Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
If coal is acceptable with CCS, why not sell coal power stations now and fit CCS once it is practical? If not, China will take over the market and Europe sits on the side lines looking virtuous, but poor and irrelevant. Oh, and don''t tell Germany - they are building coal fired power stations now, as they want to end nuclear and wind is unreliable and too expensive...
When are these "leaders" going to join ordinary citizens in pressuring government , and ALL political leaders, regardless of party to actually face the facts and come up with coordinated strategy and ACT? The UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill (https://www.ceebill.uk/) is the only feasible pathway if we want to try to improve our chances of averting complete environmental. economic and social breakdown.
It''s rather disappointing that whoever put together the "pros and cons" didn''t look at the CCC reports in more detail. For example, in their Land Use Policies for a Net Zero UK they say we require "a high uptake of low carbon farming practices and releasing 22% of land out of traditional agricultural production for long-term carbon sequestration". Doesn''t that sound like quite a "con" to you - or is it just a challenge?
"emissions per bottle have been measured at 17% lower" sounds good, but can we have some hard data, please? What''s this in absolute gCO2e/bottle? Comparing it to 62,000 cars is a little meaningless when we are not told how many bottles are used each year.
The current has to be generated, what source can be designated as responsible for this duty. And it is important, for if it is a fossil source, the advantage gained has be regarded as of dubious benefit. Many thanks Richard Phillips
I wonder what plans the National Trust has to decarbonise their vast estate of heritage builings
The use of hydrogen is becoming more and more to the front, by the day. But this gas does not occur as elemental hydrogen in nature. To have total control of its production at our behest, nuclear is the only answer. Naturally occurring energy sources are not totally at our command, and have to be accepted on this basis, it is not some sort of panacea. But business seems somehow to regard it as so. Or is it just me???? Richard Phillips
There is no such thing as "sustainable fuels" - burning these fuels releases just the same CO2 as any other kind, and is exactly as damaging to the climate. Airports should post health warnings at every gate "This flight produces 2 tons of CO2 per passenger", so people can make informed decisions.
How does burning fats/oils, in which the carbon is firmly bonded, reduce the emission of CO2!?
Great, but net-zero by 2050 is way, way too late - temperatures will already have soared past +1.5 degrees by then and be continuing to rise. Please everyone put pressure on politicians and business to drive much harder and faster.
I agree that Li batteries have paved the way for many of the advanced technologies but I think the future of batteries are graphene batteries using high grade TA-001A Graphene Powder.
Heat batteries for homes - so basically this is electric central heating and will still cost home owners 3 to 4 times as much to heat their homes as gas or oil. And given that 50%+ of UK generation capacity is from "burning things" is this really "low carbon"? Now if the "heat battery" could store the heat that pours in through my front windows on a sunny day or the heat that same sun bakes into my roof tiles to later heat my hot water tank or to assist my existing heating by maintaining the water temperature in the heating pipes without resorting to igniting the oil burner then perhaps it would have a better impact.
This is great news - but it''s the companies *burning* the oil/gas/coal that are actually doing the harm! Steel, aluminium, concrete, construction (20-50 tons per house), airlines (2-5 tons per passenger long-haul), shipping (2 tons per cruise-person week), car-building (17 tons per vehicle). And *we* are the ones buying those products in ignorance.
Good Day, Are you looking for Storage Tanks In Rotterdam? Houston? Then worry no more SOVREDMET LOGISTIC COMPANY GOT YOU COVERED. Contact us Now on email address: firstname.lastname@example.org SOVREDMET LOGISTIC COMPANY are pleased to bring to your notice that we have Tanks available for lease. Our Tank Farm have durable and reliable tanks storage facilities at Rotterdam, and Houston. Our tank farm is a Crude/Petroleum reservoir with high storage capacities located in all ports in Netherlands (Rotterdam). Our Team of competent experts are always interested in giving you one of the best services and total product security guaranteeing your satisfaction and securing our values. Contact us today for our services and have your products in safe custody. Please contact us via our official email address: email@example.com Thank you
It would be interesting to separate true ''climate change related'' funding from the backlog investment expenditure on essential infrastructure such as road maintenance and rail projects that are simply modernisation. Then compare the promised spend with actual and expected progress with actual. Any business would do this - there is no point setting down strategy and funding if the milestones are not being reached quickly enough or in the manner required. Smoke and mirrors are the politicians and hence government''s primary tools. We will look back and cringe at the lies, obfuscation, and lack of solid progress.
This surely illustrates yet again that once collected, waste disposal should be the concern of a specific government department. The UK should not be shipping our garbage to poorer areas of the world, a disgrace. Yes, it might cost, but it is the correct thing to do. Richard Phillips
If 36% are not confident of meeting their public commitments, I suspect that 64% are deluding themselves! Yes, it''s possible in most cases, although some of the earlier dates would practically be impossible starting from where they are, but if I were responsible for meeting the target I would have very little confidence that it could be achieved without massive support from central Government and bodies such as Ofgem.
There is no such thing as "sustainable aviation fuel", except hydrogen. Burning hydrocarbons emits CO2, wherever they come from. And off-setting takes years to take-back the large amounts of CO2 emitted immediately. Aviation is *very* climate-harming so fly-much-less is the only short-term option.
Of all of the statements that have been made on this subject by the National Grid ESO on this subject the one relating to 2025 must be the most pointless and misleading. To quote the original statement, which you can still read on their website: National Grid ESO s ambition is to be able to operate a zero-carbon electricity system by 2025. This means if the market provides us purely with electricity generated from zero-carbon sources, we can run the system without needing to use any extra services that emit carbon. So Britain s electricity will be carbon free. So, if the market presents them with zero carbon electricity, that s what they ll use. Surely they re not just saying It s not our fault ? There has not been a single half hour when the GB grid has run purely on zero-carbon sources before now, and there certainly won t be by 2025. Many consumers believe that they get zero-carbon electricity from the grid already if they choose the right supplier. They don t. Nobody does - unless you can generate your own, of course. Getting to the point where the market can supply the GB grid with electricity purely from zero-carbon sources is urgent and the challenges should not be underestimated. It cannot happen by 2025 (unless we only use imports, of course!)