Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
Everyone should aim to be carbon negative, I do so by using Radflek to cut my heating emissions by 45% and give two kits as Christmas presents. In addition, I offset at Trees.org and give this as Christmas presents as well. I have not spent any more at Christmas either. And so can you.
Tree Planting by Drone Could Help To Reach UN Target of a Trillion Trees DENDRA, the makers of Sky Tractors (drones) say that they can plant 150 times faster than conventional methods and in hard to reach places, the land is scanned to ensure that the germinated seed pods are not wasted on such things as rocks and water, before planting starts, the Sky Tractors can be then flown several at a time (if the country permits this) for maximum speed. I have been in contact with Susan Graham CEO with a view to getting the Sky Tractors to plant in equilateral triangles in order to increase crop production by 15% (see Crow''s Footing page). My friend Don Shaw from Australia says: Woke up 2am to smell of smoke drifting from fires, Sounds bit like a California scenario. and sent a photograph he took of the flames sky high. In the climate crisis land use is going to be critical, and also, tree rings around cities, towns, and villages, will keep the area cooler as trees give off water vapour, I have already got Google to cool their servers with trees, it works out cheaper than conventional electrical cooling. Beijing does not have to be the only city with a ring of trees. The Drawdown book edited by Paul Hawken recommends silvopasture, which is planting trees in fields where animals graze, this provides shade, sequester carbon above and below ground, and cut farmer''s costs for feed, fertiliser, and herbicides, it could save 31.19 gigatons of reduced CO2 for a cost of $41.6 billion with a saving of $699.4 billion. Managed grazing can also help. By breaking up fields into smaller areas with fencing, and then moving the animals on regularly the grass is not over cropped and gets time to grow back. Drawdown estimates that this would save 16.34 gigatons of CO2, would cost $50.5 billion, and would save $735.3 billion, so another obvious weapon in the hands of environmentalists.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" Unless the entire chain of a product is examined it is folly to call something "green", "greener", "low carbon" or "environmentally friendlier". Take the paper bag. You need petrol to power the chainsaw to fell the tree, diesel to power the equipment to move and load the trees, diesel lorries to transport the tree to the sawmill or paper mill, power to operate the mill to create the paper and so on. How much oil is required to make a paper bag? How many plastic bags can you make from that oil? Are paper bags "greener" than plastic, especially if facilities exist to recover the plastic and turn it into something else (possibly more durable and long lasting). The danger is we "knee jerk" react and end up with a worse problem than the one perceived to be the problem. The biggest thing we can all do, with everything, is simple really. We need to reduce our wastage and end consuming for the sake of consuming
The announcement sounds good. In reality, however, others have already moved on. See https://www.ecosia.org/
Jo great reading and the message being delivered is so so true. Together through education, partnership and drive from every possible stakeholder will make the change
In note that the UAE report on energy quotes the output in TWh, completely submerging the huge day/night intermittency of the process. the installed capacity is not mentioned. The renewable lobbyists do exactly the same with our wind turbine output, the huge variability, where exact control is essential, is totally ignored. And our uninformed politicians just accept it!!! This policy will take us over the cliff like the walruses. WRT V2G, if an owner of an EV, I would be delighted to find my car down on its charge when I needed it for more miles than in the battery I wished to write to Attenborough, but found no satisfactory route; any suggestions??? I note that he is an excellent zoologist, a far cry from the physics and chemistry (my area) vital to understand global warming. He seems to have the stage to himself. I do wish he would stick to his area---I would not dream of expounding on animal life!!!----But then all our politicians do it! Richard Phillips
I hope the BBC will give a balanced, scientifically accurate approach to its "Our Planet Matters" coverage but I''m not going to hold my breath. Science doesn''t get ratings; hysteria, hype and mythinformation does. and when was the last time anyone let facts get in the way of a good story. And why the negative slant of UAE investing in nuclear? Nuclear power is clean and once the power stations are constructed it is zero emission and No Carbon. Run properly with strict control protocols it is the safest form of high demand power we have access to. And the only one that can constantly supply the so called "baseload" for a countrywide grid.
The whole idea of this is utter stupidity... As you both have highlighted below the thermal-dynamic mechanics of this is useless. All this excess power they speak of cant just be ramped up and down that quickly as the power plants are now the balancing mechanisms to prevent over or under voltage/frequency of the grid through uncontrollable renewable energy output. Fuel cells require rare earth metals, very expensive to produce. to create the hydrogen from the excess power they speak of will require 150% more generation on the grid, not counting the energy density of hydrogen compared to other fuels. Electric Cars complete waste, consider the 33 million cars in the UK converting to electric now draw 3kw each to charge! Thats almost 100Gw of power the uk grid only produces 45Gw currently not to mention the amount of extra cabling in the ground that required upgrading to transmit it. Now look at the fact that the round trip efficiency of hydrogen is 70% efficient to produce so that power requirement will be even greater!!! Ill leave it the ill informed politicians without our a scrape of common sense to work the rest out of how their going to send the world into darkness. Maybe Greta Turdburg has the answers ?
Ben - thanks for pointing out another downside of Hydrogen
Because of hydrogen embrittlement of steel, and corrosion natural gas pipes require internal coatings or replacement in order to convey hydrogen. Natural Gas with hydrogen concentrations above 10% can start to cause corrosion with steel within the distribution piping systems.
I''m pleased by its new stance, but hope that they will bear in mind the environmental damage caused by regular (and often unwanted) software updates rendering old (relatively speaking) but serviceable hardware unusable, because it is unable to load the latest Microsoft software. Their attitude towards backwards compatibility has been very high handed at times, and relied upon enthusiasts to find work-rounds.
The company culture has a foot in productivity rates, employee satisfaction and other key factors of business development. Learn how to upscale your business with the help of company culture on our blog here: https://www.peoplehum.com/blog/hr/systemized-company-culture-and-business-upscaling/#bl
Nigel - I think the problem is councils and housing associations are basically "ticking a box" by installing ASHP in their housing stock without taking the building standards, customer needs or anything else into account. From what I understand from the lady whose electricity bill went up 4x no one had even been to her house to inspect it before the ASHP was installed. They just bolted it on and ticked the box to meet an arbitrary "eco" target. With all the talk of low carbon and renewable people forget that while the heat source is renewable the compressor and pumps take a fair amount of electricity to power them. At 15p/kwhr you have to get 4x more heat than the electricity used to match the cost of oil or gas fired CH. In winter, at single digit temperatures or below, how much heat can an ASHP extract per unit of electricity? I''ve heard talk of as little as 1kw of heat per kw of electricity which is hardly effective or efficient. As I have said previously when properly designed, installed and fit for purpose, in a properly insulated, energy efficient building Heat Pumps are a valuable addition to the heating options but when they are just thrown on an old, leaky, draughty house to meet a KPI they are totally worthless and completely useless.
This is a useful discussion and I''m glad I shrugged off my usual reticence to pick an argument. Interesting point about the cost of the power supply going up so much that it rendered the ASHP installation economically unviable. I have also heard that from a contact who used to work with housing associations, where the ASHPs that had recently been installed all had to be removed again, because the tenants could not afford the electricity bills any longer. But arguably that issue arose because of incorrect specification in the first place. Totally agree with Keiron that it will all depend on proper oversight, to ensure no shortcuts and to ensure that specification, design, build quality etc are all correct. Maybe the various UK heat pump trade associations should be banging that drum alongside the perfectly reasonable argument that we need to escalate the rate of deployment of heat pumps. (I am just a retired tank commander and trouble-maker, by the way, so have no axe to grind in this matter).
Barry - You are correct that most, if not all problems, come from incorrect design or installation. As I said when they are built in from the start, correctly sized and designed for the building then Heat Pumps work brilliantly. It is just Thermodynamics and you can''t argue with Physics. The danger with this urgent target is we might manage to install 1 million Heat Pumps but without oversight and Quality Control 999,999 of them will be unfit for purpose, badly designed and inefficient which completely defeats the purpose. It is exactly like the lack of oversight and QC in the building industry that is allowing modern homes to end up with thermal bridges, gaps in insulation, gaps and draughts despite the standards stating that modern houses should achieve a minimum energy standard. Slapping a solar panel on a North facing roof shouldn''t mean a box can be ticked. Andy - never heard of CO2 being used as a refrigerant I have to admit and the only Heat Pump I have ever seen for HW used R-132 (an HFC) which proved to be unfit for purpose when I tried it as it took 26hrs to heat my water tank (assuming I actually didn''t take any HW out of the tank!!)
Kieron re: elephant in the rooms for heat pumps -> CO2 heat pumps do not use refrigerants. However these are mostly used in DHW applications, not for continuous heating.
"Seems to me that the key requirement is to get the specification right and then ensure that the system is installed as specified." is entirely correct. As an installer of ERP A++ ASHPs on a UK offshore (subsidy free) market, one also knows first hand how the problem installations can occur - it''s almost always down to incorrect design. With regards to age of buildings, insulation levels - it really is irrelevant to the type of heat source, It is the rated output of the Heat Source and the way the Heat Source Delivers the Heat. The above is In relation to (but not limited to) positioning of equipment, available electrical power supply, pipe sizing & flow rates, heat emitter surface area etc. On a retrofit refurbishment installation, a new ASHP installation easily competes with a new Oil fired installation. On an existent retrofit, on average (in the local market I am based) at least one radiator usually requires replacement, to enable a Heat Output operating at Flow Temperatures optimal for ASHP efficiency (optimal Co-Efficient of Performance) along with a Heat Pump rated Hot Water Cylinder. My house was built in 1890, and the Heat Pump works fine. However every installation has to be assessed prior, as the old methods of Boiler sizes being literally guessed no longer applies.
The problem of domestic plastic waste disposal has two elements. The first is to persuade house holders to separate their plastic waste into a separate container, and secondly to oblige the waste disposal companies to separate this into true waste and recyclable products. This may be made mandatory There are, however some 39 companies, and little if any option to bury the non-recyclable material. Government policy is, however to put the realisation of such activity into private hands, indeed it is mandatory. This is totally unreal since the most profitable operations will be chosen, having a maximum return on investment, cherry picking, in fact. If this hurdle can be overcome, I would suggest that items such as the familiar milk bottle (HDLE), and the clear drinks bottle (PET) should be all be recycled. Products of indefinite or mixed composition, are most easily burned to generate power. The drafting of whole policy should be include staff with the relevant scientific knowledge and experience, qualifications absent from the upper echelons of Government, and sparse in business circles Strong science oriented action is required. Richard Phillips
To Keiron. It seems a big jump from ''only truly effective'' to ''absolutely useless''. I''ve heard the ''absolutely useless in existing stock, especially old stock'', many times in the past couple of years. But there is also plenty of empirical evidence that indicates the opposite. It''s not that long ago that I went to a relatively leaky, old listed house that was functioning perfectly well on GSHP. A fossil fuel back-up had been retained, but not used since the system was installed a few years previously. Seems to me that the key requirement is to get the specification right and then ensure that the system is installed as specified.
Think we need to store a lot more than 176 tonnes of Carbon dioxide....we need the Severn barrage in the mix to help as well.
Nigel - I can only quote from what other users of these systems have said. One lady I spoke to about an ASHP told me she was now paying 4 times as much in electricity to heat her home since the council installed an ASHP and the house was still cold and now damp. Hardly an effective heating system. Another person who installed ASHP has had it removed and the oil boiler reinstated as it was costing more to heat the home and hot water with the ASHP than with the oil boiler. Again hardly effective and their''s is a fairly new build house (less than 20 years old). I''ve heard other people say they wish they''d never installed ASHP and I know of one person who installed a GSHP only to find they now have to use the electric immersion to provide a tank full (200l) of hot water every day as the GSHP can''t heat the water enough. Properly designed, installed and with a properly insulated (PassivHaus?) building yes Heat Pumps are effective but in our ageing, leaky, poorly insulated housing stock (particularly council/housing association stock) they are proving to be increasingly bad choices and I am yet to be convinced how efficient they are in the Highlands where temperatures are often low throughout winter when you need the heating most.