Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
Violate the principle of technology neutrality - what on earth is that double speak for. $25 for a device that significantly reduces emissions seems a much better value option than many of the features deemed "absolutely necessary" to have on a modern car.
What next? Well CCS and CO2 re-use in fuel manufacture to allow clean coal and use of the 600 year supply of this material that we are sitting on.
As well as CCS we also need CO2 re-use, say in fuel manufacture and this has been proved feasible.
I couldn''t agree more! Phil, using PV solar panels and driving a BEV (full electric drive vehicle), and increasingly frustrated at the high cost of energy storage solutions currently available.
As a quarter Scot I would say carefully placed wind turbines and other green power generation facilities, such as the superb Cruachan pumped storage station, actually attract tourists because they are safe, unlike the ridiculous and obsolete nuclear fission alternatives. So, Mr Trump, think again and please don''t destroy natural Scottish beauty with hideous man made golf greens, where only those obsessed with small balls have any interest.
This is long, long overdue. Why so, in such a technically competent nation?? Divert the huge sums that the farcical new nuclear proposal at Hinkley Point will consume (a bottomless pit) and get this technology in place. God save us from politicians who are trained in the Classics rather than Life''s Essentials!
There is no point in talking the talk about the energy trilema if you then ignore one or even two of the three parts of it. Carrying on with time expired coal plant might keep costs down but it will doom our climate change efforts to failure. Furthermore, old plant is not very reliable and an increase in breakdowns in a fleet of large centralised coal powered stations is probably the most likely scenario for the lights going out. Things are developing so fast in the worlds of renewables, storage and demand control that the worst thing is probably to get left behind and to kill off our cutting edge industries. Read "The Switch" by Chris Goodall pub2016 in which he makes a convincing arguement to suggest that PV costs will drop so rapidly that PV with other renewables, storage and demand response will soon be cheaper than any of the alternatives including "old King Coal" or crown prince nuclear!
The true story is that the speed of response of Diesel allows the reduction in the deployment of Coal and Oil Power Stations which would otherwise run continuously on Stand-by creating significantly more pollution that that created by Diesel from the average 200 hours running per year. With alternative Fuels and EGT Technology Emissions less than Gas can be delivered from Diesel equipment with Capex less than Gas and without having to run the 200 hours+ required to make Gas sites viable.
Interesting results. Much will depend on geography and especially of your respondents (where they live in relation to existing onshore wind installations, where they live in relation to landscape capacity, the local history of wind energy and associated shifting-baselines, etc.). It is clear from the number of local opposition groups that support is not uniform but rather is general (i.e. typical NIMBY effects) but perhaps goes deeper. An appropriately sited onshore wild farm is a good thing. A badly sited one isn''t. Green-on-green impacts are going to become increasingly important. In Scotland, landscape character issues (especially wild land areas) mean that the remaining suitable areas for onshore wind are limited (i.e. Central Belt, Aberdeenshire and Morayshire). Realising the remaining 50% of Scotland''s 100% renewable electricity generation target will become increasingly difficult as regards finding and securing suitable sites. I have a paper in review which provides a detailed spatial analysis of landscape impacts and capacity for new onshore/offshore developments.
THE Pdf doc is empty .. nothing is in the document ?? Regards Dr Noman Can you email me "ISO 50001 guide for energy managers" document at my id firstname.lastname@example.org
And where does the Hydrogen come from? I don''t see the issue with big static diesel generator sets as these can have effective particulate filters and exhaust gas processing which is just not feasible on small car engines. Take diesels in cars off the road as there are better solutions (but not hydrogen) make lorry emissions laws more restrictive and require all local white vans for deliveries to be battery powered. That should put a big dent in the UK''s pollution levels.
I am amazed that these government officials are discussing "New Diesel Generators" when there are Hydrogen options in new innovation which could be supported and funded, which would achieve Zero emissions in use. Stop funding small changes in Fossil Fuel engines and move straight to Hydrogen as the clean energy. Green House Gasses represent a threat of loss of life and land in similar magnitude to a small nuclear war and yet the politicians are treating it knowingly like it is asbestos of tobacco again. Wasting Tax payers funds on Court Action to defend themselves from having refused to meet legal requirements
We also need a low carbon transition in areas around nuclear sites; rule out Hinkley C and any new nuclear build; enforce a zero nuclear radiation emissions policy at all UK nuclear sites including nuclear power, research, defence and nuclear submarine bases.
Iain Whyte: "Read a report recently which calculated that the return on energy invested in solar panel production was 83% over a 25 year panel life for installations at the UK''s lattitude" - Please could you provide a reference or link to the report you quoted in your comment below? And please read this article, and the studies which it refers to, for an alternative viewpoint: http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk/
The answer to Clean Energy of the future especially houses, is to have generation on site, removing houses from the grid. To have a consumer owned system, which includes hydrogen production, both as storage and use for heating and cooking. This stops any effect that cyber attacks on the grid could have, likewise storm damage to overhead cables and supply equipment. More importantly it clearly cuts CO2 emissions by approximately 5-6 Tonnes of CO2 along with NOx and other pollutants. More importantly it lowers costs to the consumer which will act as "Added Value" to provide a financial incentive to change to Clean Energy and make a serious cut in CO2 emissions. At some point in time Politicians, Investors and Fossil Fuel Companies are going to have to accept that burning Fossil Fuels to create energy Has To Stop. Even if those Fossil Fuel Companies go bankrupt, I have no problem, because they have known about the facts for 20 years and continued to seek major profits without concern for the people who will suffer and die as a result of their selfish attitude. They have had 20 years to divest. Lets be quite honest, if someone killed one of their children by any means there is, they would want that person hung out to dry or jailed for life. These people are ensuring that there will be hundreds of thousands of parents around the world whose children will die. They will of course die along with their parents and animals and wild life of all kinds and yet that is fine so long as it is termed "making a profit"
Sorry Mr Court (REA) but can you explain to me how shipping thousands of tons of wood pellets across the ocean in an oil burning cargo vessel is "low carbon"? It is approximately 3000NM from New York to Liverpool, that is 9 days sailing at 14kts so that single bulk carrier (CapeMax of 205,000 tonnes displacement) uses approximately 621,000kg (or litres) of Heavy Fuel Oil for each trip based on NYC to Liverpool (or 207kg of fuel per mile or 1.3barrels of oil per mile!). Then add in all the diesel used to truck the wood to processing plants and to and from ports and you have anything but a low carbon fuel. Then wood burning produces more particulate matter (soot) than any other fuel which is already being seen to produce more smog in urban areas again just from domestic wood burners. Whilst I agree that using low quality wood and waste, such as sawdust and offcuts, is a good thing for local power and heating I can not agree that mass power generation from wood transport halfway around the world using oil can NEVER be viable or low carbon.
I have always been dubious about biomass unless it is organic waste from local sources i.e. neither grown for biomass nor imported. Drax cannot possibly be ''green'' energy. Peter Brown Yealm Community Energy
TFR should b congratulated on their initiative, as should the local authorities and companies like Viridor who shred mattresses and recover the steel whilst sending the rest to energy from waste plants, this eliminating landfill as the final, completely unacceptable option.
How many locations do you work from? We re cycle over 10.000 mattresses yearly.currently using various people.
Message to John Hayes and Department of Transport, It may well be that there needs to be a discussion on the future of transport which includes new innovation which struggles to get noted. For your information, HyPulJet.2.0 Hydrogen Pulse Jet Rotary Engine-generator is a low-cost alternative to H2 Fuel Cells What is of importance to Government policy and plans is that HyPulJet.2.0 will have its own Hydrogen and Oxygen produce on board the vehicle Assessed by UK University as viable and now discussing options to build a prototype engine-generator and funding. Without Gov. funding being available to individual innovators HyPulJet is about to make a Crowd Funding bid. There is no doubt that the engine-generator will be a low-cost alternative to hydrogen Fuel Cells and on that basis should warrant funding on the basis that 35 million in funding is being provided for Charge points. Again funding for charge points, why not funding to build a Proof of Concept vehicle with "On board Hydrogen and Oxygen production system". This is merely adapting systems which are already in use for a different purpose. So does the Department for Transport spend multi millions on a Hydrogen infrastructure which will be made obsolete by Cars and trucks which produce their own hydrogen on board. HyPulJet.2.0 will bring about lower costs of Zero emissions vehicles and lower the costs of fuel to bottles of water, which will create a serious increase in take up of Zero emissions vehicles. I will also say that HSR2 will be made obsolete by HyPulJet.2.0 before you go much further, even without DfT support or funding HyPulJet.2.0 will power Electric Auto Pilot Drones, being door to door transport and able to work during a low altitude flight, means that the intended executive travel between London and Manchester will not be travelling by train. You may also pose the question on the need for Hinkley Point, HyPulJet.2.0 with own fuel production will be an excellent static generator for Off-Grid Houses, Dual low-voltage electrics and heating cooking by hydroge gas. The greatest need for Government Departments to consider is that, whereas changing a petrol/diesel car to Zero emissions will stop approx 1 Tonne of CO2 taking an average UK house Off-grid will stop approx 5-6 Tonnes of CO2 annually. If the objective is to cut CO2 emissions then it is clear to a lay person that it is best to develop systems which stop 5 times the amount of Electric Cars. Al Scott HyPulJet thehydrogenanswer.co.uk
When are these politicians and their advisors going to admit the truth that sending vehicle emissions to a power station is still causing CO2 emissions. The answer is hydrogen from renewables with the ultimate goal of Hydrogen production on board the vehicle. When are we going to see and hear of support in this direction. Clean Energy for the future Hydrogen.
It would be better to use paper cups that are made for recycling to make new paper products rather than making the paper products into more plastic (polymer). Just change the coating in the paper cup, and the paper cups become fully repulpable and recyclable in existing UK paper recycling infrastructure. Check out the reCUP. http://www.recup.co
Too much talk at higher levels and not enough support and direction to search out new innovation. The reality is that the direction by funding arms is still towards the use of Fossil Fuels for decades. WHY use taxpayer funding to built new plants to manufacture diesel engines which only reduce emissions a small percentage. WHY support and fund existing Multi national Auto makers who are not set on a change to CLEAN ENERGY. There are three publicly known Hydrogen Rotary engine generators two of which are owned by UK residents. Whilst google M&M H2 Rotary engine you will see it running on video. The question which these people should be asking is quite clearly, "Is it necessary to have the same infrastructure for Hydrogen as for Fossil Fuels?" The Answer is a resounding NO. Hydrogen does no need a Well or Refinery or major delivery networks all at great costs. Quite simply, Hydrogen can be produced on site or on the Electric Vehicle. What is needed really is a Publication such as this to investigate other options instead of those pushed by advisers to the government who have vested interests. Edie.net could make inquiries of Kenneth R Taylor in Scotland who with the help of the Highlands and Islands University has been in possession of a prototype Eco 1 Hydrogen Rotary Engine since Autumn 2014. If that was JLR or Nissan they would be handed millions by Innovate UK. WHY? Personally I have a concept for a Hydrogen Pulse Jet Rotary Engine-generator which after months was assessed by Sunderland University, an agreement in principle to build a prototype got lost for what ever reasons. Delays led to two improvements and HyPulJet version .2.0 a much improved engine-generator, which I am confident will have its own hydrogen production system. HyPulJet.2.0 has just been assessed by a UK University and we are looking at how to fund and take the development forward. (I am not naming the University because I got a feeling that pressure was brought to bear on Sunderland because there are people who do not want Hydrogen to happen. You have to ask, "Why we have not got hydrogen on demand on board vehicles?" When you look at "Hydrogen information" it becomes clear that funding for hydrogen research has been to projects which maintain the status quo. Funding and support has been directed to projects which will turn out to be way too expensive or not workable in there intended environment. Auto Industry has a throw away comment, "Hydrogen forever 15 years away", which will prove to be correct if you have No Wish To see Hydrogen bring about the End of Oil. Al Scott
Renewable Energy storage that''s ready to go - 1. Bio-mass power station burning wood-pellets that''s already operational. To lower the carbon footprint even further, switch to sourcing the wood from dry wild-fire susceptible forests of the American west, while switching away from wood sourced from wetland forests which act as a carbon sink. 2. Wind and solar farms on-site energy storage, probably from power-to-gas, electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen gas, which is stored in tanks, then on demand gas-to-power either from Combined Cycle Gas Turbines or Hydrogen Fuel Cells. - best for making use of generator site surplus power that would otherwise have to be curtailed or constrained because there is no demand or the local grid is at transmission capacity. - options for power-to-gas & gas-to-power offshore can be developed too. 3. New build pumped-storage hydro for the grid - decades old technology that is best suited to maximum efficiency storage and generation from surplus power which is transmitted via the grid. Scottish Scientist Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/
Is there a link to co-mingled (Single stream) collections I wonder?