Wind and solar now cheaper than natural gas

Wind and solar now cheaper than natural gas

But before you get too excited and decide to cut off your natural gas supply, what hasn’t changed is the unreliability of both solar and wind

 

We all remember the disturbing stories coming out of Europe as little as two years ago called the heat or eat phenomenon. The push towards renewable energy contributed to large spikes in electricity costs that seniors and other people on low incomes in the U.K., in particular, were forced to choose between heating their homes or eating.

Even in Ontario, that province’s push under previous provincial governments to bring in more solar and wind power caused prices to rise so much that it helped lead to the defeat of Kathleen Wynne’s provincial Liberal government.

According to a new report from the University of Calgary, however, that era of high-cost renewable energy is over.

The School of Public Policy report on energy and environmental policy trends, Cheap Renewables Have Arrived, has found that solar and wind power prices have plunged so precipitously that they are now less expensive than efficient natural gas plants.

Recent analysis shows that over the past 10 years, wind costs have fallen by 70 per cent and solar by 90 per cent.

“Perhaps more significantly, the levelized cost of wind and solar — a measure which includes cost to construct and operate power plants — has now reached parity with the marginal cost of efficient natural gas plants,” write co-authors Nick Schumacher, Victoria Goodday, Blake Shaffer and Jennifer Winter.

“This suggests building new renewables is now cheaper than operating existing fossil power plants.”

Shaffer, an energy economist and an assistant professor of economics, says the perception for people who aren’t “electricity nerds” is that solar and wind power is a kind of “boutique power” — costly and niche.

“For many people who are thinking back about five years ago, certainly 10 years ago, and hearing about the cost of solar and wind and, you know, runaway electricity prices in Ontario, we still have that in mind because that’s not long ago,” said Shaffer during a Wednesday interview. “But it’s just changed so dramatically that’s no longer the case. Wind and solar is now cheaper than natural gas.”

Now, before you get too excited and decide to cut off your natural gas supply, what hasn’t changed is the unreliability of both solar and wind. Basically, you only get wind power when the wind blows and solar power when the sun shines.

But Shaffer says with more countries committing to net-zero emissions targets — including  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement on Thursday  that pledged Canada to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 — the push will be on to find ways to store this “zero-emission power” to be used when demand is highest — primarily through batteries, which are currently costly and not so green.

“Despite their low costs, wind and solar still have a long way to go before they are the dominant sources of energy,” states the report.

“In 2018, renewables accounted for only 8.5 per cent of total global energy supply. Despite their small share of supply, renewable energy investment growth — 97 per cent of which is in wind and solar — is outpacing any other energy source at 7.6 per cent per year.

The report points out that even the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020 report — which tends to be highly conservative — declared: “Solar is the new king of electricity.”

Shaffer says the rapid decline in the cost of solar panels was caused by the demand for them in Germany, California and other European countries and particularly now that China has taken the lead on production.

“So, the renewables are now the cheapest in terms of producing electricity, but it still doesn’t give us the on-demand power we want. And so just looking at cost alone isn’t fair. We need to figure out how to turn that raw energy into on-demand power.”

Shaffer notes that just recently TransAlta put in a large Tesla battery to store renewable energy and California and South Australia are doing the same.

He anticipates that natural gas will continue to play an important role in electrification to fill in the valleys caused by the intermittent nature of solar and wind for some time to come.

Solar panels atop the Southland Leisure Centre in Calgary in 2014. At the time, it was the city’s largest solar array. PHOTO BY POSTMEDIA ARCHIVES

 

In October, Premier Jason Kenney announced a new strategy for Alberta’s massive 300-year supply of natural gas, including net-zero hydrogen exports, something that Shaffer believes will be in high demand in the world.

Indeed, the hydrogen industry is projected to be worth $2.5 trillion by 2050, according to the Hydrogen Council, a global group of corporate executives encouraging investment in the hydrogen economy.

So, are solar and wind the game-changers that replaces oil and gas?

“No, they’re not,” says Shaffer. “It’s not the same scale. But what it is is it’s a great opportunity to replace a lot of generation to reduce emissions at really low to no cost.”

He says Alberta is “blessed with all of these great energy resources, and it just so happens that we also have some of the best wind resources in Canada. You go down to Pincher Creek, you’ll agree with me. We also have the best solar resources in Canada, us and southern Saskatchewan.”

“There’s nowhere cheaper in Canada to build solar and wind than in Alberta.”

The greening of the electrical grid no longer will force people to choose between heating or eating. It will, hopefully, one day soon be about cleaner air and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions at a reasonable cost.

How hyperlocal hydro energy can empower communities

Grist.org

How hyperlocal hydro energy can empower communities

This article is published in partnership with: Vertue Lab

Water Pipeline Of Hydroelectric Power PlantGetty Images

Growing up in Colombia, Moriel Arango spent nearly every weekend on his father’s sustainable farm, about an hour from their home in the city of Cali. There, in the rural, western region of the country, prolonged power outages were common and reliable electricity could be scarce. Once, a lightning strike blew out a transformer in the middle of the night. This shut off the power to an aerator that supplied oxygen to thousands of red tilapia and cachama he was raising in lakes on the property.

“In these rural areas, you lose power and it’s going to be 48 hours or more,” Arango says. “All his fish are going to die.”

So Arango’s father had to make the hour-long drive during the night to bring a can of diesel to start up the backup generator and get the aerator running again. It’s experiences like these that eventually led Arango to BladeRunner Energy, a renewable energy company based in Bend, Oregon.

“It’s always been a big motivator for me—” he says, “looking at renewable energy, and the idea of getting it into the hands of folks that need it.”

The current moment, for all its upheaval and uncertainty, presents a unique opportunity for making big, systemic change when it comes to energy. BladeRunner, along with InPipe Energy, another Oregon-based startup, think the time is ripe for investing in hyper-local hydropower. Both are VertueLab-supported companies. InPipe captures excess energy flowing through municipal drinking water pipes, while BladeRunner replaces the environmental risk of hydroelectric dams with small, tethered turbines to harvest the energy of flowing water.

These types of small-scale, dispersed energy sources could help put much-needed power into the hands of communities — literally and figuratively.

“Electric utilities are inundated with innovation. Water departments, not as much,” says Gregg Semler, InPipe’s president and CEO. He’s working to change that.

As a city’s water makes its downhill journey from a water tower to the tap, pressure within a pipeline often becomes too high. Pressure-reducing valves situated along the pipeline help maintain a critical balance: Extra force from over-pressurized water can cause costly leaks or major water main breaks.

“Water is invisible. It’s underneath our streets, and we take it for granted when we turn on the tap that it comes out at the right pressure,” Semler says.

InPipe’s technology capitalizes on existing pressure control valves, adding sensors to monitor precise flow and pressure within a pipe. When pressure starts to rise, water is diverted through a small pipe called a bypass, where it spins a series of microturbines before flowing back into the main pipe. The excess pressure is converted into energy, which can then be fed into a city’s electrical grid.

In October, InPipe completed its first partnership with a city, in Hillsborough, Oregon. It’s one of three pilot projects planned across the West. Funded with help from Portland General Electric and Energy Trust of Oregon, InPipe’s technology will help power lights, concession stands, and electric vehicle charging stations at the city’s recreation complex, generating between 185,000 and 200,000 kWh of electricity per year. The clean energy generated will reduce the city’s carbon footprint by more than 162,000 pounds annually—the equivalent of driving a car more than 240,000 miles.

Moving forward, Semler sees InPipe as an avenue for water equity around the country. Water may be our most important resource, but it is delivered via an aging infrastructure — the very pipes that deliver the nation’s water are crumbling and in need of serious repair. There are roughly 240,000 water main breaks a year, according to the American Society Civil of Engineers, resulting in more than 2 trillion gallons of lost drinking water annually.

And while tragedies in cities like Flint, Michigan, and Newark, New Jersey, have made national headlines for exposing dangerously high levels of lead in residents’ pipes, unsafe drinking water still threatens millions of people across the country.

To make the needed fixes and additions to the country’s water system would cost at least $1 trillion, as estimated by the American Water Works Association. Replacing lead service lines alone could cost as much as $50 billion. Semler hopes that monetizing water pressure, reducing leaks and pipe damage, and generating clean energy in the process might incentivize cities to invest in much-needed upgrades.

“We can tap into sources of capital for water departments, and that capital can be used to upgrade their infrastructure,” Semler says. “The benefit is that we produce energy around the clock.”

Moriel Arango, co-founder and CTO of BladeRunner Energy, has long been driven by the idea of energy equity as well. During his childhood in Colombia, he saw firsthand the types of socioeconomic disparities that can prevent communities from thriving: systemic poverty alongside extreme wealth, as well as Indigenous and Afro-Colombian villages displaced by violent drug trafficking and unrest.

“All of those things, they compound and add up to a motivation for me to continue down that path of helping others become empowered,” Arango says. Which is why he joined BladeRunner Energy in 2017.

BladeRunner’s hydrokinetic rotors are tethered to floating generators. They’re designed to float in waterways and provide power for isolated communities in landscapes that aren’t conducive to large-scale renewable energy infrastructure like solar fields, wind turbines, or dams. The company’s current rotors measure 20 inches in diameter, which are best-suited for shallow, fast-moving waters, like a stream. But as testing progresses, Arango would like to scale up to rotors as big as five feet across. These larger rotors could be used to generate power in the deeper, slower currents of a river.

So far, BladeRunner has tested its prototype in canals throughout the Central Oregon Irrigation District, in Tomales Bay, California, and in controlled environments at facilities at the University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Davis; and California State University, Chico. They’re waiting to hear about the status of federal grant money for a collaboration with the University of Alaska Fairbanks over the next several years. The partnership would scale additional testing in rural villages, where diesel generators remain a primary supplier of heat and electricity.

Eventually, Arango envisions his tethered rotors being a complement to microgrids — the hyperlocal, autonomous energy grids that are often used to power rural or especially remote locations. Roughly 12 percent of the world’s microgrid systems operate in Alaska, hence the hope to continue prototype testing there.

In Arango’s view, the benefits of clean energy equity extend beyond environmental sustainability. It’s about giving communities the resources needed to help them reach their potential.

“If we had a world where everybody had general equal access to education and electricity, the next thing you know, you have brilliant minds popping out of everywhere,” he says. “The brilliant minds are already there. It’s just a matter of giving them the opportunity to do something else, as opposed to figuring out how to survive day to day.”


VertueLab is a nonprofit fighting climate change by providing funding and holistic entrepreneurial support to cleantech startups. Through a decade of work they have a proven model that can help accelerate climate solutions that are key to reversing the climate crisis.

Why 2021 Will Be A Banner Year For Renewable Energy In The U.S.

Why 2021 Will Be A Banner Year For Renewable Energy In The U.S.

Editor OilPrice.com                       

A Joe Biden administration is bound to usher in a 180-degree pivot on climate change from the outgoing presidency. But with control of the Senate hanging in the balance with the battle set to go down to the wire in Georgia, Biden’s plan to squeeze $2 trillion from the federal purse to pursue his ambitious Climate Plan could end up severely hamstrung.

But with the global shift to renewable energy in full swing, the American political landscape might not matter that much in the long run.

Indeed, Goldman Sachs has predicted that global capital spending on renewable energy will surpass fossil fuel Capex for the first time ever in 2021.

According to the investment banker, renewable power will reach 25% of the total energy supply capex in 2021, beating out hydrocarbons for the first time ever. According to Goldman’s Carbonomics Report, renewables will reach 25% of the total energy supply capex in 2021, beating out upstream oil and gas investments for the first time in history.

The report says that cleantech has the potential to drive $1-2 trillion per annum in green infrastructure investments and could hit $16 trillion by 2030. This could create 15-20 million jobs worldwide (green infrastructure is 1.5-3.0x more capital- and job-intensive than traditional energy).

Source: Goldman Sachs

Falling cost of capital

Goldman Sachs says a big factor that will help clean energy achieve the remarkable feat is a major bifurcation in cost trends, with renewables recording a big fall in the cost of capital vs. rising costs for fossil fuel investments. According to GS, the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), aka the hurdle rate for renewables, currently clocks in at 3-5% compared to 10-20% for oil and gas investments.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Renewable energy costs declined rapidly over the past decade, with solar photovoltaics (PV) falling 82% while onshore wind generation costs declined 39%. These trends are expected to continue in the coming years.

Source: IRENA

The situation could not be more different for the fossil fuel sector.

The global oil and gas sector has recorded the biggest Capex cuts in history: Oil and gas companies focused on the North American market have cut capital expenditure by 49% in 2020; Independent Oil Companies (IOCs) by 29% while National Oil Companies have lowered Capex by 24%.

The North American market has been particularly hard hit, with the sector expected to record a staggering $530 billion reduction in capex over the next 5 years. 2020 upstream oil & gas spending is tracking to fall 60% from its 2014 peak.

Source:The Duff & Phelps Capex Cut Tracker

A lot of the ongoing risks in the oil and gas sector are closely related with the growing danger of stranded assets and massive asset writeoffs.

The unprecedented destruction in energy demand has triggered a wave of asset devaluations, with Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.A) announcing that it will writedown $22B of its assets while ExxonMobil (NYSEXOM) has warned it might write off $30B.

Those figures could get a lot bigger as the quarters roll on, with nearly a third of their assets worth nearly a trillion dollars doomed to be declared worthless. Indeed, the average oil reserve life has already fallen by 20 years due to stranded assets.

A slew of potential Covid-19 vaccines have improved the oil and gas outlook somewhat by offering hope for a recovery in 2021. However, a lot will still depend on how committed OPEC+ will remain to its production cuts. The coalition held a ministerial committee meeting on Tuesday but failed to reach a formal agreement on quotas even as Saudi Arabia urged members to consider delaying a boost to output by two million barrels per day come January. With the majority of oil producers struggling to balance their budgets amid historically low oil prices, it’s going to become increasingly hard to convince everyone to keep toeing the line.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

Trump Swiftly Blows Up His 1 Decent Conservation Action

HuffPost

Trump Swiftly Blows Up His 1 Decent Conservation Action

Chris D’Angelo, Environment Reporter         

The Trump administration wasted no time proving what was clear from the get-go: that its support of a major public lands bill was nothing more than pre-election greenwashing for President Donald Trump and two Senate allies.

In August, Trump signed the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act into law, falsely portraying himself as a conservationist on par with President Theodore Roosevelt. The measure, widely considered the most significant conservation legislation in a generation, allocates $9.5 billion to fix crumbling national park infrastructure and permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million per year. The decades-old LWCF uses offshore fossil fuel revenues to establish and protect parks, wildlife refuges, forests and wildlife habitat.

But Trump and his team are longtime foes of the LWCF. The administration tried repeatedly to gut the program’s funding. And days after the 2020 presidential election, which Trump handily lost, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed an order that kneecaps LWCF and undermines the new law that Bernhardt previously argued would not have passed without Trump’s “strong and bold action.”

The order, dated Nov. 9, gives state governors and local jurisdictions the power to veto federal land acquisitions made through LWCF. “A written expression of support by both the affected Governor and local county or county government-equivalent (e.g. parish, borough) is required for the acquisition of land, water, or an interest in land or water under the Federal LWCF program,” it reads.

Once the election was done, it was open season on land protection.Aaron Weiss, deputy director, Center for Western Priorities

The move is a parting gift to the anti-federal land movement that has enjoyed extraordinary access to top administration officials but that never convinced the administration to embrace wholesale transfer or sale of public lands. In fact, the requirement in Bernhardt’s order mirrors an amendment that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced when the Great American Outdoors Act was being debated in Congress, as E&E News highlighted.

Lee strongly opposes federal control of public lands in the West. “Our long-term goal must be the transfer of federal lands to the states,” Lee wrote in a 2018 tweet. William Perry Pendley, the highest-ranking official at Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, shares those extreme views, once writing that the “founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold.”

Democratic lawmakers, environmentalists and outdoor sporting groups have slammed Trump’s Interior chief for trying to circumvent Congress and restrict how LWCF funds are allocated.

“I urge you to immediately rescind this anti-public land order,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), a longtime champion of LWCF, wrote in a letter last week to Bernhardt. “This undercuts what a landowner can do with their own private property, and creates unnecessary, additional levels of bureaucracy that will hamstring future land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.”

In a release  announcing Bernhardt’s order, the Interior Department said the action “honors Interior’s commitment to be a good neighbor by giving states and communities a voice in federal land acquisition.”

President Donald Trump signs the the Great American Outdoors Act at the White House on Aug. 4. The public lands law aims to fix crumbling national park infrastructure and permanently fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund.  (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images)

 

For those paying attention, Trump’s about-face on LWCF felt like little more than a political favor for two Republican senators facing tough bids for reelection in states where protecting public lands is a key issue among voters. Along with showering praise upon himself, Trump credited Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who both previously voted in favor of slashing LWCF funding and supported Trump’s anti-conservation agenda at nearly every turn.

“This landmark legislation would not have been possible without the incredible leadership and hard work of two outstanding senators, in particular, and two fine people ― Cory Gardner and Steve Daines,” Trump said at a signing ceremony for the Great American Outdoors Act.

On the campaign trail, Daines and Gardner touted their work on the Great American Outdoors Act. Daines ultimately defeated his challenger. Gardner did not.

As soon as the 2020 election was over, Trump’s team took aim at one of its only conservation achievements. First, the departments of Interior and Agriculture missed statutory deadlines for submitting lists of projects to receive LWCF funding. Then came Bernhardt’s order undermining the program altogether.

The Great American Outdoors Act is no doubt a major victory for America’s public lands and for LWCF, which has been plagued by funding shortfalls all of its 50-year history. The administration’s claimed support for it, on the other hand, was “a ruse” and a “bald-faced lie,” Aaron Weiss, deputy director of Colorado-based conservation group Center for Western Priorities, told HuffPost. He expects Bernhardt was always planning to undercut the law, whether or not Trump won a second term.

“Once the election was done, it was open season on land protection,” Weiss said by email, adding that Bernhardt is “going to throw as much sand into the gears as he can on his way out.”

The Interior Department and other federal agencies are rushing to finalize numerous environmental rollbacks before President-elect Joe Biden assumes office. Those include selling oil and gas leases in Alaska’s pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and permanently slashing protections for hundreds of species of migratory birds.

Butter Is Booming, Whole Milk Is Back and Dairy Is Surviving

Butter Is Booming, Whole Milk Is Back and Dairy Is Surviving

Justin Fox                  November 15, 2020

(Bloomberg Opinion) — With Americans staying home more than usual because of the pandemic, and doing lots of baking and cooking to pass the time, this has been a banner year for butter.

Land O’Lakes, the Minnesota-based dairy cooperative, expects to sell 275 million to 300 million pounds of the stuff this year — a 20% increase — as rising retail demand more than makes up for lost restaurant business. Nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, butter production is up 6% over the first nine months of the year and is on track to top two billion pounds for the first time since 1943.

This year’s boom is, as is apparent from the chart, part of a longer-term comeback. On a per-capita basis, Americans eat far less butter than they did in the early decades of the 20th century. But they eat more than they did in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

After staving off competition from margarine with nearly a century of lobbying for margarine bans, taxes and color restrictions, butter producers lost their regulatory advantages in the 1940’s and 1950’s and ceded a lot of market share to the cheaper spread — which had originally been derived from beef fat but was by then mainly made out of vegetable oil. As medical researchers began to link consumption of animal fats with heart disease in the 1950’s and 1960’s, margarine gained even more ground as a purportedly healthier alternative.

Those health claims were later mostly debunked, and the price difference between butter and margarine began to matter less as incomes rose and families shrank (food purchased for off-premises consumption accounted for more than 18% of consumer spending in the early 1950’s and just 6% in 2019).

Butter also benefited from the emphasis on genuine ingredients accompanying the good-food revival that began in the 1960’s (Julia Child certainly wasn’t going to use margarine). And let’s be honest, it tastes better. Corn oil, olive oil and other vegetable oils now play a much bigger role in American diets than they used to, so butter will probably never regain its central status of a century ago. But it’s not going away.

“It’s a survivor story,” says Peter Vitaliano, vice president of economic policy and market research at the National Milk Producers Federation.

The same goes for the dairy industry in general. It can seem awfully embattled from time to time, and for good reason. Giant, highly productive dairies have been driving lots of smaller farmers out of business. Competition from “milks” made of almonds, oats, soybeans and other plants has taken market share from the real thing and led to a dairy industry lobbying campaign reminiscent of the margarine wars of yore. President Donald Trump’s trade policies have caused problems too. Two big milk marketers, Borden Dairy Co. and Dean Foods Inc., have filed for bankruptcy in the past 12 months.

But the big picture for the industry since 1980 or so is of declining demand for its core product (milk, that is) being more than offset by rising sales of almost everything that can be made out of milk.

Even within milk sales there’s been an interesting shift lately, with whole milk outselling 2% milk for the first time in 15 years in 2018 and building on its lead in 2019, and skim milk sales drifting downward. If you’re going to drink milk, and not smashed-up almonds mixed with water, then you might as well drink the milkiest kind of milk.

Whole milk happens to be the most profitable product for dairy farmers, as it’s basically just what comes out of the cow and thus doesn’t require them to share much revenue with processors. It also has benefited from the new eat-at-home normal of the pandemic, with sales up 4.1% through August (2% milk sales are up too, with skim and 1% down).

But on the whole, it is products made of milk that have kept the industry going. The butter revival is one aspect of this. The rise of yogurt, which was close to nonexistent in the U.S. before the 1970’s, is another, even though it has faded a bit lately.

The main driver of the dairy industry’s resilience, though, has been cheese. Americans consume almost three times as much of it per-person as they did in 1970.

Not all of this is the result of what you’d call organic consumer demand. Yes, the big gains in Italian cheese consumption seem to reflect the fact that we eat a lot more pizza than we used to. One can also see hints in the data of the rising popularity of Mexican food (which in its north-of-the-border incarnation contains lots of Cheddar and Jack cheese), bagels’ emergence from regional-food status (cream cheese!) and other fun food trends.

But as cheese can be stored for longer than milk or butter or yogurt, it’s also something the dairy industry makes when it has more milk than it knows what to do with, resulting in the infamous “cheese mountain” that is occasionally reduced in size by big government purchases. Those have been especially big this year, with the Agriculture Department so far delivering more than 118 million food boxes — each containing several pounds of dairy products, mainly cheese — to food banks and other charities as part of pandemic-relief efforts.

The industry has also found new things to sell beyond milk, butter, yogurt and cheese, and new places to sell them. Forty years ago the U.S. hardly exported any dairy products. Now it exports a fair amount of cheese, mainly to Mexico, South Korea and Japan, and even bigger quantities of cheese-making byproducts such as whey powder, whey protein isolate and lactose, all of which are used in manufacturing foods and dietary supplements.

The main byproduct of modern butter-making is skim milk powder, most of which is exported to Mexico and Southeast Asia to be reconstituted, often in combination with vegetable oils, into various milk-like drinks. Overall, says Vitaliano, the U.S. exports about 4% of the milk fat it produces and 19% of the skim solids.

To bring things back to butter, the U.S. actually imports more of the stuff than it exports, with Ireland’s Kerrygold the No. 2 butter brand in the U.S. after Land O’Lakes. But the import quantities are still small relative to domestic production. So this year of high butter demand has been good for U.S. dairy cooperatives that specialize in the stuff, such as Land O’Lakes and No. 1 producer California Dairies Inc., which makes Challenge and Danish Creamery butter. (Both Land O’Lakes and California Dairies also produce private-label butter for retailers, so their role in supplying the country with butter goes way beyond their own brands.)

It has also been a good year for California dairies in general, given that the state accounts for just over 30% of U.S. butter production, with Land O’Lakes a big presence there too. Wisconsin, “America’s Dairyland,” focuses more on cheese, with a quarter of U.S. production. New York is tops in yogurt, with about 15% of production.

In terms of milk output for all purposes, California is No. 1 at more than 18% of the national total. It has held the top spot since passing Wisconsin in 1993, but the latter has been narrowing the gap lately. Idaho recently overtook New York for third place, and Texas may be nipping at its heels soon. For an ancient, not exactly fast-growing industry, dairy has a lot more drama than you might expect.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Justin Fox is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He was the editorial director of Harvard Business Review and wrote for Time, Fortune and American Banker. He is the author of “The Myth of the Rational Market.”

‘What a mess’: Billionaire Charles Koch says he regrets fueling partisanship

‘What a mess’: Billionaire Charles Koch says he regrets fueling partisanship

Josh Marcus                          November 13, 2020
Charles Koch (Bo Rader/AP)
Charles Koch (Bo Rader/AP)

 

Charles Koch, the libertarian tycoon who helped funnel billions of dollars to conservative causes and politicians around the country, says the era of hyper-partisanship he helped create was a “mess.”

“Boy, did we screw up!” he writes in a forthcoming book, according to the Wall Street Journal. “What a mess!”

He also wrote that backing the Tea Party, a grassroots conservative movement advocating for low taxes and small government that challenged both Democrats and mainstream Republicans during the Obama years, did not pan out either.

“It seems to me the tea party was largely unsuccessful long-term, given that we’re coming off a Republican administration with the largest government spending in history,” he told the paper.

They are stunning admissions—or perhaps just canny post-Trump messaging—from an individual who is arguably the most influential person in US politics outside of the politicians themselves.

The Koch network of donors and organizations has funded numerous Republican political campaigns; helped nurture the Tea Party; backed advocacy groups and think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and Americans for Prosperity; bankrolled climate change denialism across the country; and helped fund roughly 1000 faculty members at 200 universities.

They acted, in the words of one writer, as “a private political bank capable of bestowing unlimited amounts of money on favored candidates, and doing it with virtually no disclosure of its source,” thanks to the Citizens United decision and other rulings rolling back political spending limits from individuals and corporations.

In recent years, the Koch network has increasingly diverged from the Republican party of Donald Trump. It didn’t support his campaigns in 2016 or 2020, and Mr. Koch once compared the president’s Muslim ban to Nazi Germany.

And the president has no love lost for them either, thanks to public spats on issues like trade

In 2018, the Koch network announced it would begin supporting certain Democrats who aligned with their priorities, and the billionaire executive, 85, says he hopes to spend his final act in politics working on bipartisan solutions to issues like immigration and criminal-justice reform.

Despite the change in rhetoric, Koch Industries, the conglomerate responsible for Mr. Koch’s fortune, donated $2.8 million in 2020 to Republicans via its political action committee and employee donations, compared to $221,000 to Democrats.

A third of our food contains a cocktail of pesticides, report finds due to fruit and veg imports

The Telegraph

A third of our food contains a cocktail of pesticides, report finds due to fruit and veg imports

Helena Horton, The Telegraph         November 12, 2020

Imported fruit and vegetables were found to contain pesticides which are banned for use in the UK - Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg
Imported fruit and vegetables were found to contain pesticides which are banned for use in the UK – Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

 

A third of our food products contain multiple harmful pesticides, a new report has found, with imported fruit and vegetables frequently containing chemicals banned for use in the UK.

More fresh produce than ever now features a  ‘cocktail’ of more than one types of pesticide, the Pesticide Action Network revealed.

Using government testing data, the campaign group ranks the fruit and vegetables that are most likely to contain multiple pesticide residues.

Strawberries top the list, with 89.92 per cent containing multiple pesticide residues, and they are closely followed by lemons, of which 83.72 per cent feature a ‘cocktail’ of pesticides.

A spokesperson for PAN said that the rise could be because of a rise in pesticide use in the UK.

He explained: “This could be due to the rise in UK pesticide use. For example, the area of UK land treated with pesticides rose by 63 per cent from 1990 to 2016 (the latest figures from the Government).

“Many crops are sprayed with pesticides far more times in a growing season than they used to be. As an example, in 1990 only 30 per cent of cereals were treated more than 4 times in a growing season. By 2016, that figure had almost doubled to 55 per cent.”

Almost a third (32 per cent) of all food tested by the government in 2019 (including meat, fish, grains and dairy) contained multiple pesticides, up from 23.5 per cent the previous year.

Fruit and vegetables contain even more; 48 per cent of those tested contained a mixture of pesticides, up from 36 per cent. Fruit is one of the worst offenders, with 67 per cent containing multiple pesticides, and with 94 per cent of oats and 27 per cent of bread contained the cocktail of chemicals.

 

Campaigning groups including the Soil Association and the Wildlife Trusts have asked the government to force farmers to curb their use of pesticides and herbicides, as they are harmful for biodiversity

The government is due to publish its National Action Plan on the Sustainable Use of Pesticide, which will introduce a pesticide reduction target and increase financial and other support to British farmers to adopt non-chemical alternatives.

The PAN has said that consumers find it difficult to avoid these chemicals, as they are not mentioned on food labels.

Nick Mole, policy officer at the group, said: “Pesticide residues aren’t listed anywhere on food labels so the Dirty Dozen is the only way for British consumers to get a sense of which pesticides appear in their food.

“Most of us can’t access a fully organic diet so we hope this information will help people work out which produce to prioritise”.

Pesticides found on the produce include the insecticide Chlorpyrifos, which is banned for use in the EU but was found on produce imported into the UK. In multiple epidemiological studies, chlorpyrifos exposure during pregnancy or childhood has been linked with lower birth weight and neurological changes such as slower motor development and attention problems.

Possible human carcinogen Difenconazole is a fungicide used to control a variety of problems including blight and seed rot. It appears as a residue on the majority of the Dirty Dozen, and herbicide Glyphosate is one of the most widely used chemicals. It has been banned in countries around the world, but not yet in the UK.

A government spokesperson said part of the reason the pesticide data was going up is better testing.

They explained that it “uses the latest technology for analysis, which is constantly improving, and means that each year we can look for more pesticides at lower levels. For these reasons we expect to see a rise in the number of samples with residues detected”.

Farmers are depleting the Ogallala Aquifer because the government pays them to do it

Farmers are depleting the Ogallala Aquifer because the government pays them to do it

Matthew R Sanderson, Professor of Sociology and Professor of Geography and Geospatial Sciences, Kansas State University, Jacob A. Miller, PhD Student in Sociology, Kansas State University, and Burke Griggs, Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University

<span class="caption">A center-pivot sprinkler with precision application drop nozzles irrigates cotton in Texas.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="link rapid-noclick-resp" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Center_pivot_sprinkler_with_low_energy_precision_application_drop_nozzles_irrigates_cotton_growing_in_wheat_residue_used_as_a_cover_crop._(24486394864).jpg" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" data-ylk="slk:USDA NRCS/Wikipedia">USDA NRCS/Wikipedia</a></span>
A center-pivot sprinkler with precision application drop nozzles irrigates cotton in Texas. USDA NRCS/Wipedia

 

A slow-moving crisis threatens the U.S. Central Plains, which grow a quarter of the nation’s crops. Underground, the region’s lifeblood – water – is disappearing, placing one of the world’s major food-producing regions at risk.

The Ogallala-High Plains Aquifer is one of the world’s largest groundwater sources, extending from South Dakota down through the Texas Panhandle across portions of eight states. Its water supports US$35 billion in crop production each year.

But farmers are pulling water out of the Ogallala faster than rain and snow can recharge it. Between 1900 and 2008 they drained some 89 trillion gallons from the aquifer – equivalent to two-thirds of Lake Erie. Depletion is threatening drinking water supplies and undermining local communities already struggling with the Covid-19 pandemic, the opioid crisis, hospital closures, soaring farm loses and rising suicide rates.

Map showing changing Ogallala Aquifer water levels over the past century
Map showing changing Ogallala Aquifer water levels over the past century

In Kansas, “Day Zero” – the day wells run dry – has arrived for about 30% of the aquifer. Within 50 years, the entire aquifer is expected be 70% depleted.

Some observers blame this situation on periodic drought. Others point to farmers, since irrigation accounts for 90% of Ogallala groundwater withdrawals. But our research, which focuses on social and legal aspects of water use in agricultural communities, shows that farmers are draining the Ogallala because state and federal policies encourage them to do it.

A production treadmill

At first glance, farmers on the Plains appear to be doing well in 2020. Crop production increased this year. Corn, the largest crop in the U.S., had a near-record year, and farm incomes increased by 5.7% over 2019.

But those figures hide massive government payments to farmers. Federal subsidies increased by a remarkable 65% this year, totaling $37.2 billion. This sum includes money for lost exports from escalating trade wars, as well as COVID-19-related relief payments. Corn prices were too low to cover the cost of growing it this year, with federal subsidies making up the difference.

Our research finds that subsidies put farmers on a treadmill, working harder to produce more while draining the resource that supports their livelihood. Government payments create a vicious cycle of overproduction that intensifies water use. Subsidies encourage farmers to expand and buy expensive equipment to irrigate larger areas.

Irrigation pump in field
Irrigation pump in field

 

With low market prices for many crops, production does not cover expenses on most farms. To stay afloat, many farmers buy or lease more acres. Growing larger amounts floods the market, further reducing crop prices and farm incomes. Subsidies support this cycle.

Few benefit, especially small and midsized operations. In a 2019 study of the region’s 234 counties from 1980 to 2010, we found that larger irrigated acreage failed to increase incomes or improve education or health outcomes for residents.

Focus on policy, not farmers

Four decades of federal, state and local conservation efforts have mainly targeted individual farmers, providing ways for them to voluntarily reduce water use or adopt more water-efficient technologies.

While these initiatives are important, they haven’t stemmed the aquifer’s decline. In our view, what the Ogallala Aquifer region really needs is policy change.

A lot can be done at the federal level, but the first principle should be “do no harm.” Whenever federal agencies have tried to regulate groundwater, the backlash has been swift and intense, with farm states’ congressional representatives repudiating federal jurisdiction over groundwater.

Nor should Congress propose to eliminate agricultural subsidies, as some environmental organizations and free-market advocates have proposed. Given the thin margins of farming and longstanding political realities, federal support is simply part of modern production agriculture.

With these cautions in mind, three initiatives could help ease pressure on farmers to keep expanding production. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers to allow environmentally sensitive farmland to lie fallow for at least 10 years. With new provisions, the program could reduce water use by prohibiting expansion of irrigated acreage, permanently retiring marginal lands and linking subsidies to production of less water-intensive crops.

These initiatives could be implemented through the federal farm bill, which also sets funding levels for nonfarm subsidies such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. SNAP payments, which increase needy families’ food budgets, are an important tool for addressing poverty. Increasing these payments and adding financial assistance to local communities could offset lower tax revenues that result from from farming less acreage.

Amending federal farm credit rates could also slow the treadmill. Generous terms promote borrowing for irrigation equipment; to pay that debt, borrowers farm more land. Offering lower rates for equipment that reduces water use and withholding loans for standard, wasteful equipment could nudge farmers toward conservation.

The most powerful tool is the tax code. Currently, farmers receive deductions for declining groundwater levels and can write off depreciation on irrigation equipment. Replacing these perks with a tax credit for stabilizing groundwater and substituting a depreciation schedule favoring more efficient irrigation equipment could provide strong incentives to conserve water.

Rewriting state water laws

Water rights are mostly determined by state law, so reforming state water policies is crucial. Case law demonstrates that simply owning water rights does not grant the legal right to waste water. For more than a century courts have upheld state restrictions on waste, with rulings that allow for adaptation by modifying the definitions of “beneficial use” and “waste” over time.

Using these precedents, state water agencies could designate thirsty crops, such as rice, cotton or corn, as wasteful in certain regions. Regulations preventing unreasonable water use are not unconstitutional.

Allowing farmers some flexibility will maximize profits, as long as they stabilize overall water use. If they irrigate less – or not at all – in years with low market prices, rules could allow more irrigation in better years. Ultimately, many farmers – and their bankers – are willing to exchange lower annual yields for a longer water supply.

As our research has shown, the vast majority of farmers in the region want to save groundwater. They will need help from policymakers to do it. Forty years is long enough to learn that the Ogallala Aquifer’s decline is not driven by weather or by individual farmers’ preferences. Depletion is a structural problem embedded in agricultural policies. Groundwater depletion is a policy choice made by federal, state and local officials.

Stephen Lauer and Vivian Aranda-Hughes, former doctoral students at Kansas State University, contributed to several of the studies cited in this article.

‘Crossroads of the climate crisis’: swing state Arizona grapples with deadly heat

The Guardian

‘Crossroads of the climate crisis’: swing state Arizona grapples with deadly heat

Maanvi Singh and Lauren Gambino in Phoenix.  November 1, 2020
&#39;Crossroads of the climate crisis&#39;: swing state Arizona grapples with deadly heat

 

Even now, Ivan Moore can’t think why his father didn’t didn’t tell anyone that the air conditioning in their house was busted. “I honestly don’t know what was going through his mind,” he said.

That week three years ago, temperatures in Phoenix, Arizona were forecasted to top 115F (46C). Moore, his wife and two children went to the mountains for a camping trip, and his dad Gene, stayed behind. A few days later, Gene died.

The air conditioning had been blowing hot air. “He’d opened a window but it was too hot,” Moore said. “My dad’s heart basically gave out on him.”

Phoenix – America’s hottest city – is getting hotter and hotter, and Moore’s father is one of the hundreds of Arizonans who have succumbed to the desert heat in recent years.

In August this year, Maricopa county, which encompasses Phoenix, recorded 1,000 Covid-19 deaths. That same month, the county was investigating more than 260 heat-related deaths.

This summer, temperatures here stayed above 90F (32C), even at night, for 28 days straight, with the scorching weather in July and August breaking records. It was so hot and dry that towering saguaro cactuses that dot the landscape began to topple over and die.

At the same time, wildfires across the western US this year cast a foreboding orange glow over the region and clouded Phoenix communities, already breathing some of the highest concentrations of toxic pollution in the nation, with even more smoke.

“I grew up in the desert, in the heat,” Moore said. “But I think about what it’s going to be like in another five years, in 10 years.”

The thought has been weighing on him – and many other Arizonans – as they cast their ballots ahead of next week’s elections. Even amid a global pandemic, and the economic catastrophe it has triggered, polls find that Americans increasingly cite the climate emergency as a major concern. That’s especially true in regions like Maricopa, where the crisis is already having deadly effects.

Once a stronghold of western conservatism, Maricopa county has been slowly undergoing a political transformation – and has become one of the fiercely contested election battlegrounds in the nation.

Asked to choose between a Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, who recognizes global heating as an emergency, and a Republican, Donald Trump, who has called it a “hoax”, a growing number of voters in the Valley of the Sun say they are seeking leadership that will address climate and help their desert home survive an increasingly precarious future.

‘The crossroads of the climate crisis’

“We are a desert community,” said Laura Jimena Dent, the executive director of the Arizona-based environmental justice non-profit Chispa. “We are literally at the crossroads of the climate crisis.”

Since 1865, the temperatures in Maricopa have risen by nearly 2C. And since the 1950s, the water level in the region’s well has dropped by 125ft. Even in a politically divided swing state, that’s hard for anyone to ignore. A recent survey found that nearly three-quarters of Arizonans “agree” or “strongly agree” that the federal government “needs to do more to combat climate change”.

Even after the coronavirus pandemic hit this year, when researchers at Yale university conducted an annual survey of voters across the country, climate change went up on a list of voter priorities.

For the first time in American history, climate change has reached the very top echelons of voting issues

Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University

“You see that reflected in how much political leaders – especially Democrats – have been talking about climate change this election,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, an expert on public opinion of climate change at Yale University.

Whereas liberal Democrats ranked climate change as their second most important issue out of 30, moderate Democrats rank it 8th, and moderate Republicans rank it somewhere in the middle.

But in the US, and in Maricopa county, most voters agree climate change is happening, and they want lawmakers to do something about it.

“For the first time in American history, climate change has reached the very top echelons of voting issues,” Leiserowitz said.

Indeed, just a few weeks ago, Americans heard Trump and Biden respond to the first question about the climate crisis at a presidential debate in 20 years. While Trump flatly refused to acknowledge that climate change was fueling wildfires across the west, Biden touted a $2tn plan to invest in green infrastructure, emphasizing the “millions of good-paying jobs” that his climate proposals could create.

Responding to the wildfires ripping across California in a speech earlier this summer, Biden also cast the climate crisis as a threat to the safety and security of America’s suburbs, flipping an attack the president has leveled against him to appeal to voters in regions like Maricopa – a sprawling suburban oasis in the desert.

“If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze?” he asked.

Similarly, in a heated debate between the state’s US Senate candidates, the incumbent Republican Martha McSally, who serves on the Senate energy and natural resources committee and is a close ally of the president, acknowledged “the climate is changing”, but derided any “heavy-handed approach” to addressing it.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, mused about how fragile the planet looks from low-Earth orbit. “There is no planet B,” he said. “We have to do a better job taking care of this planet.”

The stark contrast between the parties’ stances can help explain why voters in Maricopa have been increasingly repelled by the Republicans, said Josh Ulibarri, a Democratic pollster based in Phoenix.

Conservatives here have been slowly leaving a Republican party that has grown increasingly extreme and rightwing. “Climate is part of that,” Ulibarri said.

Fifteen years ago, Arizona was one of the first states to develop a climate action plan, and climate change – at least in this region – was a bipartisan issue. John McCain, the state’s late senior senator, was one of the few Republican lawmakers in Washington DC to support climate change legislation. But as national and local politics became more polarized, Republican politicians moved right.

As a result, “college-educated voters and women voters have moved away from Republicans because they don’t believe in science”, Ulibarri said.Many independents recoiled, as well.

Moore falls in that category. “Normally I go through, and I don’t care if candidates are Republicans or Democrats – I do my research on whose viewpoints I agree with,” he said. “But right now, the GOP – not Republicans but the party itself – has gone too far, too far right. They’ve been ridiculous with the choices they’re making – the party needs a reset.”

Among other things, “we need our leaders figuring out: how do we live in a world that’s going to get even hotter?” he added. This year, he picked Democrats up and down the ballot.

Ultimately, Republicans’ resistance to acknowledging and addressing climate change will hurt them politically, said Jeff Flake, a former Arizona senator. “I do think over time it really makes it difficult to attract, particularly, the younger generation, millennials, Gen Xers, and whoever else, when we don’t have rational policies on climate change,” said Flake, a Republican who has been critical of Trump’s politics.

With so much else going on, he said that while he doesn’t see climate change playing a big role in this election, he imagines it will be hard to ignore in future ones.

‘We’re building the political power’

Like many areas of the country, in Maricopa, poor neighborhoods and neighborhoods where Latino and Black families live are worst affected by both the heat and the bad air. Across the US, young voters and Latino voters are especially likely to prioritize climate action, polling shows.

“Latinos are more convinced climate change is real and that it’s human caused, more worried about it, and more supportive of action than any other voting bloc,” said Leiserowitz of Yale.

In Maricopa, where about one third of the county’s 4.5 million residents identify as Latino, environmental justice activists are at the forefront of efforts to galvanize voters to elect environmentally minded candidates.

“Our focus is on getting young people, Latino people, people of color across our state who have traditionally been less engaged in the political process,” Dent said. “We are making calls, we are sending mail and digital ads, text messages and handwritten postcards.”

Translating concern about climate change into votes has proved challenging in the past, but as the region grows hotter, and more polluted, “we’re building the political power”, she said.

The county earned an “F” rating this year from the American Lung Association. The cars and trucks that congest the city’s sprawling highways have made Phoenix the seventh-most ozone-polluted metropolitan area in the country. Here, the heat speeds up production of the toxic ozone particles, which can damage the lungs and lead to serious, even deadly respiratory issues.

“For a decade, we in our communities have been raising our voices about these issues,” said Blanca Abarca, 54, a community activist.

Abarca lives in a largely Latino neighborhood in south Phoenix located downwind of an industrial dump the EPA has found is leeching “low levels” of toxic compounds and heavy metals including arsenic, barium, mercury, and nickel. She, her husband and their teenage daughter have MacGyvered their whole house to cope with the heat.

They rely on a swamp cooler, ventilators on their roof and ceiling, and the trees they planted all around their house. They’ve got an AC unit – but they hardly use it. The high electricity bills could send them into debt.

“I tell people who can vote to do it for the community – to elect leaders who are going to better this great country, and for the future of our children,” she said while on a break from gardening at Spaces of Opportunity, a community farm in south Phoenix where she and many others in the neighborhood come for a respite from heat.

To be clear, she added, that is not how she would characterize the current president.

Her efforts – and those of other progressive Latino activists – have been paying off. Young Latino voters have been casting ballots in record numbers in recent years, helping elect Democratic lawmakers in local and statewide elections.

In 2019, the Democrat Kate Gallego was elected mayor of Phoenix – in part thanks to a wave of young, progressive Latino voters. Gallego has a bachelor’s degree in environmental science.

“I grew up with asthma. And as you spend time wheezing by the track, it gives you an opportunity to reflect on air quality,” she said. Since taking office, Gallego has focused on developing better public transportation infrastructure to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. She’s also overseeing the development of a network of “cool corridors” – to ensure that no resident is more than five minutes from water and shade.

In another sign of progress, Arizona utility regulators this week approved a plan to transition to 100% carbon-free energy sources – such as solar and nuclear energy – by 2050. Two Republicans on the utilities board voted with a Democrat to get the measure passed.

In the desert, “we just have to take climate change very seriously”, Gallego said.

“And, you know, I have a father who fancies himself a political consultant,” she added. “And he told me if I can just do something about the summer heat, I will definitely be re-elected.”

Most plastic recycling produces low-value materials – but we’ve found a way to turn a common plastic into high-value molecules

Most plastic recycling produces low-value materials – but we’ve found a way to turn a common plastic into high-value molecules

Susannah Scott                                          

Professor of Chemistry, University of California Santa Barbara

<span class="caption">Bales of plastic waste destined for recycling.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="link rapid-noclick-resp" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/recycling-pattern-waste-recovery-royalty-free-image/1153505120?adppopup=true" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" data-ylk="slk:Koron/Getty Images">Koron/Getty Images</a></span>
Bales of plastic waste destined for recycling. Koron/Get.
If you thought those flimsy disposable plastic grocery bags represented most of our plastic waste problem, think again. The volume of plastic the world throws away every year could rebuild the Ming Dynasty’s Great Wall of China – about 3,700 miles long.

 

In the six decades that plastic has been manufactured for commercial uses, more than 8.3 billion metric tons have been produced. Plastics are light, versatile, cheap and nearly indestructible (as long as they don’t get too hot). These properties make them incredibly useful in an enormous range of applications that includes sterile food packaging, energy-efficient transportation, textiles and medical protective gear. But their indestructible nature comes at a cost. Most of them decompose extremely slowly in the environment – on the order of several hundred years – where they are creating a global epidemic of plastic trash. Its consequences for human and ecosystem health are still incompletely known, but are potentially momentous.

I’m a chemist with experience in designing processes for making plastics, and I became interested in using plastic as a large, untapped resource for energy and materials. I wondered if we could turn plastic waste into something more valuable to keep it out of landfills and the natural environment.

A new way to use plastic waste

Plastics are made by stringing together a large number of small, carbon-based molecules in an almost infinite variety of ways to create polymer chains.

To reuse these polymers, recycling facilities could, in principle, melt and reshape them, but plastics’ properties tend to deteriorate. The resulting materials are almost never suitable for their original use, although they can be used to make lower-value stuff like plastic lumber. The result is a very low effective rate of recycling.

A new approach involves breaking the long chains down into small molecules again. The challenge is how to do this in a precise way.

Since the process of making the chains in the first place releases a lot of energy, reversing it requires adding a large amount of energy back in. Generally this means heating up the material to a high temperature – but heating up plastic causes the stuff to turn into a nasty mess. It also wastes a lot of energy, meaning more greenhouse gas emissions.

My team at UC Santa Barbara, working with colleagues at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Cornell, discovered a clean way to turn polyethylene into useful smaller molecules.

Polyethylene is one of the world’s most useful and most used plastic types. It is also one of the largest contributors to plastic waste. It represents a third of the nearly 400 million metric tons of plastic the world makes every year, for purposes ranging from sterile food and medical packaging, waterproof films and coatings, cable and wire insulation, construction materials and water pipes, to wear-resistant hip and knee replacements and even bulletproof vests.

How the new process works

The process we have developed does not require high temperatures, but instead depends on tiny amounts of a catalyst containing a metal that removes a little hydrogen from the polymer chain. The catalyst then uses this hydrogen to cut the bonds that hold the carbon chain together, making smaller pieces.

The key is using the hydrogen as soon as it forms so that the chain-cutting provides the energy for making more hydrogen. This process is repeated many times for each chain, turning the solid polymer into a liquid.

The chopping slows down naturally when the molecules reach a certain size, so it’s easy to prevent the molecules from becoming too small. We’re able to recover the valuable liquid before it turns into less useful gases.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

A majority of the molecules in the recovered liquid are alkylbenzenes, which are useful as solvents and can easily be turned into detergents. The global market for this type of molecule is about US$9 billion annually.

Turning waste plastic into valuable molecules is called upcycling. Although our study represented a small-scale demonstration, a preliminary economic analysis suggests that it could easily be adapted to become a much larger-scale process in the next few years. Keeping plastic out of the environment by reusing it in a way that makes good economic sense is a win-win.

Read more:

Susannah Scott receives funding from the US Department of Energy, Mitsubishi Chemical, and Dow Chemical, for her work in polymer upcycling. She is a coinventor on a US patent application related to this discovery, filed by the University of California.