelling. “High-level waste storage remains an open research question, with considerable uncertainties,” SCHEER said in its review of the JRC report. Currently, Finland’s Posiva Oy facility Onkalo, a deep-geological repository, is the only permanent spent nuclear fuel facility to have been licensed and in construction. Its capacity to hold 3,300 canisters of used nuclear fuel is deemed plenty for Finland’s own nuclear waste, which comes from four nuclear reactors with a 2,800 MW capacity. Final waste disposal at the site is due to start within the next few years. *Nnamdi Anyadike is an industry journalist specializing in metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy for over thirty-five years.

By Nnamdi Anyadike* By 2025, if all goes according to plan, Norway will have become a key global player in the shift towards Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. This will be in line with its commitment to cut domestic emissions by 50 to 55% by 2030. In March, a major milestone was reached towards this objective with the Government’s approval of a development plan for the $1.52 billion ‘Northern Lights’ project. ‘Northern Lights’ is the carbon dioxide (CO2) transport and storage hub that will form part of the more comprehensive $2.98 billion ‘Longship’ carbon capture and storage project. Tina Bru, Minister of Petroleum and Energy, describes Longship as “the greatest climate project in Norwegian industry ever." Northern Lights will be built and operated by the Northern Lights JV DA Company. It will be backed by the Equinor, Shell, and Total energy consortium, subject to a government approved participation agreement between the three companies. Kim Bye Bruun, Communications & Government Relations Director Northern Lights, told The Earth & I “The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy is expected to approve the Northern Lights JV as a license holder on the Norwegian Continental shelf later this month [April]. Exploitation license EL001 will be then transferred from Equinor to the Northern Lights JV as operator.” In addition to Northern Lights, Longship will consist of two CO2 capture facilities: a facility at Norcem’s Brevik cement plant; and a facility at Fortum’s planned waste-to-energy plant in Oslo. The captured CO2 will be transported by ship to the Øygarden municipality on the western coast of Norway. Here, Northern Lights will temporarily store the gas before sending it through a pipeline to a sealed reservoir for permanent storage 2,600 meters below the seabed. The first phase of the project, which is predicted to have a capacity of up to 1.5 million metric tons per year of carbon dioxide, is expected to be completed in 2024. The CO2 capture facility that is planned will be at the Oslo Varme waste-to-energy plant that is 50% owned by the Finnish state-owned energy company, Fortum, and 50% by the Oslo Municipality. The plant’s integrated CCS technology is expected to capture approximately ninety percent of the CO2 that is emitted. Fortum hopes that the project will become fully operational in 2026, subject to funding. The company is now pushing for the necessary capital from the EU’s innovation fund. Jannicke Gerner Bjerkås, Director for CCS at Fortum Oslo Varme, told ‘Gas World’ “We have applied for the first call of the Innovation Fund...we will know if we have advanced to phase two, and by the end of the year if we have been successful or not, but there is a lot of competition.” No less than 311 projects have applied for the Innovation Fund and only seventy will advance to Phase Two. According to EURACTIV, the amount applied for by Fortum is approximately $357 million. The sum covers the investment cost as well as ten years of operation. At the end of March, it was announced that the project had made the shortlist for EU Innovation Funding. Bjerkås estimates that approximately 450 waste-to-energy plants could benefit from the technology used in the Oslo-based Fortum plant. The company already has high hopes for Scandinavia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Once the mass roll out of the technology occurs, the price of the technology can be expected to drop, making the solution more appealing to potential customers. Bjerkås puts the cost of maturing the project, all the way through feasibility, concept, and Front End Engineering Design End (FEED), including the building and operation of a pilot plant, at approximately $26 million. A key driver underpinning the decision to invest in CCS technology is the introduction by the Norwegian government of a carbon tax, as of January this year. The tax level for the waste-to-energy sector is approximately $17.6 per metric ton of CO2. However, it is going to rise in the years to come. Given that the Oslo Varme waste-to-energy plant emits 400,000 metric tons (440,000 tons) of CO2 per year, a carbon capture facility could represent sizeable cost savings. CCS has been a controversial technology for many years. The prohibitively high cost and links to coal plants have been some factors limiting implementation. Meanwhile, at the end of last year the Norwegian Parliament voted in favor of the government’s proposed grant funding for an industrial scale implementation of CCS at the Heidelberg Cement subsidiary Norcem’s Brevik cement plant. The project, when it comes online, will be the world's first CO2 capture facility at a cement factory. Norcem has a vision of zero emissions from concrete by 2030. An essential element is to make use of the residual heat from the cement factory. The company claims that there is enough residual heat to capture approximately 400,000 metric tons (440,000 tons) of CO2 per year, equivalent to 50% of the plant's emissions. Work is expected to start with CO2 separation from the cement production process by 2024. The use of CCS technology, as a means to both reduce emissions in key sectors directly and to remove CO2 to balance emissions, has been debated for many years. Indeed, for decades, Norway has been in the vanguard of CCS technology with CO2 storage projects on the Sleipner and Snøhvit fields. However, the cost of some of the earlier proposed projects was prohibitively expensive. The UK based Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA) estimated the cost per metric ton of abating carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector as high as $103 for the early projects. And there was also considerable skepticism in Europe, linked to previous project failures. In 2009, the European Commission put $1.2 billion on the table to finance six CCS demonstration projects. However, these never saw the light of day. A number of these projects were linked to coal plants, which have since been out-competed by renewables. Skepticism among green activists about the efficacy and intentions behind CCS has not entirely gone away. Indeed, it remains a potent political force in Europe, particularly Germany. Janek Vahk, a campaigner at Zero Waste Europe questions the industry’s focus on capturing emissions, rather than reducing waste. “Their focus on negative emissions is wrong—focus should be on capturing those organics still found in the residuals,” he told EURACTIV. Another problem expressed by campaigners is that incineration undermines other attempts to reduce waste and recycle. The International Energy Agency described CCS as “the only group of technologies” capable of achieving a net-zero energy system. Yet despite these concerns there are clear signs that CCS is a technology whose time has finally come. A landmark International Energy Agency (IEA) report released at the end of 2020, described CCS as “the only group of technologies” capable of achieving a ‘net-zero’ energy system. In the last three years, plans for more than thirty commercial facilities have been announced worldwide. However, the IEA suggests that these could just be the beginning. Projects now nearing a final investment decision (FID) represent an estimated potential investment of around $27 billion, “more than double the investment planned in 2017,” the report said. Raymond Johansen, the governing mayor of Oslo, also believes that the conversation about CCS has matured since the early days when the technology was put forward by the coal industry as a way of mopping up its emissions. CCS projects are no longer related to energy emissions but to heavy industries like cement which have no other alternatives readily available. “Countries are much more positive today about CCS than they were ten years ago. As urbanization continues in Europe and around the world, we believe there will be an increasing need for CCS to be installed on incineration plants. In Europe alone, there are around 500 similar plants which could use the same technology,” Johansen told EURACTIV. *Nnamdi Anyadike has worked as a metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy industry journalist for more than thirty-five years.

By Nnamdi Anyadike* Germany has stood at the vanguard of solar energy adoption for decades. Now, as older solar panels begin to reach the end of their life, Germany will once again be at the forefront—this time to answer the question: What are we going to do with all the solar panel waste? Eyes are on Solar Energy to Address Climate Concerns At the end of October, the United Nations climate summit, COP26, will kick off in Glasgow, Scotland. The two-week conference that will bring together nearly 200 world leaders and 20,000 delegates, activists, businesses, non-government organizations, and faith groups will seek to hammer out means to reverse the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions heating the planet and to achieve ‘net zero.’ Solar power, which the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) most recent World Energy Outlook states is now the ‘cheapest electricity in history,’ is likely to feature prominently. The report shows that today’s solar electricity is 20% to 50% cheaper than their 2019 estimates and can generate electricity at or below $20 per megawatt-hour (MWh). These costs are comparable to those of existing coal plants in China and India and are even better than those of new coal-fired power plants. Aging Tech Heralds a Coming Waste Crisis But, along with this optimism, there is a very real concern for the future. Will industries be able to recycle the increasingly large numbers of photovoltaic (PV) panels that will inevitably be produced? There are warnings that recycling capacity in Germany, the biggest solar power producer in Europe, may struggle to deal with the expected rising tide of PV waste. Some 4.5 million metric tons of PV modules are understood to have been installed across Germany to date, according to Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA). The bulk of these was built and came into operation between 2010 and 2012 under Germany's Renewable Energy Act (EEG) that was introduced in the year 2000. These early installations have now started to lose support funding. With an estimated twenty-five-year lifetime, their decommissioning looks to ramp up in the second half of the 2030s. This timeline may even be shortened due to faster than expected degradation. New research from the risk management firm kWh Analytics released in June finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as industry claims with annual degradation rates in the field observed at around 1% lost capacity per year. Remondis, the largest waste management company in Germany, also reported that nearly all modules in 2020 were trashed due to malfunction or damage, not because they reached the end of their expected life. Recycling Strategy Starts with Policy Fundamentally, Germany already has certain policies in place to address the mounting challenge. Its Electrical and Electronic Equipment Act is based on the European Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive originally introduced in 2002 and provides a framework to handle end-of-life PV panels. Under the scheme, producers or distributors of PV are obliged to collect and recycle at least eighty-five percent of the modules, by volume. Further, old panels are to be treated separately from other residual waste. Complexities of Solar Recycling In practice, old PV panels are complicated to recycle due to the range of materials used in their assembly. Typical crystalline silicon (CS)—the dominant semiconducting material used in PV technology for the production of solar cells—panels contain (by relative material value): 47% silver; 26% aluminum; 11% silicon; and 8% each copper and glass. Aluminum and silver are among the most valuable components that can be retrieved and recycled. However, in contrast to aluminum and silver recycling, establishing an economically viable recycling procedure for glass has proved more difficult. Collecting and reprocessing glass is expensive while the value of the recycled good is low. Improving the efficiencies of this process is a critical point that needs further development. Trashing solar panel waste would cause untold environmental destruction, but recycling materials economically is proving to be a serious challenge. Further development is needed to improve the cost of available recycling technologies. A study published in Harvard Business Review (HBR) of the economics of solar power recycling notes, “They are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material.” The low cost of glass makes it ten to thirty times more expensive to recycle solar panels than to send them to the landfill. The study goes on to say that the volume of waste produced may even exceed the volume of new installations by 2031 at the current rates of production. As if the growing quantity of PV waste wasn’t bad enough, the toxic nature of solar panels compounds their environmental impact. Writing in Forbes, Michael Shellenberger argued, “Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents.” Having a hazardous waste classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions including its transportation, he points out. Germany’s environmental agency has stated that recovering key materials used in panel production—especially silicon, tellurium, or indium—is still not viable. For trace components, the recoverable quantity at this time is simply too low. Will Growing Investments Bolster Solar Energy’s Weaknesses in Time? These concerns notwithstanding and despite the very real difficulties in accepting and treating the flood of solar panel waste that threatens to swamp Germany and the rest of the developed world, the market for solar panels is still expected to rise. Many environmentalists and energy organizations see climate change as the ‘greater evil’ and afford the goal of reaching ‘net zero’ emissions a higher priority than the thorny question of PV waste. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) says that Germany, Europe, and the rest of the world will need to build many more solar power arrays in order to reach ‘net zero.’ Allied Market Research predicts substantial growth in the global solar energy market—from a valuation of $52.5 billion in 2018 to $223.3 billion in 2026. Meanwhile, reportlinker.com forecasts a rise in the global solar panel recycling market’s size from $206.19 million in 2020 to $405.44 million in 2026. Investment in solar energy and recycling continue to rise. As raw resources become scarcer, recycling materials will be the key to a robust solar industry in the future. In 2019, nearly 600 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in the form of millions of solar panels had been installed globally. But IRENA says this needs to grow about 18-fold and reach more than 8,000 GW by 2050 to make the world's energy systems compatible with international climate targets. It also believes that, despite some of the concerns voiced about the collection and costs associated with expanding the recycling infrastructure, PV recycling rates will inevitably rise as the technology improves. IRENA points to one significant advantage in the use of recycled PV materials, in preference to primary raw materials: recycling enables producers to scale back mining of already scarce resources. It is believed that the world's PV industry could be using up to fifteen percent of the total global mining output of silver. The US Geological Survey has also expressed worries about the availability of tellurium and indium where it says material use has “exceeded annual production levels,” as more and more of these materials are used in the growing stock of electronic equipment. *Nnamdi Anyadike is an industry journalist specializing in metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy for over thirty-five years.

By Nnamdi Anyadike* The US Department of Energy (DOE) predicts that renewables will be the fastest-growing US energy source for the next thirty years. Additionally, concentrated solar power (CSP), which has remained on the back burner for at least a decade, could become an important part of the energy mix. Despite the forecasts, there are formidable challenges to this promising energy technology. While there are a variety of designs in use, CSP plants generally work by using mirrors to focus and direct solar radiation onto thermal receivers. This concentrated thermal energy can be used immediately, channeled into turbines to produce electricity, or stored (as molten salt, for example) for later use, such as when the sun is down. Key Challenges to Building CSP Plants However, while the CSP operating principle is relatively straightforward, engineering full-scale commercial plants needs to take several factors into consideration. For starters, size is an issue. CSP systems tend to require a significant amount of land to concentrate enough sunlight. Because of their scale, they are more suited to providing power to the grid and industries than to residential homes. In addition, they require direct access to sunlight. This means they are best suited to regions with strong radiation such as Southern Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East, South Africa, parts of India, China, Southern US, and Australia. Another limiting factor is cost. CSP technology is more expensive than solar photovoltaics, both in terms of the cost of installation and the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), or the cost over time to produce energy. New Technologies Promise Cost Reduction However, work is underway to develop technologies that can reduce the costs of CSP. There are several pathways to achieving higher temperatures for CSP plants using either liquid, solid particle, or gaseous materials. The key is to increase the temperature at which the receiver material is heated to enable more efficient electricity production. Ideally, this would require the development of new salts or other materials that can withstand temperatures of up to 1,300°F (705°C). In 2018, the DOE announced a $72 million budget for new projects to advance high-temperature CSP technologies. Three teams—Brayton Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories—were selected to compete using three different pathways: alternative liquid, gas, and solid media. Each competitor’s task was to design a next-generation CSP system that could economically and reliably deliver temperatures above 1,300°F for advanced power cycles. Another goal of the project was to lower the cost of a CSP system by approximately $0.02 per kilowatt-hour. This is forty percent of the way to the DOE’s 2030 cost goals of $0.05 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for baseload CSP plants. DOE Awards Sandia $25M for CSP Research After three years of evaluating the work of the three competing teams, the DOE announced in March 2021 that it was going to back the solid particles pathway over the other two alternatives. Solid particles, it said, “provided the most promising pathway to achieving higher temperatures in CSP plants to meet 2030 cost targets.” The following month, it awarded $25 million to the New Mexico-based Sandia to build, test, and demonstrate a next-generation concentrating solar thermal power plant at their National Solar Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF). Cliff Ho, project leader of the Sandia team, told The Earth & I: “The new third generation Particle Pilot Plant (G3P3) is designed to tackle some of the engineering challenges of providing carbon-free reliable electricity with long-duration energy storage. We’re planning to break ground on the pilot plant this fall and expect it to be completed in late 2023.” Next-generation concentrated solar power plants could store large quantities of energy overnight less expensively than large photovoltaic arrays with lithium-ion batteries, according to Sandia’s project leader. Regarding what makes Sandia’s CSP system unique, Ho shared that it “stores energy from the sun in the form of heated sand-like ceramic particles rather than in the form of molten salts. This allows the system to get much hotter—more than 1,300°F (700°C)—compared to conventional molten-nitrate-based systems which can only reach approximately 1100°F (600°C).” Higher temperatures improve the conversion of solar energy into electricity which, in turn, can benefit heavy industries. “Particle-based concentrated solar power technologies could also be applied to a wide range of industrial heat processes such as drying, chemical and materials synthesis, and petroleum refining,” according to Ho. Consistent, high-energy production even overnight is another significant benefit. “Particle-based concentrated solar power also allows for storage of these hot particles to produce electricity overnight. In fact, particle-based concentrated solar power plants could store large quantities of energy (approximately 1GWh) overnight—for over ten hours—less expensively than, say, a photovoltaic array with lithium-ion batteries,” Ho continues. CSP Growth Could Exceed Expectations An increase in government support for the adoption of renewable technologies, coupled with a rise in energy demand and the capability to supply power without CO2 emission, is expected to drive the growth of the CSP market in the coming years. GE Power's forecast, which predicts a 10.8% growth rate for CSP over the next seven years, is just one of a number of forecasts that predict a positive outlook for CSP. A new report from Rethink Technology Research, entitled “Last Chance Saloon for Gen 3 CSP,” suggests CSP will also benefit from new technologies developed in the West that could provide temperatures of “1,800°F (1,000°C) and even higher.” This is way more than the 1300°F (705°C) temperature goal that is currently being proposed and will enable CSP technology to play a role in the decarbonization of the cement, steelmaking, and mining industries By the end of this decade, the Rethink Technology report expects annual CSP development to be an over $10 billion global industry. And although the DOE favors the development of solid material technology, CSP is advancing across a broad front, taking in all three technologies that utilize traditional thermal oil and molten salt as well as ceramics and other materials. Chinese developers, for instance, have chosen to move ahead with molten-salt plants, which are providing cost-effective, overnight energy storage to the grid in locations ranging from Greek islands to Thailand. CSP Offers a Stable Energy Future CSP technology has a promising future as a cost-effective option for the supply of renewable energy. Cost reduction is already well underway with recent figures showing a 16% decline in the price of electricity from utility-scale CSP plants in 2020. As GE Energy points out, the use of thermal energy storage tanks, which enables CSP to be dispatched even when the sun isn't shining, is much easier than storing electricity using batteries. Further, with growing concern around battery supply chains, CSP may prove to be even more essential going forward. Kerry Rippy, a researcher at the US NREL, recently said that one of the biggest obstacles to the development of high-capacity battery storage is the limited supply of lithium and cobalt. According to some estimates, about 10% of the world’s lithium and “nearly all of the world’s cobalt reserves will be depleted by 2050,” she said. The forecasted shortfall in the global supply of lithium and cobalt should help put CSP technology in the driver’s seat of renewable energy and enable it to deliver on its promise of clean and affordable electricity. *Nnamdi Anyadike is an industry journalist specializing in metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy for over thirty-five years.

By Nnamdi Anyadike* Lithium is an essential component of battery storage technologies and electric vehicles (EVs). Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are lightweight, rechargeable, and powerful—used in cell phones, laptops, tablets, electric vehicles, storage banks for renewable energy, and so forth. In the European Union (EU) though, lithium is in short supply. This leaves the region heavily reliant on imports and puts at risk plans to expand the deployment of renewable energy technologies, as well as EVs. EU data indicates domestic lithium concentrate production of a mere 128 tons per year. Processed lithium compounds production is also negligible. Indeed, so dire has the situation in Europe become that lithium has now been added to the region’s critical raw materials (CRM) list for the first time, joining other key battery metals such as cobalt and natural graphite. In 2020, European EV sales accounted for more than 50,000 tons of lithium consumption. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, a specialist lithium information provider, estimates that at current growth rates, compound annual lithium consumption could rise to 45% by 2025. By then, the region’s market share of global raw lithium will still be less than 3% while its market share of lithium chemical supply will be approximately 2%. Lithium and Portuguese Hopes European lithium hard-rock mineral deposits are mainly located in Portugal, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Spain, and Austria. Ukraine also has the potential to become a significant player. European Lithium, an Austrian mining company, has secured rights to what it describes as two promising lithium deposits in the country, both first having been discovered in the 1980s and 1990s. A phased acquisition of the two deposits has now been agreed upon, and the transaction is expected to close in November 2022. However, any development plans are likely to be dependent on Ukraine’s security environment at the time. Meanwhile, in Portugal, which is thought to have Europe’s largest lithium reserves, the country’s environment regulator could approve later this year to commence work on a new lithium mine. The British mining firm Savannah says the deposit could provide enough lithium for up to 600,000 EVs per year for ten years. In 2020, Portugal produced 900 tons of lithium, with reserves estimated at 220,000 tons. In other European developments, the Czech Republic’s lithium and tin mining project Cinovec shows promise. The Finnish mining and battery chemical company Keliber Oy is believed to hold several advanced lithium deposits. The spodumene deposit near Wolfsberg in Austria could also see lithium hydroxide production by the end of 2023. In Italy, Vulcan Energy Resources Limited has been granted a research permit for the Cesano area near Rome. If successful, the Cesano Project could provide a source of strategic, sustainable lithium in Italy for Europe’s battery and automotive market. According to Dr. Francis Wedin, Vulcan’s managing director, “[t]he area has a positive flow rate, historical lithium grade, and reservoir temperature indications that could be conducive to Vulcan’s … method of using renewable heat to drive lithium processing, with [a] net-zero carbon footprint, for the European electric vehicle market.” European Environmentalists’ Concerns Developments in Portugal, Italy, and Ukraine have been welcomed by industrial lithium consumers. Nevertheless, they are facing environmentalists’ concerns about the effect of lithium mining and processing elsewhere in Europe. In January 2021, national protests throughout Serbia led to the halting of Rio Tinto’s proposed $2.4 billion Jadar lithium mining project. Rio had already spent $450 million in feasibility studies in Jadar. Serbian politicians warned that scuttling the project could have incalculable effects on the Balkan country's and wider European economy. At full capacity, Jadar was expected to produce 58,000 tons of refined battery-grade lithium carbonate a year, making it Europe's biggest lithium mine by output. The European Battery Alliance, a network of European EV supply chain companies, commented on the project: “[It] constituted an important share of potential European domestic supply. It would have contributed to support the growth of a nascent industrial battery-related ecosystem in Serbia, contributing a substantial amount to Serbia’s annual GDP.” There have been also protests in Spain, in the vicinity of Caceres and the Canaveral district, against the opening of two large lithium mines there. To protect Europe’s very limited lithium supply chains and at the same time burnish their green credentials with environmentalists, European battery makers and the automotive industry are going to great lengths to strike innovative supply deals that take into account their concerns. In December 2021, Volkswagen signed a deal with Vulcan Energy, which is in the early stages of bringing its geothermal brine project into production. Galp Energia has also announced plans to build a $780 million (€700 million) lithium processing joint venture with Swedish battery maker Northvolt in Portugal. But as energy storage analyst Anna Darmani said, “Europe’s nascent battery industry is highly dependent on the import of critical raw materials. Europe needs to import more than 75% of its needs from other regions.” Europe’s Entrenched Lithium Competitors One problem standing in the way to develop a successful European lithium sector are the well-established and entrenched lithium industries of countries such as Australia, Chile, China, and the “Lithium Triangle” in South America. These industries already have a competitive advantage over Europe in lithium mining and processing due to lower labor costs. Imports from Australia cover most of the EU’s demand for lithium concentrates, while Chile is by far the EU’s largest supplier of refined lithium compounds. Chinese predominance in lithium concentrates is an added difficulty. Hopes for Lithium Recycling Recycling could provide the means to address at least partially some of these concerns. The recovery of lithium from batteries is already technically possible but it remains cost prohibitive in comparison with primary supplies. Furthermore, the process is hindered by the wide variety of chemistries and battery formats. Globally, only a miniscule 20 tons of lithium is typically recovered from secondary sources in any given year. The only waste flow with lithium recycling potential is discharged lithium batteries. But over the last few years, commercial lithium recycling has grown in feasibility due to the constantly increasing significance of Li-ion batteries, especially in the rapidly growing EV sector. Regulatory instruments including various EU directives are also driving higher recycling levels for waste Li-ion batteries in EVs and electronic equipment. “Recycling of Li-ion batteries has the potential to create a continuous and secure secondary stream of lithium supply for the EU in the future under conditions that will make it economically attractive.” Because of the difficulties associated with extracting lithium from EV batteries, the main focus of Li-ion battery recycling plants has tended to be the recovery of cobalt, nickel, and copper, as these have higher economic values than lithium. Nevertheless, the recent introduction of EVs on the European market could provide a boost for lithium recycling when they reach the end of their 10-year average lifespan. “Recycling of Li-ion batteries has the potential to create a continuous and secure secondary stream of lithium supply for the EU in the future under conditions that will make it economically attractive,” says the European Commission. Recently, progress has been made that could transform the prospects for lithium recycling. In the US, Ascend Elements has created a process to shred used batteries from phones and cars and extract the raw materials including lithium for reuse. The firm plans to open a large battery recycling plant in Georgia. The Anglo-Swiss mining company, Glencore, has also unveiled plans to build a 10,000 tons per year lithium-ion recycling plant in Northfleet, Kent, U.K. The facility, which will be operational by mid-2023, will process all of Britishvolt’s battery manufacturing scrap from their plant. In other developments, Canada-based Ly-Cycle has entered into a joint venture with Norwegian partners to build a new 10,000 tons per year Li-ion recycling facility in Norway. The plant is scheduled to start operations in the fourth quarter 2024. *Nnamdi Anyadike is an industry journalist specializing in metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy for over thirty-five years. Editorial note: For more information on lithium resources worldwide see the data section’s brief “The Earth Has 86 Million Tons of Lithium Resources.”

By Nnamdi Anyadike* The lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery market has been growing at an extraordinary pace over the last 10 years and will continue to grow at least at the same pace over the next 10 years. Batteries in electric vehicles (EVs), both light and heavy duty, are among the main growth drivers. In 2030, they are expected to represent 77% of the total installed Li-ion battery capacity, up from just 51% in 2019, according to the latest reports. Over the coming years, several changes are expected in the EV market that will affect both the reuse and recycling of batteries. These include the introduction of new battery technologies, the emergence of autonomous vehicles (AVs), and new ownership models of both vehicles and batteries. However, the volumes that will reach end-of-life will grow slower than the volumes placed on the market, because new applications, and their batteries, will last significantly longer than previous applications. Inevitably, questions arise about the impact of the production, use, and recycling or final disposal of Li-ion batteries. The 2021 “lithium-ion battery life cycle report,” says that recycling “is complicated” and could become even more so if the task of disassembling the components is made too burdensome by heavy-handed regulations. It may also be wasteful. The report predicts, “In 2030 the total amount of Li-ion batteries that will go to reuse will be 145 gigawatt hours (GWh) or 799,000 tons, while 170 GWh or 820,000 tons will be available for recycling.” Nevertheless, while this might look like more batteries are going to recycling than to reuse, most of the recycling will be in batteries with shorter life cycles such as cells and packs in portable devices and personal mobility vehicles. Recycling Challenges Remain an Obstacle Six main types of lithium batteries are in use today, each with varying degrees of recyclability. The Lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) battery is most used in small portable electronics, such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and cameras. In EV batteries, variations on Li-ion chemistry, including lithium iron phosphate (LIP), lithium-manganese spinel, and lithium vanadium oxide, predominate. The long-life LIP battery is increasing in popularity. These batteries are capable of lasting at least 10 years and undergoing more than 7000 charge/discharge cycles. Nevertheless, even longer life spans are in the pipeline. LG Chem claims that its lithium-manganese spinel battery can last up to 40 years. The lithium vanadium oxide battery is another example of long-life EV battery innovation with a 10–20-year lifespan that has already made its way into the Subaru prototype G4e. Although recycling Li-ion batteries will become hugely important as EVs continue to gain traction, there remain sizable logistical and safety challenges in battery recycling. Although recycling Li-ion batteries will become hugely important as EVs continue to gain traction, Zachary Baum, a Scientific Content Engineer at the Ohio State University’s College of Arts & Sciences (CAS), says that there remain sizable logistical and safety challenges in battery recycling. The first challenge is the transportation of end-of-life batteries from disposal sites to a recycling facility. “This can be expensive if long distances or international transport is required,” he told Supply Chain Digital. The second challenge is safety. “A 1,000-pound EV battery is highly flammable,” Baum pointed out. “Balancing these issues can make it extremely difficult for battery recycling to be both environmentally efficient and profitable,” he continued. Beyond these two considerations lies the problem of how to efficiently extract the battery’s most valuable metals. LI batteries are not typically designed with disassembly and recycling in mind and so crushing the device whole is often required. This can be hazardous even though the current generation of LI batteries contain nickel, cobalt, and manganese, which are less toxic than the lead-acid batteries found in most vehicles today. The emergence of the LIP cathode, made without nickel or cobalt, is enabling the creation of cheaper, more stable, and less risky solutions that address both the power and recycling aspects of Li batteries. Tesla has recently announced it will switch to this technology in its lower-range cars. New Li-Ion Battery Recycling Plants The German multi-metal supplier and recycling company Aurubis AG announced in March the start of test operations at a new pilot plant in Hamburg. The facility will process the “black mass” from Li-ion batteries. Black mass is a metal concentrate containing nickel, cobalt, manganese, lithium, and graphite that is suitable for hydrometallurgical refining. It comes in the form of a powdery residue. The recovered metals will then be used for new batteries and other products. Aurubis CEO Roland Harings anticipates an investment of approximately US $220 million in a full-scale commercial plant. "I'm firmly convinced that Aurubis will commission an industrial-scale battery recycling plant within the next five years," Harings says. The German car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz is to collaborate with Primobious to design and construct a battery recycling plant in Germany. The partnership will be conducted through Neometals, Primobious’ 50% owned subsidiary, and the Mercedes-Benz owned subsidiary, LICULAR GmbH. The new plant will be based at Mercedes’ operations in Kuppenheim, Germany, and will mark the automaker’s foray into battery recycling, making it less reliant on raw material supplies in the future. The recovered material will be fed back into the recycling loop to produce more than 50,000 battery modules for the Mercedes’ EQ (Electric Intelligence) range of vehicles. The plant will have a nominal capacity of 2,500 tonnes per year (or up to 10 tonnes per day) and will be built in two stages. The first stage is expected to commence next year, 2023. Neometals managing director Chris Reed said, “Lithium battery recycling supports the conservation of resources, decarbonization, and supply chain resilience and we are excited to assist Mercedes in its goal to reuse recovered materials.” Meanwhile, the French mining group Eramet announced in March that it could develop jointly with the environmental services group, Suez, a recycling facility in France for EV batteries by 2024. The company sees recycling as contributing to its potential to cover 20% of the European Union's nickel requirements, 25% of the bloc's lithium needs, and 12% of its cobalt demand for EV batteries by 2030. The two partners are to study various solutions for industrial-scale recycling this year, prior to building the Li-ion battery recycling plant. The facility will produce black mass metal concentrate, and Eramet will look separately at developing a refining plant by 2025-2026 to convert this black mass to battery grade products. Like the planned black mass facility, the refining plant would be located in France. Li-Ion Battery Recycling Prospects The rapid depletion of primary lithium and cobalt reserves will inevitably force battery manufacturers to move even more decisively in the direction of recycling. All current methods of Li-ion battery recycling are energy-intensive and inefficient. But an alternative approach that is now rising is to disassemble batteries at the end of their useful life instead of shredding them, thereby making new batteries from the old ones. The most recent breakthrough that shows promise in this direction was developed by a team at Princeton NuEnergy. This method to disassemble old batteries and extract their reusable elements relies on the use of low-temperature plasma (ionized gas). As reported by Azo CleanTech, “The Princeton NuEnergy team's strategy eliminates a major portion of international commerce and transportation needs, paving the way for other nations to boost local battery recycling.” Regulations will also play their part. Today, recycling is not considered a priority for battery manufacturers. But in both Europe and the US, regulations are in the pipeline that will compel battery manufacturers to fund the costs of collecting, storing, and recycling all collected batteries. Appropriate process chains are already being created to ensure the environmentally efficient management of used Li-ion batteries. This will pave the way for a more sustainable future for Li-ion batteries. *Nnamdi Anyadike is an industry journalist specializing in metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy for over thirty-five years.

By Nnamdi Anyadike* As technology continues to improve and evolve, expectations are high for the continual rise of wind power as a major contributor to clean energy supply in the near future. As a non-carbon-emitting technology, wind power has a great environmental advantage over its leading fossil fuel competitors. According to the Energy Industry Review, never before have there been so many wind turbines installed around the world as there were in 2020. “In total,” the Review said, “the new equipment can produce around 114,000 megawatts (MW). Despite the pandemic, twice more wind farms have been installed compared to 2019. This corresponds to a wind farm of 13 MW installed every hour on the planet.” In Europe, Denmark already draws 41% of its electricity from wind; followed by Ireland with 28% and Germany with 27%. The European Union (EU) secures 14% of its power from wind. As a percentage of its energy mix, the United States (US) lags well behind Europe, producing only 6.6% of its electricity from wind power. Nevertheless, measured in terms of net quantity, the US ranks second only to China in wind power electricity capacity. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA’s) world ranking, China has an installed wind capacity of 342 GW; the US has 139 GW; Germany has 64 GW; India 42 GW; Spain 29 GW; the UK 26 GW; Brazil 19.1 GW; France 18.7 GW; Canada 14.4 GW; and Italy 12.7 GW. Wind Power’s Mounting Challenges Yet, despite all this hope for wind power, several problems persist with wind as an energy source. Broadly speaking, these problems divide into two concerns: the environmental impact, and questions concerning its profitability. A recent Bloomberg report revealed that turbine makers were “reeling from soaring costs” amid a change in subsidies. The report suggested that turbine makers are still struggling to translate soaring demand into profit. Ben Backwell, chief executive officer of the trade group Global Wind Energy Council, was quoted in the report as saying, “What I’m seeing is a colossal market failure. The risk is we’re not on track for net zero [emissions]—and the other risk is the supply chain is contracting, instead of expanding.” Troubles started back in the mid-2010s when governments started to pull back on generous subsidies. According to Credit Suisse analyst Mark Freshney, that pull-back fueled pressures to reduce turbine prices, squeezing the manufacturers’ bottom lines. A major problem with wind power is its intermittent nature, and researchers within industry and academia are now looking at better storage methods to avoid having to fall back up on fossil fuel power generation. A major problem with wind power, as indeed with solar power, is its intermittent nature. Researchers within industry and academia are now looking at better storage methods to avoid having to fall back up on fossil fuel power generation. This year, a team from the Technical University of Dresden (TU Dresden) announced the development of an experimental flywheel energy storage system (FESS) with a capacity of 500 kilowatt hours (kWh) and an output of 500 kilowatts (kW). The varying, cumbersome, sometimes redundant planning systems around the world for new projects are also at fault. Those dynamics have pressured profit margins just as turbine makers have invested heavily to roll out bigger turbines that can capture more wind. The average wind turbine today is nearly three times taller than turbines built in the early 1990s and produces more power, ranging between 2.5 and 3 MW. This compares to less than 1 MW for turbines built in the early 1990s. These more powerful machines have helped drive down the cost of electricity from wind; however, they have been costly for manufacturers to introduce. “The risk is that we will not have suppliers ramping up, and we will then have a shortage, in terms of supply, for meeting global demand,” Martin Neubert, chief commercial officer at Ørsted A/S, the world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms, said in the Bloomberg report. Environmental Obstacles The environmental obstacles to ramping up wind power, meanwhile, remain considerable. Although estimates vary, in the US alone, hundreds of thousands of birds per year are thought to be killed by wind turbines. These numbers are expected to rise as the use of wind power expands globally. There are also problems with “wind noise.” This noise is mainly due to the blade tips that cut through the air at speeds of up to 250 km/h. Then there are the effects of visual pollution—of potentially hundreds of masts blighting the landscape. In some French villages, the European Industry Review report noted that some inhabitants confessed to feeling “surrounded by wind turbines, sometimes with up to 200 masts visible around a single village.” There are also issues with regards to the carbon footprint of wind turbines. Although CO2 emissions from wind turbines are lower than from nuclear power, wind power emissions are nonetheless higher than some other forms of renewable energy, such as hydropower. Although CO2 emissions from wind turbines are lower than from nuclear power, wind power emissions are nonetheless higher than some other forms of renewable energy, such as hydropower. Much of the impact of wind power on the environment, says the Review, is “frontloaded” and related to the actual construction of wind turbines, including the extraction of all the raw materials needed. That assembly requires concrete, copper, aluminum, and other composite materials, but also electronic components (for the rotor) and, in less than 10% of the cases, rare metals for certain types of magnets. According to combined estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, quoted by Forbes, wind turbines average 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. At the end of its life, after twenty to thirty years of use, a wind turbine is then dismantled. Although promising, the processes of recycling the composite materials that make up the blades, and the recovery of the metals from the rotor, are still in their infancy. These problems have sparked a debate within Europe about the future viability of wind power, particularly onshore wind power. Profitability Questioned Overhanging all of these considerations, though, is the overriding question of profitability. According to the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, Western turbine manufacturers are now retrenching to shore up their bottom lines. In the future, they will compete for fewer projects in fewer markets, raise prices, streamline their product lineups, and cut manufacturing costs. “You absolutely need to see some of these profit pictures turn around for the decarbonization goals to be achievable,” said Aaron Barr, global head of onshore wind turbines at Wood Mackenzie. When in the mid-2010s governments started to pull back on generous subsidies to make tenders for renewable energy developers more competitive, Western turbine makers began to feel the pinch. This enabled Chinese manufacturers to take advantage of opportunities in the wind market, with companies like Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Envision Group, and Ming Yang Smart Energy Group Ltd. stepping into the breach. In August 2021, the manufacturer Ming Yang overtook Vestas, previously the producer of the world’s biggest turbine at 15-megawatt, when Ming Yang unveiled a 16-megawatt machine. Scott Strazik, who will lead GE’s energy-related businesses as they prepare for a 2024 spinoff, said the quick influx of bigger, more powerful machines has strained turbine manufacturers and the supply chain. Offshore Wind — the Solution? Despite some of the difficulties facing onshore wind power, offshore wind is already advancing in several European nations, and is likely to be the next global frontier. In May, at a European offshore wind summit, Mads Nipper, CEO of Ørsted told delegates: “Offshore wind will be a cornerstone in securing European energy independence and in fighting climate change. … With an EU ambition of 300 GW offshore wind turbines in operation by 2050, the future challenges aren’t cost but rather how to integrate large-scale variable energy into the power systems, and how to ensure that the build-out happens in harmony with nature.” In the US, there is also renewed hope, with numerous federal leases opening up large expanses of ocean acreage for offshore wind. Technological advances, including floating turbines, now make possible the placement of wind farms in deeper waters, farther away from populated coastal areas. Much lower project costs also now make offshore wind power a realistic competitor with other sources of power generation. This improved cost profile should result in more wind power, albeit the offshore variant, finally allowing wind power to fulfil its own higher proportional potential in the energy mix. Challenges of Offshore Wind Turbines A potential problem with offshore wind farms is that they can interfere with the navigational radar used by ships and smaller vessels to avoid collisions. This would pose a challenge for safe maritime navigation. According to a new report from the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the maritime community has already expressed its concern about these issues. The report recommends that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and other relevant agencies pursue practicable options to mitigate the interference of wind farms, such as by implementing enhanced training and using reference buoys, among other options. *Nnamdi Anyadike is an industry journalist specializing in metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy for over thirty-five years.

By Nnamdi Anyadike* The global nuclear energy debate has now reached important key inflection points that could determine its future in the world’s energy mix. In the run up to last November’s COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, the International Energy Agency (IEA) called for the nuclear industry to nearly double in size over the next two decades to meet global net-zero emissions targets. This February, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine appeared to all but guarantee the future of nuclear power as a clean source of energy. The ongoing conflict has placed a giant question mark against a return to Europe’s decades long dependence on Russian oil and gas in the foreseeable future. Nuclear power plants' most obvious advantage is their low carbon footprint. They are also cheaper to run than their coal or gas rivals. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) estimates that the cost of a nuclear plant can be between 33% to 50% of the cost of a coal plant and 20% to 25% of that of a gas combined-cycle plant. Another clear advantage is nuclear power’s higher reliability over renewables like solar and wind. Set against the pros is the potential for accidents and the possibility of sabotage or nuclear terrorism. There’s also the vexed question of how to dispose of nuclear waste, estimated by the WNA at 34,000 cubic meters globally. However, with climate change concerns—now joined by severe restrictions on Russian gas and oil—topping the energy policy agenda, the global argument seems to move in favor of nuclear power. Nuclear Power Future Hangs in the Balance The WNA estimates that 440 nuclear power reactors provide about 10% of the world's electricity. They are the world's second largest source of low-carbon power. But despite these gains it is by no means certain—judging by its history—that nuclear power will succeed in significantly replacing fossil fuels in the future global energy mix. Ever since the first nuclear power generating stations were commissioned in the 1950s to great fanfare, progress has been mixed. Since the first nuclear power plants began operating in the 1950s, progress has been mixed. By the 1970s and 1980s, it had reached its nadir following accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Then in 2011, the Fukushima incident in Japan led to the shutdown of the country’s entire fleet of thirty-three nuclear generating plants. The Japanese shutdowns were mirrored in South Korea; and in Europe, in what many observers deemed an inexplicable over-reaction to the events at Fukushima, the German government decided to phase out all nuclear plants by the end of 2022. All of this was compounded by the green lobby’s warnings about nuclear waste disposal. Many Europeans remain skeptical about deep geological disposal, and the European Commission is also not sold on the idea. Reviving Coal Instead of Nuclear Plants Meanwhile, a new study from Rystad Energy shows that nuclear power in Europe is underperforming. Although most EU nations are pro-nuclear, a group of five—Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, and Portugal—banded together at COP26 to urge the European Commission to keep nuclear out of the EU’s green finance taxonomy. Vladimir Petrov, senior power analyst at Rystad Energy said, "European nuclear power stations are not producing at capacity and are expected to average 69% utilization through 2022 unless shutdowns and reductions are reversed. This is below the global average of 76% utilization." European nuclear power stations are not producing at capacity and are expected to average 69% utilization through 2022—compared to a global average of 76%—unless shutdowns and reductions are reversed. Faced with dwindling natural gas supplies from Russia, Germany decided to restart its old coal plants. The country has the largest coal power generation fleet in Europe, "a total of 46.7 gigawatts (GW) of installed coal power generation capacity in 2020, all of which was planned to be gradually decommissioned by 2038. … These plans have now been reversed, and the government is trying to extend the life of 10 GW of mothballed coal capacity until March 2024," Petrov continued. The debate about extending the life of its three remaining nuclear power facilities has split the German government coalition. The German Social Democrats (SPD) and German Free Democrats (FDP) want to extend the plants’ operation until at least to the summer of 2023 to avoid energy shortages during the cold German winter. The Green Party (Die Grünen) insists on phasing them out by the end of 2022. The debate about extending the life of its three remaining nuclear power facilities has split the German government coalition. France, whose fifty-six nuclear reactors produce over 70% of its electricity, continues its plans to build up to six new next-generation EPRs (European Pressured Reactors II) by 2030. Furthermore, France is expected to study the construction of eight additional EPRs as well as new small modular reactors (SMR) for a total capacity of 25GW by 2050. The UK is also looking to expand its nuclear fleet: an industry consortium led by Rolls-Royce will spend £405m ($494.6 million) to develop a fleet of SMRs over the coming years. But in the short-term, French nuclear power is facing several woes that are expected to impact the UK this winter. Output from Electricite de France’s (EDF) nuclear reactors is plunging. This has forced EDF to draw in supplies from connected markets such as the UK. Fintan Slye, director of the UK National Grid’s network operator, said that several of the utility’s plants are halted for repairs, and the big questions are whether they will get back to normal operations in time and what will that mean for interconnector flows to France this winter. Mixed Outlook in Asia In Asia, China is currently building more new nuclear reactors than any other country. Their plan for as many as 150 by 2030 is estimated to cost around $500 billion. With these reactors in place, the country will overtake the US as the operator of the world’s largest nuclear-energy system. It is also experimenting with SMRs. Japan is still reeling from the effects of the Fukushima incident, and as of March this year had only brought ten reactors back online out of a fleet of thirty-three. A further fifteen reactors are in the process of restart approval. In the past, 30% of Japan’s electricity came from nuclear. In 2020, the figure was down to just 5.1%. Meanwhile, South Korea, which has twenty-five operable nuclear reactors, with a combined net capacity of 24.4 GWe, has decided to re-embrace nuclear energy. The nation had taken a hiatus in 2017, when then-President Moon Jae-in decided to phase out nuclear energy. In July 2022, South Korea’s new government, under President Yoon Suk Yeol, announced that construction of two new reactors at the Hanul Nuclear Power Plant on the country's east coast would be restarted. South Korea is also exporting nuclear power technology, including constructing a four-unit plant in the United Arab Emirates. By 2030, South Korea’s Energy Ministry wants nuclear to make up at least 30% of the country's power generation. This is a step up from its previous goal of 27%. Nuclear Power Depends on Political Will The future of nuclear power depends now on the sufficient political will to increase the amount of nuclear power generating facilities. The WNA’s “Harmony” program proposes the addition of 1,000 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050 (current capacity of 1,250 GWe), to provide 25% of global electricity use (about 10,000 TWh). However, as seen in Europe, nuclear power still has a way to go to before legislators recognize its “green” credentials. *Nnamdi Anyadike is an industry journalist specializing in metals, oil, gas, and renewable energy for over thirty-five years.