Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
Each ROAM unit has a storage capacity of 700Wh and a power output of 1kWm. I am puzzled by 1kWm, may we have some explanation, please.? 390g of liquid hydrogen is over 5 litres, and difficult to contain. This does not seem quite correct to me. Perhaps this referred to a number of flights? Richard Phillips
Matt, RSVP do you ever include fictional movies called cli-fi genre features? I coined thirteen in 2011 for movies and novels, see cli-fi.net...also see my clifi movie blog on korgw101.Blogspot.com and maybe next year start including fiction movies in your list too. RSVP . Dan bloom age 70
Matt, do you ever include fictional movies called cli-fi genre features? I coined thirteen in 2011 for movies and novels, see cli-fi.net...also see my clifi movie blog on korgw101.Blogspot.com and maybe next year start including fiction movies in your list too. RSVP . Dan bloom age 70
Matt, do you ever include fictional movies called cli-fi genre features? I coined thirteen in 2011 for movies and novels, see cli-fi.net...also see my movie blog on korgw101.Blogspot.com and maybe next year start including fiction movies in your list too. RSVP . Dan bloom age 70
The CCC, tarnished by revelations about its Chairman, Lord Deben, might be unaware of, but are more likely wilfully ignoring, burgeoning developments in advanced nuclear power reactors? They have never mentioned the unique BWRX-300 SMR, which is a reactor design that is so simple, and therefore cost-effective, it is unlikely to be bettered from an overnight cost perspective. In 15 years time the 300 MWe, BWRX-300 will be available at a cost of 462 million. It will have its EPZ at the boundary fence of its tiny site, meaning it can be located close to centres of population. It is rated at 900 MWt so can be configured for CHP operation and provide not only 24/7, low-carbon electricity, but also much of the heating and hot water to buildings which, of itself, accounts for 40% of all of the UK''s energy use. The UK uses 340 TWh per year. 150 of these BWRX-300 SMRs would supply 100% of the 24/7 electricity and much of the heat and hot water we use, for 60 years at a cost of 70 billion. For renewables to supply 340 TWh, desecrating our countryside is a big issue, so maybe solar would creep up to 10% and wind would probably split to 30% onshore and 60% offshore for the rest. Solar would cost 43 billion, onshore 48 billion, offshore 115 billion. Then, when the Sun don t shine and the wind don t blow, we d have to have 38 billion of CCGTs. Backed-up intermittent electricity for just 25/30 years tots up to 244 billion. So for 60 years that would be around 553 billion. We can choose to pay 70 billion for guaranteed 24/7, low-carbon electricity and much of the heat and hot water for buildings for 60 years. Or we can choose to pay 7.9X more in overnight cost and 100X more cost in terms of scenic desecration, resource waste, ecosystem destruction, species wipe out and waste mountains. The CCC is Hell-bent on advising the Government to go the way of the latter option and it will be us - the bill payers and tax payers - who shoulder the financial burden. Instead of spending our own money on our own lifestyle choices, we''ll be putting money into the pockets of people like Lord Deben.
All forms of gas powered, water filled house central heating are obsolete and have been for a very long time - the Romans would laugh if they saw our current central heating dependence on gas and water. Instead, we should be building well insulated properties with heating from ground source heat pumps or thermostatically controlled, timer assisted, fan assisted, renewables powered, electric heaters in each room so that you have the heat where you want it, when you want it and at the level you require. Moving to modular house built in factories from materials with a hign mu factor and then assembled on site should also be pursued. These measures would greatly reduce emissions and tackle the REAL problem we are facing, namely GLOBAL POLLUTION, not climate change which is a cycle planet Earth has been going through since it first formed.
It might be useful if edie produced an explanation, suitable for layman''s eyes, of the meaning of EQUIVALENT in "2,782 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e)". Richard Phillips
Energy Efficiency Grants should be available to all households and not just those on benefits, even though low income households are likely to see the biggest impact on their energy expenditure it isn''t fair to penalise those who pay the taxes to exclude them from grants. Not every working household can afford the cost of improved loft insulation or a new condensing central heating boiler or other energy efficiency measures but unless you are claiming benefits most times you can not get help.
Fitting doors to the fridges would be a good start instead of trying to refrigerate the entire store then heating it back up again. If Co-Op can do it, Lidl, Aldi, even Tesco Metro then every supermarket chain in the country should be able to. Don''t need F1 tech just plain common sense
Respect to all the students for stating their concerns about global warming!
Does the array also capture emissions resulting from the dieselgate scandal?
The whole nub of the discussion devolves, in the first place, upon the second paragraph: While historically the UK is used to stable supplies and relatively stable prices, resilience is moving up the agenda as the energy landscape undergoes a radical transformation from large centralised coal plants to an increasingly renewable and smaller-scale gas-fired world. My concern is primarily with electricity. All the problems arise from the body politic, being almost entirely bereft of scientific and engineering knowledge, being persuaded by business interests, that renewable energy was the saviour of the world. Those interests were not concerned in the least with the generation of "clean", (CO2 free) energy, but with access to almost limitless public funds. Renewable energy, of every description, is dependent upon natural forces which are essentially totally outside any human control. All of them. This overawing disadvantage is the origin of the tsunami of corrective devices introduced to bring us back to a reliable electricity supply. It is a problem with Medusa-like properties. The ideal electricity supply is that which meets demand on all occasions, at an affordable cost to the consumer. It drives industry. We have the problem of energy storage, hydro systems, battery complexes, electrolysis, tidal currents and lagoons, river dams, and a plethora of mechanical devices. All are huge, expensive, and, due the nature of electricity, relatively very short-term systems; long term is a few days. But nature can shut down for as long as two weeks. Not the sun, certainly, but that is a nightly outage. The problem is being tackled at the wrong end. Utilise a generating system which is dependable), and "clean", and most of all totally under our control. And that system is NUCLEAR. But a certain Mrs T destroyed it in 1989. "We do not need a nuclear industry, we can buy reactors in the market as need arises" . Fat chance after Moorside and Wylfa. The present system of dispersed generation gives rise to the SMART brigade. The smart grid, and most reviled of all, the smart meter, totally unable to save money per se, but costing, eventually it is estimated, about 20bn. The object of the device is ultimately to vary costs at will. But will HMG listen, of course not, why should a Historian listen to a scientist or electrical engineer when electricity is under discussion. Silly me. Richard Phillips I am a retired research scientist, having spent the last 35 years of my professional career at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell in Oxfordshire. Since retirement I have continued to take a keen interest in all energy matters, and have a wide circle of very experienced contacts in all aspects of the industry. I have thus acquired a wide knowledge of the spectrum of energy matters from nuclear generation to renewables. I became, by examination, an Associate of the Royal Institute of Chemistry in 1954, and was elected a Fellow in 1971.
"We are committed to cementing our place as a world leader in resource efficiency" This sort of crap makes me furious. Chapter 6 of Decembers waste review was entitled "Leading the world Showing by example or some such nonsense. Germany has had all this in place for 25 years. It works well, is documented and refined and the UK would do well to adopt it without delay. Why cant politicians and Gove seems to be amongst the worst just say we will do a lot better and this is what we are going to do based on our experience and other countries experience. Why do we have to lead the f***ing world every time some sort of action has to be taken especially when it is obvious to a half wit that we are going to come up short again. I have read the report and it is clear that while things will get better, they will be still be a long way off countries like Germany.
The old GWh quoted, no mention of the variation of the rate of generation. Lots of noonday summer power, but none at the ends of the day. And storage is expensive. No renewable replaces dispatchable generation, make it when its needed, not catch ne if you can!! Richard Phillips
Do people have the extra money to pay upfront?
"Contrary to popular belief, carbon isn't inherently evil" It is truly extraordinary that such a statement could ever see the light of day. There is nothing "evil" about carbon; it is the very staff of life. Firstly, the uninitiated speak of "carbon" mean carbon dioxide. Carbon is a solid element, better known as graphite, (in our pencils), or diamond. And the gas, CO2, is utterly vital to life itself. Below a concentration of about 150ppm, photo-synthesis ceases. No plant life, no vegetable matter, no animals, no food. We would never ever have evolved. During the last thirty years or so, CO2 increases have made our planet greener by about 13%, this includes better crops. And it is a far weaker greenhouse gas than water vapour, being some sixty times less abundant. It is reputed to punch far above weight as a greenhouse gas. The "explanation" of this, by an ex-chief scientist from the Met Office, is as difficult to justify as the very incomplete radiational explanations of the IPCC, whose temperature rise forecasts are so hugely variable. The subject is not well understood at a scientific level. So lets be a little objective for a change. Richard Phillips
I am so pleased to see SEAT moving forward with the NOX reducing concrete technology, I remember giving a sustainability presentation on this technology with Ecopurer to one of the worlds biggest construction and project management companies and one of the worlds biggest oil companies 20 years ago and they laughed me out of the building. Its a shame that are approach to environmental problems is still often a reactive one as opposed to a proactive one.
Hydrogen Bikes? Compressed Hydrogen between your knees? Really? That''s like sitting with a compressed Hindenberg inches from your delicates. And what happens when you get "volvo''d" and the tank ruptures? Hell, Road, Intentions, Good, Paved, to, is, with - rearrange accordingly
Olam Cocoa procures more than 9.5 metric tonnes of cocoa every year,----- factor of a million or so out?
Okay, a couple of points that need to be clarified in this report. Firstly what is the cost of the electricity that is used in the analysis? public charging points can range from 12p per kilowatt hour to 35p per kilowatt hour. Not everybody can recharge at the lower UK domestic rate of around 6p per kWh. Secondly there is a big difference between the cost of an electric vehicle and the profitability of the electric vehicle. They will only achieve mass market when the manufacturers Make the same profitability as they get with traditional cars. No one seems to be addressing this current differential. If battery prices are dropping how come LG have just increased the prices to Audi for the new model? Finally nothing is taken into account of the loss of fuel duty revenue and how that will be recovered from the owners of electric cars which in turn will affect the running costs of those vehicles. There is still a long way to go before we have a profitable transition to electric vehicles.
I am very pleased to see this article as I was very disappointed to read JP''s thoughts. It seems to me there is growing concern regarding the use of certification schemes and what they actually mean in practice. This particular scheme seems to be masking other issues, such as why has palm oil become so prevalent (because it''s cheap, maybe..? and why is it cheap, I wonder..) the issue of how we will feed a growing population. Why is there a need to de-forest at all? Calling slowing down of habitat destruction, or doing it ''more thoughtfully'', seems like a nonsense to me. Because of this I don''t buy in to some these schemes as a consumer; there is a danger that schemes that are actually delivering benefits will be overlooked as a result.