Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
Yes this is long overdue, the Regulations were agreed in 2005 enacted in 2008 and Into UK Law in 2010. We are now in 2018 and for all the time and many spent on conference after conference Debate after debate, Pressure Groups accusing Governments Yes Governments and that means MPs have failed to have any real outcome. Lets place the blame where it lies, MPs are the only people who have the option to sanction the Government and make them take action to protect the population from harm and injury. It is just not good enough for the MPs to have allowed this to happen, it is on a par with Brexit, there are many who are outspoken, but they will not risk their possibility of promotion within the Party ranks & Government. So it is partly down to self serving MPs both Brexit and Toxic Air. We can also blame the voters who a) do not make themselves aware of the issues, B do not make themselves aware of where the various Parties Stand on issues and c) Blindly support the Main Parties because they are fed a load of misinformation and believe it. I still have people arguing with me that Labour Party supports staying in the EU. It is time to make lying and misinformation by Politicians and Political Parties a Criminal Offence where a Prison sentence is the only outcome I am sick of MPs and Parties laughing off a Fine by the Electoral Commission. To the problem of Clean AIr and Carbon emissions and the Failure of Governments.It is a dereliction of duty and they should all be held to account one at a time, because these failings are a Health Hazard for Children and causing early deaths of older people. If this was a Company and it treated its workers to a does of poisonous gasses they would be fined serious numbers. If they knowingly broke the Law and caused a death they would held to account. Here we have Parliament responsible for the cause of any numbers of deaths. Parliament and LPs should have enacted a Law, "Auto Makers you have 10 years to develop and market Affordable Zero emissions Vehicles if not your vehicles will be banned from sale in the UK" Times Up!!!!!! It is hardly surprising that the UK and EU etc have not reached Zero emissions EVs in 2018, contrary to the publicity the R&D people are still funding petrol engine development but make every excuse in the book for not making initial modelling of Hydrogen engines. This is made worse by the fact that the Leading Auto R&D body the Advanced Propulsion Centre UK makes a public campaign to search for Hydrogen option. Conferences to discuss Hydrogen but and it is a BIG but, they will not contemplate other options for Hydrogen other than the present one which does not appear to be able to sell a few H2 FCEVs, with Not a snowballs chance in Hell of selling millions. This is the intention of the cabal which includes the Oil & Gas. OK to move to Battery EVs because there will be a major increase in the use of Gas Fired Power stations, lower CO2 than Coal by miles but only half the CO2 of a petrol car which is then reduced further by the CO2 emissions in producing a BEV compared to producing a petrol car. Obfuscation from the Auto Industry, their R&D bodies and the Government who are firmly backing Fracking=Oil & Gas. I have been saying this on Edie for many months, there is Hydrogen out here and it is being stifled. e.g. There is a recent development from the US a system which produces Hydrogen on board the EV. This spells the death of Fossil Fuels and it is clear that it is being stifled. This new development was part of a Hydrogen project, in discussion? with Advanced Propulsion Centre passed to their Internal Combustion Spoke Bath University. Even though the Professor was not aware of one detail of the method/process of the Hydrogen production, He stated emphatically that it was "Hydrolysis and would not work". It is baffling that he is a respected authority and supposed to deeply involved in Government and Industry push for Clean Energy Transport and yet he did not ask one question or suggest a meeting to discuss the system. I do not own the IP covering the H2 production system but I can state publicly that, It is not Hydrolysis as known and that it is scientific and NOT magic. Also that it is able to work on board an EV. Because it is not magic, it does need materials which reacting together produce 99.999% H2 It does not work in conjunction with a Fuel Cell on board a EV, so there is a need to develop a Hydrogen engine to make use of the On Board Fuel supply system wold will lead to affordable Zero emissions EVs. It can be seen that there were vested interests in play when Bath University decided that it was Hydrolysis and would not work, because it supported his decision that the Hydrogen engine project would not work. Question for all readers here, "The cost of carrying out initial modelling of a new engine type would be 100,000 or so, given the potential to arrive at Affordable Zero Emissions EVs, would it not be reasonable to cut funding to 5 petrol engine Low-carbon projects and carry out what can be seen as far more important tests on potential Zero emissions project?" In respect to the Clean Air Act, my concept for a Hydrogen Combustion Internal Steam Turbine-generator has been covered in three UK Patent Applications since 2015 and during the intervening months All Auto Co. emailed etc have not even bothered to reply to take a look at the details. London E Taxi Co. replied to say, "we have no intention of taking that direction". Freudian slip perhaps, that all Auto is in cahoots with O & G to resist the end of Hydrocarbons. One thing is clear, the intended Hydrogen fueled engine-generator with on board H2 production, would make an easy fit to get rid of the petrol engine generator Range extender which would make the e.Taxi Zero emissions at all times. We would be interested in hearing what people think and especially if investors would be interested in the project. Al Scott.
And this comes as a surprise to anyone?
23 billion cost to tax payers? If this figure is correct it is absolute insanity
Thank you David - that's a great pledge. We will place add that to the Pledge Wall at the show next week and tweet the pic to @hullcollegegrp.
Good luck on your mission!
Luke (content director, edie)
A pledge from the Hull College Group: Hull College Group is committed to reducing it''s environmental impacts by 2% in the current academic year and subsequent years across the following: Carbon, Gas, Electricity, Water, Paper, Waste, Business Mileage and to increase the Biodiversity Index by 2 points. This is a continuation of a journey started in 2009/10.
Additionally, I would have preferred to see a stronger recommendation of renewable energy bio-fuels used as a back-up power supply to intermittent renewable energy generation, which would allow for a much faster phasing out of fossil fuel natural gas back-up. @RICHARD PHILLIPS As a science graduate, I note that you have erroneously disregarded the decades of "economic and practical" electricity storage via use of - Wikipedia - Pumped-storage hydroelectricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity Also, Richard you ought to be aware of - Wikipedia - Power to gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas @IAIN WHYTE It is perfectly possible to design renewable energy grid systems which reliably ensure that "the lights stay on". See - Modelling of wind and pumped-storage power https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/scientific-computer-modelling-of-wind-pumped-storage-hydro/
It''s the governments job to ensure the lights stay on and should do this with a balanced strategy for supply. If the lights go out because of over-reliance on renewables you won''t see the WWF spokesperson coming up with a solution, he''ll just wave his arms and retire.
This report has not specified only "battery" storage but says, to quote - ___ "4. Increase innovation funding for long term electricity storage technologies. Longer-term electricity storage will be required to fill in for seasonal and multi-day lulls in renewables output if we are to phase-out gas from our electricity mix in the long term. While we welcome recent Government funding commitments in energy storage, we recommend the Government sets up an innovation fund to tackle long-term electricity storage specifically." ___ Agreed and for example, I have published innovative concepts for the same on my Scottish Scientist blog but have not yet received one penny in "innovation funding" or the like. Hint, hint. However, the report also recommends - ____ "Longer term, the government should look at the role of seasonal energy storage and carbon capture and storage technology in reducing gas emissions to zero." ____ Seasonal energy storage, sure, but most of the carbon capture and storage concepts are scientifically flawed because stored carbon dioxide gas will leak sooner or later, so beware of wasting money on this. Scottish Scientist Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/ * Wind, storage and back-up system designer * Double Tidal Lagoon Baseload Scheme * Off-Shore Electricity from Wind, Solar and Hydrogen Power * World s biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro-scheme, for Scotland? * Modelling of wind and pumped-storage power * Scotland Electricity Generation my plan for 2020 * South America GREAT for Renewable Energy
Hi I am working on tide powered desalination in Adelaide, can you help? Regards Charlie Sir Charlie Madden Bt BSc MTech MBA
With reference to your "Green PE mailing bags", would it not be better to also make them compostable for home composting and for food waste collections?
Bio-microbeads? Aren''t they walnut husks? (Other husks maybe available). I switched my exfoliating products years ago from ones containing plastic to natural alternatives. Boots, Body Shop and other retailers have them, you just need to look at the ingredient list. If you see Polyethylene or Poly-anything then give it a wide berth and chose something else.
Just noticed that Innovate UK is mentioned. Sorry to say but this company along with a number of linked funding bodies have some difficulty. They way they are set up and the rules actually bring about Corporate Welfare. The rules insist that any innovation is business led and it is the case that businesses do not do Open Innovation, so that this excludes individual innovators. Also that the innovator needs to have an exceptional Bank Balance to fund 30% part funding award, The requirement to get to TRL 3 also excludes many innovative ideas because the innovator does not have access to machines and equipment or expertise/support. There are many instances of innovators not actually being a specialist within the area of the innovative idea. Clergyman= Hydrogen plus a few other, Sir Frank Whittle = Jet engine could not be a Expert on Jet Engines. Daimler = Internal Combustion engine not done before etc etc. Were any of these part of a company or business? Under Innovate UK Funding Competition Rules these people would have been excluded. A mass of innovation is being missed, well known and recognised fact. Successive Govt have said they will sort "Death Valley" and Nothing.
I have been saying exactly this for many months. However, I also say clearly that the direction Hydrogen High pressure storage and fuel cells should not be seen as the only option. All Hydrogen innovation should be funded and developed to the point of failure or to Proof of Concept. We are not in normal business development situation, We, that is globally, are in a dire situation and we should stop looking at Low-Carbon as an option and stop funding development projects. The sole Objective should be Zero Emissions, Hydrocarbons- diesels are an Health Hazard and would be a Court Case if it were a Work Place, whilst continued use of all Fossil Fuels risks a Mass Extinction and yet Oil and Gas are allowed to continue with business as usual, even Tax Payer subsidies. Hydrogen = Zero Emissions and when used it is used it returns to being water. Hydrogen Combustion-Internal Steam Turbine-generator is one option, however it appears that those in charge of funding awards are willing to spend millions on petrol engine development projects, but not spend under 100,000 to carry out "initial modelling" of this new engine type. Add to that, the fact that a US company have developed a H2 Production system for On Board the EV fuel supply. This was developed for use with H2 Fuel Cell EVs, but unfortunately when on the move the Fuel Cell became blocked due to Air Impurities caused by vehicle movement. The fact that H2 Combustion will not be affected by these Air Impurities should flash a Massive Green Light for people who are supposedly looking for Zero emissions. The equally important fact that a "hydrogen engine-generator" offers the quickest and easiest route to Affordable Zero Emissions EVs to effect mass take up of Clean Energy in transport. Whilst On Board the EV Hydrogen production, would cut the need for millions of Charge points and increases in generating capacity globally and grid scale up, which will amount to $trillions saved. This is being blocked at present, "reservations that the engine will not work" yes these issues are accepted. a) Combustion of Hydrogen in a Combustion chamber is well known, b) using high temperature to generate steam is like wise well known, c) using high temperature gasses and steam to power a turbine is also well known d) internally generating steam and forming a number of jets to power the turbine is a new innovation bringing together Steam power which has been "External Combustion" with "internal Combustion". Is this person who daily develops petrol engines to improve emissions saying that he cannot correct the issues, NO he is saying that he is not going to even look at initial modelling to be able to assess what improvements could be made to make HyPulJet work. Have to pose the question, "If HyPulJet used petrol as the combustion fuel would this project be awarded funding to be developed?" Al Scott
Hi Ken, The official name of the hub is the Marine Plastics Research and Innovation Framework. Thanks, George
So you''ve transferred the energy consumption from the truck to the liquid nitrogen plant. The average cost is around 2$ per litre of liquid nitrogen, the cost of transport the filling of the truck''s storage of the nitrogen. just shifting the pollution to another supplier
What is the name of the Innovation Hub?
Found this report: http://www.poyry.co.uk/sites/www.poyry.co.uk/files/tidallagoonpower_levelisedcoststudy_v7_0.pdf which concludes CfD payments 168/MWh (falling to 92/MWh for the larger scale operation) deliver a discounted cash flow rate of return around 6.5%; not phenomenal but the projects would ''wipe their faces'' and with the revenues guaranteed by UK gov this might appeal to pension funds. Note the lower ( 92) figure is very close to the strike price for Hinkley Point C
By now everyone should be addressing Zero Emissions having moved on from Low-Carbon. The reality is that there is little support to develop Hydrogen Zero emissions options, in fact there is resistance in the Auto Research and Development. There has been diesel engine powered generators for decades so why not Hydrogen Combustion Engine powered Generators. People controlling the Development funding do not want Hydrogen to make their profitable petrol engine development projects obsolete. So we continue down the road of CO2 reductions when they could develop Hydrogen.
Richard, Exactly the same as wind turbines but with a predictability that knocks them flat and a reliability that can be easily managed by National Grid. With an additional benefit they don''t destroy the visual environment. As for battery storage I happen to agree with you that chemical batteries are not the solution but everyone is talking about them so might as well add them into the mix. I wouldn''t hold my breath for gas from Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation in this country so unless we suddenly build nuclear generation like there''s no tomorrow (also highly unlikely) we have got to look at harnessing every single energy source this country is blessed with.
We are please to inform your esteem buying company the petroleum products you are looking for is available in our storage tanks and reservoir for immediate delivery. Such as: 1) D2 DIESEL GAS OIL L-0.2-62 GOST 305-82. 2) D6 VIRGIN FUEL OIL 3) JET FUEL JP54 4) JET FUEL JPA1 Provide your official email or contact us via email to enable us issue our official soft corporate offer (SCO).Thanks. BELOW IS OUR CONTACT INFORMATION, E-mail: email@example.com E: firstname.lastname@example.org E: email@example.com Skype: neftegazagent VLADISLAV YAKOV
The power generated by individual turbines is quite limited, and likely to be of the same order, eventually, as large wind turbines, about 10MW. A farm of 100 would be needed to have a nominal equation to a standard power station, 1GW. But the capacity, as pointed out, is likely to be 20-35%, so for a mean output of 1GW, some 300 would be required. The output varies not only over each tide, but over every tidal type between the spring and the ebb. Batteries are hideously expensive, and for the foreseen future, cannot realistically supply more power than that needed for frequency stabilisation. I come back to my original thesis, tidal turbines are variable generators, "storage" cannot bridge the deficiency, the size of installation has to be immense to yield real power station equivalents and even then they are cannot be demand lead. We really need to get on with the real part of the power programme, nuclear and gas. Sorry, as the Beach Boys had it "Wouldn''t it be nice if ......." Richard P
There are so many incredibly innovative green tech based startups that need this form of capital suppport to build out and scale I hope Financing will also be accessible and some of it tailored to facilitate this