Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
Why not "rewild" urban areas by encouraging vertical gardens, roof top gardens and revitalising scrubland, wasteland and other wasted land into parks and other green spaces? Not only do you help nature you make the urban environment that little bit nicer for humans too. Leave the rural environment to it''s own devices and stop telling those of us who live in wild and remote areas what we should be doing. Fix the manmade urban areas first, return the greenery to towns and cities.
''It is difficult to envisage just who are the "experts from across the technology and science spheres" who "are touting it (hydrogen) as a key component in delivering a net-zero power sector". Well, lets start, shall we? First there are some reports: Navigant/Ecofys, P yry, KPMG, E4Tech, Policy Exchange, Frontier Economics, etc Then some articles by people in the industry; professors etc: energypost .eu/50-hydrogen-for-europe-a-manifesto/ iea .org/newsroom/news/2019/april/the-clean-hydrogen-future-has-already-begun.html knect365 .com/energy/article/f6838ddc-7c67-4e52-b5b7-fdd4f8137e28/how-can-europes-gas-networks-be-decarbonised ey .com/uk/en/industries/power---utilities/ey-the-potential-role-for-hydrogen-in-a-decarbonised-energy-system Then engineers: thechemicalengineer .com/tags/clean-energy-sig-the-hydrogen-economy imeche .org/news/news-article/towards-a-hydrogen-economy---an-imeche-and-icheme-joint-event Then there are the gas companies themselves: northerngasnetworks .co .uk/event/h21-launches-national/ hynet .co .uk/ Then the government: gov .uk/government/publications/hydrogen-for-heating-emissions-potential-literature-review gov .uk/government/publications/hydrogen-supply-chain-evidence-base ..and the list goes on. Why not educate yourself? Do some reading?
The problem is NOT plastics or consumer convenience. The problem is reliance on selective recycling and consumer participation. We can get it all back into the circular economy... https://www.packworld.com/article/sustainability/waste-energy/plasma-gasification-can-enable-circular-economy-sustainability
It is difficult to envisage just who are the "experts from across the technology and science spheres" who "are touting it (hydrogen) as a key component in delivering a net-zero power sector". The physical and chemical properties of hydrogen need to be considered, and compared with methane which it is proposed it should, in the major part, replace. Hydrogen does occur in nature; every molecule has to be manufactured. By whatever means this is achieved, more energy is expended in this manufacturing process than is derived from its use. Inefficiencies are inevitable. Methane, with all its potential energy of combustion is to be procured by drilling; the energy advantage is huge. Volume for volume, hydrogen contains only about one third of the energy of methane. See Avogadro and the energies of combustion. This implies that for equivalent duties, three times as much hydrogen has to provided than methane. Storage capacity, at the same pressure has to be tripled, also. The same applies to pipeline capacity; triple the cross sectional area, or the pipeline pressure. At moment the gas grid operates at 50 bar, 750 psi. Hydrogen is not a particularly amenable material to handle. Equipment has to be very gas-tight, and constructed from particular materials, not always the cheapest. Considerable modification is need for end user appliances. All the energy needed to generate the hydrogen has to be generated elsewhere. Hydrogen does not seem to advance the situation. Safety is also a consideration if domestic use is to be considered, it has the widest explosive range of any gas. Richard Phillips
Why limit this to just local authority and low income households? While a fine idea and to be applauded as energy poverty hurts those on low incomes hardest shouldn''t everyone have access to assistance to upgrade to low carbon self generation? Government backed interest free loans or grants help spread the cost of these kinds of improvements even for those of us on higher incomes. I can''t afford thousands of pounds for solar panels or for a Ground Source Heat Pump (especially if I have to up rate my entire heating system to work with this) but apparently I earn too much but it is my tax money that will be used.
It has long been my view that it is the very concept of Supermarket shopping that is largely responsible for wasteful practices. Customers tend to travel, say, once per week by Car to carry out an extensive shop. Large Car Parks are provided to facilitate and encourage such habits. In so doing, Customers tend to over-purchase ''just in case'' they may run out of any particular item(s). Almost invariably, this leads to home stocking of unused products - which then may have to be discarded, regardless of whatever measures or initiatives the Retailer may have arranged. I patronise my local TESCO store several times per week on Foot or by Bicycle, buying perishable items only for immediate need or refrigeration. However, there are some 750 Car-Parking Bays, but only three poor-quality Cycle-Parking Stands! I have raised this with TESCO, but the Company has declined to engage on this aspect of the issue. David S Garfield
This is good to hear. However, it seems that awareness and understanding of the impacts of not just plastics but chemical pollution generally affecting our air, land, and water systems is going to need to a lot more, and faster, action than any of these companies presently seem to be planning for. The fact that plastics are affecting the seas basic food chain and production of oxygen is alarming and it makes me wonder what else we have not yet noticed.....
This is a powerful move from a substantial user of plastic packaging that should be a demonstration to other manufacturers about what can be done to reduce and eventually eliminate the scourge of plastic waste.
The purchase of renewable electricity, and for some organisations, the declaration that they will purchase "100%" renewable electricity, is a puzzling one. If the power purchased is at a time when the total demand for renewable electricity is high, but the generation is low, the claim is simply invalid. Is the information available, at all times, of the total renewable generation, able to be compared with the total consumption by those having an agreement to purchase "100%" renewable power. It is not valid to equate the total wattage supplied over a year with that paid for by the consumer. A deficit of renewable power at any time has to supplied by either fossil or nuclear power. If nuclear power is removed from the equation as not being "renewable", the situation is even more questionable. It is my suspicion that a great deal more power is purchased and paid for as "renewable", which is nothing of the sort. Are instantaneous figures available which can prove or disprove this matter? Richard Phillips
Ok, you might regard this as picky Sarah, but (and I think it''s an important "But") since when has London only been the capital of England? Even allowing for devolution and the creation of regional governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, London, surely it is still regarded as the United Kingdom''s capital?
This car cannot be truly "innovative and disruptive" unless it is powered by something other than NMC battery chemistry. Dyson''s well known but failed (??) foray into solid state technology (Sakti3) leaves one wondering what his business plan can be? At the end of the day, manufacturing cars en masse looks like a business for a mass-market car manufacturer as demonstrated by the rolling crises at Tesla. This article carefully avoids any mention of EV battery technology, which, in any case, is dominated by China
I welcome this approach albeit that, outside London & some other large conurbations, there''s already been huge cutbacks in road based public transport - due to related funding cuts to local government - this on top of the continuing impact of the late mid 20th Beeching rail cuts
Not all oil is burnt. More is used in the petrochemical industry than in fuels. Things like Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, Electrical Insulations, Battery Components, Electric Vehicle parts to name a few "Green" things are all made from petrochemicals. Whilst we all continue to want our smartphones, laptops and other tech gadgets, our synthetic sports wear, our elasticated pants and a myriad of other modern day items humanity will continue to need people to find and extract hydrocarbons. Think about it before you divest from oil companies. And remember that not all "green" investments are necessarily better for you, your pension or the planet. Have you seen the damage a Lithium mine does?
The aviation industry likes to keep the dialogue focussed on carbon dioxide as this is a better story for them than greenhouse gas (or CO2 equivalent) measures which is what ultimately matters in addressing climate change. This is because it ignores the forcing factor effect that applies to aviation. This has a multiplier impact on the warming over the raw carbon dioxide. The largest component of this is NOx. Aviation gas turbines get a free ride on emitting this gas. The very same engines, if used in terrestial applications have to take measures to suppress this. Airlines don''t - mainly because of the impracticality and cost. There is no such thing as a sustainable alternative to jet fuel as, even in the unlikely event that a biofuel could be developed which did not have emissions associated with its production (and I am particularly thinking of indirect land use here), the NOx would still be produced. It is time for this industry to stop this greenwash and be much more honest in its dealings on this matter.
How is generating jet fuel from waste going to lead to negative emissions? Much of the waste is comprised of plastics and other non-renewable or carbon intensive resources, so by converting these to fuel, it will release carbon that would otherwise remain buried in the ground.
It is notable that the IDC, making pronouncements highly relevant to the climate impact of CO2, contains not one member who can be traced to have any graduate level knowledge of the physics, chemistry and engineering involved. It would be interesting to have their views on the value of 3, for the ECS used by the IPCC to configure their models. Richard Phillips
PROACTIVE PARTICIPATION BY SELFRIDGES NEEDED TO END DEFORESTATION FOR PALM OIL http://poig.org/proactive-participation-by-selfridges-needed-to-end-deforestation-for-palm-oil/
It''s unfortunate that Selfridge jumped on the misguided "Just Say No to Palm Oil" bandwagon started by Iceland. Organisations engaged in this issue agree that a blanket boycott of palm oil is not a solution, and rather call on retailers and manufacturers to source deforestation-free Certified Sustainable Palm Oil, which is currently available from the grower members of the Palm Oil Innovation Group.
Thanks for sharing these tips and totally agree that a company''s purpose (Why) should be in large letters everywhere for it to have credibility and for it be a constant reminder for employees as to why they get up in the morning to go to work!
One thing to remember in all this "hype" is not all Oil & Gas is used for fuel. Much of it is actually used to make things, many of which are life saving such as pharmaceutical and medical products and many are vital to the running of our high tech society. Many are also used to make the very products that "enviro-mental-ists" champion such as wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles. So while I agree we can not continue to waste this vital resource by simply burning it modern society will continue to need to exploit it for a long, long time yet. And if that means hydraulically fracturing rocks to get the raw material then it will have to happen. Unless we want to go back to living in mud huts with tallow candles and hessian undergarments. Lycra, for instance, is an oil based product and it holds your underwear up.
We face a climate emergency - which I have been saying for some years - it gives me no pleasure to be right & indeed causes me distress. Emergencies by definition need responses that are fundamentally different from responses in a "steady-state" BAU situation. The concluding chapters of the book "Voltaire''s Bastards" (J R Saul) covers this. Unfortunately, the people that produced the CCC report are also the people that Saul eviscerates (the only word applicable) in his book. They are "the safe pair of hands" who will give an acceptable ("right response") to those in power. The fact that the Committee is headed by Gummer an ex-politico demonstrates the truth of this statement. The report is also a framing exercise, evidenced when the CCC report talks about "costs" - when it means capital investment and rate of return for a given output (or levelised cost of electricity). A TECHNICAL report, one supposes, is written for experts & thus demands some precision in expression. That there is lack of precision suggests a framing exercise - & given the make-up of the committee (one member ex-Treasury) this seems likely. The report also suggests significant "group think" - certainly with respect to CCS - which addresses a symptom (CO2 emissions) rather than a cause (fossil fuel burning). UK production of hydrogen (from renewable resources) seems to be dismissed and the report notes that "Imports of low-carbon hydrogen might complement domestic production" (from SMR/CCS). Why not take a DIY approach? After all the UK some pretty good electrolyser companies - perhaps supporting UK companies was not in the remit of the CCC? There is also the blithe assumption that in a hi-RES situation there is still a place for nuclear. There might be, but only if, on a nice sunny day (the UK has them) you constrain off PV - & you will need to constrain off a great deal. The report also offers hostages to fortune with statements such as "so-called merchant renewables - projects that don''t rely on a Government backed contract - will likely be limited in volume and are considered highly unlikely for offshore wind". There have been several zero-subsidy off-shore wind projects - more are likely & it will only be a matter of time before merchant projects occur. One is left with the impression that the CCC does not want to see such projects since they would upset some of the reports key points (particularly wrt to CCS and H2). The report also contains some wishful thinking - page 24 - "further new build nuclear" - begging the question - who will do the building? who will fund it? Certainly not the Japanese (ref: Toshiba & Hitachi exit), the Russians? the Chinese? Page 25 contains this interesting statement: "These scenarios assume that most of the UK s heating systems switch to electric heat pumps". This statement predicates: a) a re-build of the totality of the UK electricity distribution network b) an in-depth energy renovation of every house. The section on RES potential sees the CCC asserting that off-shore wind potential is 95 - 245GW. This assertion is backed by the statement: "Offshore wind farms also face siting restrictions, such as seabed depth, and avoiding areas sensitive to wildlife (including bird migration routes), fishing and shipping routes and military zones" The report notes that the "Further Ambition Scenario" would see 75GW of off-shore wind built by 2050 (i.e. 2.3GW per year) and this would cover 1 - 2% of the UK''s seabed. The implication is that the UK seabed is so constrained (by existing interest) that only 1 to 2% is available. Note: we face a climate emergency - but the CCC report suggests anything but. 2.5GW/year for off-shore wind is not "mobilising for a war against climate change" it is BAU. LCOEs are also highly questionable - these are very high when compared to mainland Europe (particularly so with respect to wind) and suggests a mix of British insularity and complacence (with respect to the possibility that a) they are high b) they could be brought down). Having had meetings with BEIS in the past, I can state that whilst publicly it supports high LCOEs (presumably to keep gas in business), privately it accepts points a) and b) - thus is policy hypocrisy alive and well in government institutions. The tech report is 300 pages long. the above is intended as illustrative. The report is produced by the wrong people, lacks urgency, assumes BAU and features group think on a large scale. It should be binned and something fit for purpose produced and with a bias in terms of "it''s an emergency, what do we need to do fast and how can we make sure UK industry is part of the solution and not a bystander.