Wildlife and conservation new, wild travel information and links for booking
While these fuels power much of the creation of electricity around the world, as well as most transport and heating, they all need to either be left in the ground or 100% of their emissions. Below is a roundup of a group of articles of importance on these subjects.
Uk’s £22 billion carbon capture pledge follows surge in lobbying by fossil fuel industry, records show
Continue reading “Oil, Gas and coal roundup ( more in future)”
The car industry has done a great job over the last roughly 30 years, of confusing people. It was once the case, that there were 2 different states – the first cars were electric (so suggesting that modern electric cars are a new technology is ridiculous) and then we developed internal combustion engine vehicles. This meant that there were 2 different types of propulsion 1. fossil fuels (petrol, diesel) or 2. electric cars, charged from the mains.
Toyota developed the Prius back in 1997. At the time, a huge step forwards – it only had a battery of 1.3kwh, but this was enough to store energy recovered from braking and release it back, when the car was able to start moving again. This was the first mild hybrid as it is now called.
Continue reading “Motoring body saying “UK needs to ban full hybrid cars by 2030 or face net zero ‘catastrophe’ (only cars that can drive on pure electricity)”
Unfortunately, this is an article that does not need much work. Unless we find an insane quantity of hydrogen buried under the ground somewhere (and it would have to be infinite to really count), the question is, how much electricity does it take to make 1kg of hydrogen and how far can the car drive on it? If this is more than an electric car, then perhaps Norway has a point.
Continue reading “Norway has released an engine that runs on hydrogen – does this end electric cars future?”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”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.
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 whalesPictures 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.
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.
The UK has set a hard target of 100% green electricity by 2030, but unfortunately, at the current time, its investments are not keeping up with its targets.
It is estimated that the UK need £48 billion to get to this target in time. This target would require a doubling of the onshore wind capacity, a tripling of solar power and a quadrupling of offshore wind capacity.
The current thinking, is that the UK is just half way to the wind energy target in 2030, however with solar it is worse. Currently we have roughly 15GW installed capacity, but it is predicted that we need 70GW to meet our target. Current progress suggests that we will hit 44% renewable by then, which is far short of the 69% that would be required.
What is worse, is that at this rate, gas will still account for 29% of energy which would be more than the individual contribution of Solar, onshore wind or offshore wind. It should be noted, that it is thought that meeting this target on time, will be worth far more in savings, but there does not seem to be enough urgency from the UK government to push this forwards.
It should be noted, that we have just had a change of government, and if Labour continues as it has started, we should get back on track.
In the summer, a government report found that the policies put in place by Rishi Sunak were only good enough to meet roughly 1/3 of the carbon reduction that we had pledged to make in the Paris climate agreement of 68%.
This vast wind farm can produce around 3.6 gigawatts of power when turned on. To put that in perspective, peak demand in the UK is currently around 61 gigawatt hours, This means that even at peak demand, this wind turbine is capable of providing roughly 5% of the UK power demand. By contrast, the average house in the UK has a low-point in power demand, during the night, when around 0.2kwh is used an hour. This equates to around 5gigawatt hours. In other words, this single wind farm is likely to be able to deal with all baseload demands of the UK housing. Of course there is other demand, from shop lights being left on, to night shifts in factories.
However, what is clear, is that this is a significant amount of power, and is likely to greatly reduce the amount of gas required to be burnt for power production.
Given that this adds to the already installed stock, we now can create around 30gwh of electricity from wind – when it is at its peak.
Now, of course the wind does not blow at this required rate to produce the maximum amount of power 24 hours a day, so these numbers are not available all day.
To put these numbers in context, in 2022, wind delivered around 26% of UK electricity. Given all the large wind farms planned, this will grow.
Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in
