So-called experts are claiming that the first ultra-compact engine which has just been unveiled, will be the end of EVsTransport roundup: cleaner cars and planes

Who are these so called experts? What is there expertise in, and do other experts agree? Their expertise does not appear to have much backing it.

This engine weighs just under 11kg, and they believe that, as it delivers better efficiency and emission control, all within a sleek design. In the literature, so much is made of the efficiency of this engine, but that misses the point. They suggest that this efficiency closes the gap between combustion engines and electric ones.

This misses the point: electric cars are zero carbon at use. Therefore, the cleaner the grid gets, the lower the carbon will be. As such, it is all very well to compare electric cars now, to an experimental engine that will be in cars in a generation or two. However, in 2 generations, it is thought that most countries will have further greened their grid, leaving the electric car still ahead.

We drive an electric car, and as we pay our electricity company for 100% clean electricity, our carbon emissions are essentially zero (particularly, as we bought the car second hand). One could, quite rightly, argue that not all the electricity that we use comes from zero carbon electricity – instead, we use whatever electricity is being created at the time. But that is the point- our supplier buys enough zero carbon electricity to cover all our use, therefore, if they were supplying everyone in the country a 100% zero carbon electricity, they would have to buy enough green electricity for everyone. That could only be done by all the electricity in the country being green.

So, in short – suggesting an uber efficient small ICE engine used 10-20 years in the future is more efficient than an electric car driven on the grid now, is not a fair comparison. It is like comparing the price of apples now, to the price of futures in oranges next year. Do not buy into it. If every person in the UK drove an electric car, carbon emissions would be far lower, than if everyone drove the most efficient ICE car that has, or ever will be made (this seems pretty obvious, do not get hoodwinked).

Continue reading “So-called experts are claiming that the first ultra-compact engine which has just been unveiled, will be the end of EVsTransport roundup: cleaner cars and planes”

Electrical and heat battery news roundup

In Finland, a so-called sand battery (it is actually full of crushed soapstone) has been built, which is capable of storing around 100MW of heat. The crushed soapstone is a by protudct of a fireplace production factory nearby. It is true that this heat battery is large, with a height of around 13m and width of 15m, but it can in theory be buried in the ground. It takes 2000 tonnes to fill this heat battery, but this is just 40 waste trucks worth.

It will serve as a thermal battery, with pipes running through it. It can be heated in the Summer when there is cheap or even free power, and then water run through pipes in the material can extract the energy in winter, powering a district heating network – greatly reducing the emissions from heating houses in the whole area (it is estimated that it will reduce emissions by 70%)

The Soapstone leftover, was a wasted product, and before was just thrown away, so this is a far better use. This “sand” battery can hold heats of around 500 degrees for months if required, and is thought to completely eliminate the need for oil in the network heating system. it equates to roughly 1 month of heating requirements in summer, and 1 week in winter. Costing around $200,000, compared to $1,600,000 for the equivalent lithium battery, it is a good deal. While it is true that it would take around 30 of these to keep the town going for a year and it only supports 100 houses and a public swimming pool, but there is huge quantities of similar waste created around the globe, and therefore is capable of doing far more than one would think.

Simulations of the same idea, in Seoul have suggested at up to 39% savings. It is thought, that as the deployment of solar increases, there will be huge amounts of excess power to be pumped into things like this. Some countries have wonderful quantities of excess electricity in the summer, and while we need to ramp up the quantity of solar wild and other zero carbon electricity, this gives us a route to a zero carbon world.

UK scientists created the worlds first diamond battery, capable of giving power for thousands of years. It is made from synthetic diamonds, which contain a radioactive element called carbon 14. The battery makes electricity from this radiation, much in the way that solar panels work. This battery would still be at 50% power after 5000 years. From devices that need powering in your body, to deep in the sea or in space.

At the end of their lives, these batteries can go back to the manufacturers to be recycled. There is much work being done on this, not least looking at other radioactive elements, to increase the power output.

Carbon nanotubes store triple the energy of lithium batteries. New research shows that twisted nanotubes can store high densities of energy – triple that of lithium weight for weight. It is thought that these could power things like medical implants. Of course, this is great, though only adds to the potential long list of things that nanotubes can do if we can learn to reliably create them in the future. In bigger sizes, it is calculated that these carbon nanotubes can store 15,000 times more per unit mass, than steel springs.

These are both areas which I write on, regularly, so check back for more news. I should also note, that these roundup articles should allow a return to focusing on wildlife rather than clean tech soon.

Deforestation and palm oil stories: Deforestation is not a desire, there is demand for what is done with the land

Cattle in a newly deforested area on the edge of more Amazon rainforest – threatened in the future? photo credit Alice Mitchel

The problem with stopping deforestation, is that for the majority of the world we are far removed from rainforests (from where I sit in the UK, I would have to travel 3250km (over 2000 miles) to the nearest rainforest, which is an area on mainland India). Indeed, rainforest is generally something that only survives in developing countries.

This means that, for most people, they either live far removed from the rainforest, and so cant see it impacting them, or they live near a rainforest, but are struggling to provide for their family and those around them. It is quite true that many people in both the first and third world would like the rainforest to survive – indeed, should you talk to people in the west, many are very worried about the survival of the great apes, who are rapidly loosing land.

The problem is simple. Those living in the third world are living hand to mouth, so unless they work in tourism, the rainforest is often an inconvenience that makes life harder.

In 2023 a total of 6.4 hectares of forest were destroyed – more than 25,000 square miles. However, more concerning is the fact that 62.6 million hectares of forest (almost quarter of a million square miles) was degraded – for road building, logging, and forest fires. Degraded land is often less good for carbon storage, as well as conservation of the worlds wild species. It is often, then not long, before someone comes along a removes the rest of the plants so that the land can be used for something else.

And what was this deforestation for (other than logs)? Beef, soy, palm oil paper and nickel.

The Brazilian Amazon is one of the bright spots, where since the election of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, deforestation has fallen 62%. Unfortunately, in the same time period, Indonesia’s deforestation is up 57%

It seems hard to see how the world will meet its goal of cutting deforestation to zero by 2030 as most countries have pledged. Also, despite reductions in deforestation, the Amazon has had one of the hardest years in terms of forest fires – something that only gets more likely as rainforests are lost, and climate change increases the temperature in many parts of the world. It is a sad fact, that there is often not a great deal of temperature difference between a rainforest which is functioning, and one that dries out and becomes a fire hazard.

Having said all this… a study in Indonesia has found that controlled low-intensity logging doesn’t have to negatively impact a forest in terms of carbon storage or food availability – this in turn means that much wildlife can survive.

The problem often is that if the land is in private hands, then low- intensity logging is not going to happen. If the landowner has decided to deforest, they will raze the land. In national parks, in theory low intensive logging would be possible, but this would require people to control the logging, and this is the issue that we have in the first place. Unfortunately, despite the pledge by 140 countries, deforestation is coming back.

In a related subject, the Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto has stated that palm oil expansion won’t deforest because palm oil has leaves. There are many issues with this, but perhaps primarily amongst them, when forests are cut down, they are usually replaced with grass lands for grazing cattle – these are also covered in leaves. This is obviously stupid – it may well be a better thing, that the rainforest is going to be replaced with plantations, but it has been shown that palm oil plantations take up a tiny proportion of the carbon that rainforests take up.

In another article, there was a finding that macaques living in palm oil plantations have an alarming infant mortality. Unfortunately, these macaques are not unique in being threatened by palm oil, but others include orangutans, elephants, tigers, pangolins, bonobos, and Irrawaddy dolphins.

While palm oil may be a better vegetable oil than other crops, it still looks like it will lead to us loosing most of our rainforests, unless a grip on this is found.

Toyota was a climate hero in the 1990s, why is it now to exact opposite?

I have spent a great deal of time, recently, working on a variety of areas of the website that I hope to become important in the near future (including members areas). During this time, I miss writing on these subjects, so I would open tabs on news articles that had caught my eye – when I turned my attention back, there were more than 1000 tabs. Several hundred are wildlife news, which I will deal with in the near future, but the rest have been grouped. There is a long video embeded in the bottom of the page, which gives similar information but in more detail, if you would prefer (produced by the electric viking)

This grouping is stories about Toyota, and its various moves which appear to clearly show their moves to make the climate worse not better.

Continue reading “Toyota was a climate hero in the 1990s, why is it now to exact opposite?”

Why are people determined to believe that wind turbines kill whales

Coastal Australia is having another flare-up where locals are suggesting that wind turbines are killing whales. If this were the case, it would mean that those who want to save the planet would need to choose between climate change and conservation of whales.

Read more: Why are people determined to believe that wind turbines kill whales

Pictures put up, include images of whales on fire, among others – paid for Newcastle adn Port Stephens Game Fish Club. They suggested that the posters highlighted risks that were known for the whales, but there is no credible evidence that wind turbines have any impact on whales (except during building, but as the picture shows this is short-lived). Indeed Quentin Hanich who is the editor of the academic journal Marine Policy recently had to spend a week debunking a fake article that purported to come from his publication, which claimed that 400 whales would die a year, if a proposed wind farm went ahead. While the facebook post where it originated was taken down, the fake articles can be written far faster than they can be taken down. This offshore wind farm in New south Wales, is opposed by everyone from locals to MPs from outside the region – usually because the are opposed to renewable energy development.

This seems short-sighted- while Australia does have a large coal industry, most is exported (only around 30% is used in the country, and coal in electricity generation is now so much more expensive than almost any renewable generation, that its days are numbered) and of Japan,South Korea, Taiwan,and India which takes the majority, only India does not have a 2050 pledge of zero carbon – so if those promises are to be kept, the market for most of the coal will disappear within the next 25 years.

Opposition has been fanned by the coalition, and people like Baraby Joyce (a renewable energy opponent and climate change denier) have been loudly stating that support for renewables was a cult and the people should fight back.

Amanda De Lore is also fighting against it, and suggest that the 3 month consultation period was rushed and hidden (it was not) and that offshore wind is “not clean, green energy”. She stated that the project was not taking her groups concerns into consideration. However, when concerns are raised which do not conform with reality (like suggesting that offshore wind turbines are not green) they should be ignored. Importantly, when you compare the death toll of offshore wind turbines to a coal power plant, the numbers are stark with thousands more species killed by coal power.

This is part of the issue with public consultation. When opponents lace the population with falsehoods, you find yourself having to engage in a years-long effort to correct, before you can even have an intelligent conversation.

What do we do when carbon offset markets collide with land rights

Stable glaciers are very effective carbon sinks, though if they then melt, they tend to loose all their stored carbon

The problem with carbon offsets, entirely depends on how they are used. When carbon offset money is given to a local project, but many try to buy an area from locals entirely. Kenya currently hosts 11 glaciers within Mount Kenya national park.

The problem is that, many of these projects require a rainforest to be left standing or something similar. Without buying from locals, and an income from the carbon offset to support the people who will loose access to the resource, it is highly unlikely that the deforestation rate will fall at all.

Much of these offset programs are being set up in Africa, on a continent which has the least responsibility for climate change, and yet local people are loosing the rights to land that they have lived on for millennia.

Just how endangered is the Vanuatu dugong? First survey since 1988 underway

The quiet bays in the Melanesian archipelago are perfect for the sea grass meadows, which in turn means that it is fantastic for dugongs – animals also known as sea cows. Just a few years ago, these animals were a regular sight. Growing up to 4m long and 400kg, just a few years ago, it would not be an unusual day when you would see one of these animals in both the morning and afternoon. Now they are rarely seen.

Officially, they are only classed as vulnerable (one of the lowest forms of endangered), but given how long it has been, it is unclear how the population is doing. However, unfortunately, given fishermen (and other people on the wate), are encountering them so rarely, it is likely to have got worse. Dogongs in this area behave differently to Australia where they have huge seagrass meadows, so this full survey is certainly required.

Read more: Just how endangered is the Vanuatu dugong? First survey since 1988 underway

It would be another area, where a growth in the ecotourism industry (ethical – not damaging the animals or stressing them) could be fantastic. Many surveys done on sea mammals, take on tourists to reduce their cost. Personally, I will always look for a research boat, as they want to be there, and will not go out if there is no chance of sightings.

The next-door population of New Caledonia was recently downgraded to endagered, and the east African population is classed as critically endangered.

Globally, the threats to these animals include gill-net fishing, boat traffic, coastal development and even hunting. Unfortunately, climate change is also a threat – rainstorms are becoming far more common, and these are damaging the seagrass, alongside cyclones.

Currently, it is estimated that the world looses 7% of its seagrass meadows each year. This should be concerning, as sea grass has a roughly equal ability to draw down carbon dioxide to land rainforests – so the more we loose the harder it will become to halt global warming. It should also be noted, seagrasses grow more healthily with dugongs present – help keep seagrass beds healthy by grazing on them, which controls their growth and disperses their seeds. This process is called “cultivation grazing”. The benefits on seagrasses include growth control (rapid growth can be bad for the long-term survival of the seagrass), disperse seeds (often with some ‘fertilizer’, which can help the seeds grow particularly well- and like various plants and elephants, seeds that have gone through a dugongs digestive tract is more likely to grow than those that do not), Improve genetic diversity (dugongs move between areas of the meadow, and take seeds with them) and help recovery after cyclones (by connecting areas of the meadow, reseeding meadows in danger from elsewhere where they are doing alright).

Unfortunately, this makes the dugong a keystone species – therefore, its loss would have a very negative impact on the whole ecosystem. Other species that rely on seagrass including sea turtles, manatees, a wide array of fish, many sharks are born in the seagrass, including lemon sharks nurse sharks, and bull sharks. A wide array of birds are similarly reliant.

Could Bison allow the land to reduce air pollution? – Yes

A small herd of 170 bison, released into a 20 square miles area of Tarcu mountains in Romania, are estimated to allow the land to capture 59,000 tones of carbon each year.

Big animals like this, stimulate the soil and plant growth, allowing the soil and plant growth to take up far more carbon than without them. Although Romania is one of the wildest countries in Europe, the European Bison was lost around 200 years ago. Between 2014 and 2021, 100 bison were reintroduced into the area, and that population has naturally grown such that there are now 170.

Scientists estimate that the lands carbon storing potential is as much as 10 times greater with the bison (they suggest that it is between 5 and 15 times more carbon.

Continue reading “Could Bison allow the land to reduce air pollution? – Yes”

Stored carbon dioxide ( the so-called Carbon dome) could become a giant battery, but will batteries kill it?

Huge carbon dioxide stores, with the gas held at high pressure (and therefore liquid, have been shown to be able to hold vast amounts of energy, and the ability to be released on demand.

Energy Dome’s CO2 Battery system has currently been show to be able to store and generate up to 24.5 megawatts (MW) of power (with 12 acres expected to be able to store up to 200MW), which sounds very impressive…. but…. current battery power means that 1 MW of battery can fit in a 20 by 40 foot container, which means that 1 acre could theoretically take 200MW of batteries.

When first thought of, it was thought that this would allow energy done to store energy at a cost of roughly $200 per kwh. At the time, lithium batteries cost $300 per kwh, however this has halved to just $150.

In other words, lithium batteries (and this assumes no breakthrough in sodium batteries or something else) are cheaper, smaller, simpler and safer – so why would you look to create another form of electricity storage, that is worse on so many levels.

Our behaviour may be still pushing the Northern right whale to extinction – entanglements may use as much energy as rearing all young

The Northern right whale was hunted to the brink of extinction – with less than 500 left when hunting ended. To put this in perspective, only 300 Southern right whales were left when hunting stopped, it is thought that there are now 3000-4000 Southern right whales.

Now, it is true that historically the Southern right whale is thought to have numbered as 55,000-70,000 individuals, suggesting that the current population is 3-5% of historic numbers.

However, the current estimate for the Northern right whale population is 386. While has the Southern right whale population grown over 1000%, and in the same time, the northern right whale population declined?

What is different?

Continue reading “Our behaviour may be still pushing the Northern right whale to extinction – entanglements may use as much energy as rearing all young”
See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers