Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
"Nero expects to have converted 218 tonnes of used coffee grounds into 98 tonnes of biomass pellets enough fuel to power the equivalent of 453 homes..." Am I missing something, or shouldn''t the above statement indicate how long the 218 tonnes of beans will provide power to the 453 homes? How much energy in terms of kWh will the beans provide?
So, we really have the time to step forward from the present stage!!
I think the impact will be even larger than imagined and have much wider impact. Small robo cars used on demand will not wear their tyres or brakes out, won''t have bumps, won''t need personalising so that kills off the vehicle parts, maintenance, accident repair and customisation industry, likewise insurance and glittery car showrooms Robo cars wil travel at speed limits which will slow all traffic but also allow spectacular interweaving at junctions which should make traffic run faster as there will be no need for traffic lights. Not a welcome future, little enjoyment to be gained from travel and none from car ownership. Thank goodness I live in ruritainia because if National robocar rollout follows the broadband route we''ll still be waiting in 2100.
Food waste - if Marks and Spencer can distribute food they will no longer sell - why can''t Greggs? (and I presume many other food shops). Your survey concentrates on the big issues which is great, but simple things would also make a huge difference - retail should be legislated to give all edible food away not throw it in the bin!
Our company is currently looking for locations to start a pilot program to install street lighting that meets the following criteria: - 2100K - Up to 140 lumens per watt - Dark sky friendly - 70, 80 or 90 CRI This light that will meet all the dark sky, neighborhood, and wildlife friendly criteria that municipalities are looking for.
The wind farms in Liverpool Bay are regularly visited by a fleet of service boats. I see them coming into Liverpool docks daily. Isnt this an opportunity to set up businesses farming mussels, kelp and fish between the turbines?
Or the UAE (and the world) has 15 years to develop low cost desalination using perhaps its abundant solar resources.
THE PROBLEM WITH WASTE IS THAT IS HAS NO ADDED VALUE THAT THE CONSUMER CAN USE FOR RECYCLING PURPOSES. Simply if we therefore add value to it and the consumer identifies with this then waste will become attractive. There are no official recycling systems for thin wall plastic + crisp packets and the plastic milk bottle service lacks clarity and is so diverse in nature that jo public are often confused by the shear number of options? Two alternatives are being tried and tested as natural polymers, being from seedweed and milk? but they need money and infrastructure to deliver? Also there are potential health problems with thin wall plastics, generating possible pathegens, but not as yet properly identified. I have through studies identified that the council collection systems are out dated and incineration is econmically misplaced. We therefore do not invest sufficiently in recycling as nations, loosing 80-120 bn in revenue,and then spend x3 times this amount extracting and processing the raw materials. No!! inorder to clean up our act we have to do a lot better.
Wow at last a Party committed to Clean Energy and not simply paying lipservice to the public whilst doing deals to short circuit the Rules and Regulations with Industry. One thing I would add is that there is a need to support and prove out Hydrogen generation, striving to maintain a grid supply system places huge barriers in the way forwards to Clean energy. There is no need for 230-240 volts it is simply a waste much better to go as low as possible that is 12 volts and 48 Volts dual low voltage circuits most easily generated onsite for Off-grid house Zero emissions in use.
Hi Paul, Thanks for the question. The packaging allows low-income earners to enjoy quality products such as shampoos, toothpastes, lotions, condiments, even ready-to-eat food and drinking water. To gain more info on the manufacturers involved, I would suggest getting in touch with Unilever directly. Here is a media contact that dealt with the announcement - Caroline.Boin@unilever.com. Thanks, George
"Sachet packaging allows low-income consumers, particularly in developing countries, to buy small amounts of otherwise unaffordable products". Could you elaborate on what these products might be and who are the manufacturers?
It''s not just relevant to this: "Going a step further, driverless EVs offer exciting possibilities for the crowded megacities of the future. Robotaxis could provide mobility on demand in a far more affordable, efficient and safer way." It''s highly relevant to any settlement in the UK (& similarly elsewhere in the "developed world) which our cars clog both when in the minority of they''re in use & the majority of time when they''re not in use i.e. this has phenomenal & seemingly positive implications for our homes, high streets, shopping, work, business, education, leisure, health & social care &/or generally how we live - not to mention investers in property & car makers - & just think of the potential changes in how & what we spend on transport
I stand by my comment upon the energy section of the Labour Party manifesto. The exposure of the public to radiation from the nuclear energy programme is, as I understand it, about 1% of natural background radiation. The hazard presented by this level of exposure is well reviewed by Dr wade Allison in his book "Radiation and Reason". The policy quoted in the last sentence of Jo Brown''s comment is quite ludicrous. The answer to our energy needs would be well satisfied by a mix of PWRs and CCGTs, the latter powered by our own natural gas from fracking within the UK, which the manifesto also denigrates. In the years to come we should be engaged in the development of the fast reactor, in order to utilise our stock of plutonium and depleted uranium. These could provide safe clean energy for centuries. Waste is no problem except for the politicians, the professionals solved the problem over forty years ago. I repeat my belief that the policies outlined in the manifesto, with special reference to renewable sources, is driven by a lack of understanding of the science and engineering on the part of those drafting the policy. My opinion is derived not only from my experience as a professional research scientist in the UKAEA at Harwell for 35 years, but also from years of following the energy generation industry in my retirement. Richard Phillips
Would be great if they could also commit to plastic free packaging and a significant increase in the proportion of organic/ sustainable produce sold. I''m not sure why they need to wait until 2030 - For scope 2 emissions, there are plenty of 100% renewable power suppliers now and as the largest supermarket they have significant power to dictate supply chain emissions standards for scope 3. Will they also decarbonise their logistics and delivery fleet? Would be interesting to see the composition of their emissions.
Labour''s manifesto statement that "nuclear energy will continue to be part of the energy supply" does not comply with the 2012 Health and Social Care Act legal requirement to protect the public from exposure to nuclear radiation. the UK National Nuclear Policy acknowledged that this would cause ''public health detriment'' but claimed this was ''justified by the benefits of nuclear power''. The 2012 Act supersedes the NNP but has not been enforced. Regulators and politicians must enforce a zero emissions policy on all nuclear waste and decommissioning contracts, rule out any new build and shut down all the AGR nuclear reactors.
In 2016 global average temperatures reached 1.2C with a number of positive feedbacks emerging at significant force (e.g. Albedo in the Arctic) driving temperatures higher. In the light of this there is no prospect of keeping temperatures close to the COP 21 commitment of 1.5C unless everything is made carbon neutral by around 2030. It is great that Tesco will source 100% of electricity from the renewables by 2030 but business also need to decarbonise other energy sources (transport, etc.) and their suppliers by 2030. Tesco''s 2050 target for suppliers to be carbon neutral is firmly in +2C territory.
A presentation lacking, in my opinion, the essential basic knowledge and understanding of the physics, chemistry and electrical power engineering involved in electrical generation. The writers are politicians not scientists or engineers. Richard Phillips
Oh dear, all those "deaths" yet again!! I know no better presentation of the true state of affairs than: Extract, by Julia Hartley-Brewer. (Daily Telegraph 7.04.17) "This 40,000 figure is alarmingly high. It is also alarmingly wrong. 40,000 people do not die in the UK every year as a result of air pollution. Yet that figure, as respiratory physician Professor Tony Frew explained to me on my TalkDadio show this week, is zombie statistic - however many times you try to kill it, it comes back. And it's simply not true. So what is the truth? The Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Paediatrics and Child Health, quoted by Mr Khan, actually says "40,000 EQUIVALENT LIVES" are lost each year as a result of all outdoor air pollution - which is actually only a few hours or days each over a population of 65 million. Only a tiny fraction of this is down to diesel cars, or indeed to any cars" May we now have a little more understanding in the use of very specific technical statistical terms used by epidemiologists. Richard Phillips
Save earth & plant
Yes, climate scientists think in terms of carbon, power engineers think in terms of MW and MWhs.
Your description of a BMS is somewhat inaccurate in that it works within given parameters, takes no account of the reasons behind a call for heat from a controlled area and is often a complete mystery to those inhabitants of the building it is installed in. It also has an extremely high maintenance cost in that experienced engineers command very high rates of pay and if it is a manufacturers engineer sometimes even more to give a profit to the exercise. A BMS controlling the heating function normally works on space temperature sensors switching on the heat source in answer to a demand, it does nothing to control the combustion process or modify the energy output to match the energy requirement unless the design of the heating system has such mechanisms built in. Having seen a number of BMS systems in the properties in which I have been working I cannot subscribe to your comment that they are in any way an economical addition to a building when considered from the point of view of the energy they save. In my experience two things are required to ensure that energy consumption is kept to a minimum. The first is that the heating system (note the word system) is designed in such a way that the energy produced matches the load required and is channelled specifically to where it is required and the second is that the control system ensures that the energy producing appliance (or if it is a cascade arrangement appliances) limit the energy produced to the load required. Having seen the installation of high efficiency boilers in a cascade arrangement result in an increase in gas consumption rather that the predicted decrease and the replacement of a standard efficiency boiler by a high efficiency boiler result in complaints of the property taking significantly longer to become even warm I am of the opinion that your simplistic manual versus BMS evaluation of the control of a building leaves much to be desired. Anthony Brunton IEng. MIPlantE. MSOE. LCGI. FCIPHE. RP. Master Plumber. ps I have added the post nominals so that you are aware that I do know what I''m talking about.
Your description of a BMS is somewhat inaccurate in that it works within given parameters, takes no account of the reasons behind a call for heat from a controlled area and is often a complete mystery to those inhabitants of the building it is installed in. I
Between 2010 and 2016 easyJet passenger numbers grew from 48,754,366 to 73,137,826, representing a 50% increase. This huge increase in flights more than offsets the efficiency savings outlined and proves beyond all doubt that we cannot meet our COP21 climate change commitments if the aviation sector is permitted to grow. Please also note that the the UK''s aviation sector is responsible for between 7 and 8% of UK greenhouse gas emissions but, due to the extra warming effect of emissions at high altitudes, the sector is responsible for between 11 and 16% (depending on calculation method) of warming.
Good work - well done, easyJet. Another good reason to fly with you :)