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)”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.
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.
The Leuser ecosystem is one of the most biodiverse in the world, and is the only place where tiger orangutans elephants and rhino can all be found in the same place (and this ignores various special species such as bears and gibbons among many others, which still call this ecosystem home).
This deforestation, carried out to create palm oil plantations, is even occurring within a national park – somewhere where the rules means that a plantation cannot be given a licence. 2 new palm oil processing mills have sprung up near the deforesting concessions: keeping these supplied may well, now be driving further deforestation. Below is a 219 second documentary on this fascinating ecosystem.
The origin of elephants in Borneo is unknown. Known for hosting the smallest elephants in the world, there are 2 theories as to how the elephants got to the island. The first is that they were released by a ruler in the 17th century (The most rapid population growth ever seen was 7,1% after the end of poaching in a reserve in Tanzania, a population of 30 elephants could become 1000 in just 50 years) – if this was the case, then their loss would not be bad; and the second is that actually the elephants arrived on the islands hundreds of thousands of years ago (as high as 300,000 years).
It is increasingly agreed that the second one of these ideas is likely to be correct. Though having said this, genetic analysis suggests that the whole population started with just 28 elephants.
Just 1000 are found on the island at the current time.
All wildlife on Borneo is at threat, as the palm oil industry continues to demand increasing quantities of prime rainforest be cut down. As this happens, elephants are forced into human areas, in their search for food, and then into conflict.
The Borneo elephant has only recently been assessed by the IUCN red list as a separate subspecies, but it is hoped that this recognition might increase tourism on this species as well as conservation dollars to save this species from its slow slide towards extincion
Increasingly, it seems Shell is a company which repeatedly makes pledges when the light is on them, and then backs away, when no one is looking any more.
In the summer, they dropped a pledge to turn 1 million tonnes of plastic a year, back into oil. They now say that this goal is unfeasible. Advanced, or chemical recycling, involves breaking down plastic polymers into tiny molecules, ready to be reformed into something else. The most common method is called pyrolysis – which uses heat.
They first used pyrolysis in 2019, when they made oil using this process in a Louisiana chemical plant. It should be noted, that this uses so much energy, it is likely to be worse for the worlds climate than continued use of virgin plastics (this is not to say that we should, but that this is not a viable solution). Shell has suggested that this pledge is impossible as a result of not enough plastic waste coming back to them, but as hundreds of millions of plastic is created each year, this seems rather a cop-out.
They are not the only company to back away, but they are the latest. It should not be possible to get off the hook by simply making a declaration, but instead should require them to do something else that will have a similarly positive impact on the world
Rioting and protesting are both activities that many would consider annoying. Yet, they are very different. Rioting, is a totally illegal activity, and the rioter in question punched a police officer in the face – he was given 3 years in prison. The Just Stop Oil protester was involved in a zoom call to talk about blocking the M25 and was given 5 years.
Peaceful protest is a protected right in the UK. It is true, that blocking a motorway is not covered, but there is an increasing part of the UK population which are so worried about this, and the governments low priority of this, that they could condone action like motorway blocking.
This law was only passed in 2022, and appears to be a direct attack on the right to peaceful protest. With Labour having recently taken power, we would hope that this ridiculous expansion of powers, and destruction of long-valued British rights might get reversed, but we will have to wait and see.
Life is hard in the Indonesian rainforest – compared to Africa and South America, there is very little to be found to eat (except in specific areas. As a result, orangutans become solitary, with the only time they are seen together is a mother with young, or a courting couple. Another problem, is demonstrated here – there is so little food to be had, that every food opportunity has to be realized. This has meant that orangutans have become the best climbers (followed by Chimpanzee and then Gorilla), as where ever the food is, it needs to be accessed.
It is true, that with tools, humans can become even better climbers (as can be seen from the image), which is taken from further up the tree than the orangutans have even climbed.
Continue reading “Orangutans climb incredibly high – no space for acrophobia”
The UK watchdog (amongst many other groups) have concluded that hydrogen boiler is a stupid idea. It is true that its only waste product is water and oxygen, but the cost of making the hydrogen is very high.
Should there be large quantities of hydrogen sitting around, then this might make sense – burning hydrogen is generally a very clean fuel. The problem is, that it is almost impossible to store or transport it without loosing much on route, and it is incredibly expensive to split water – the current form for the vast majority of the hydrogen on the planet. Fossil fuel companies are keen, because their old methods can extract and split hydrogen, but it will mean large carbon emissions as well, so is useless – there is a reason that it is called grey hydrogen. Green hydrogen is the only kind that will give us any profit as a world.
So why is the government supporting the switch (alongside gas focused industry). The department for energy security and net zero stated this week that the gas network ” will always be part of our energy system”. I am not sure why anyone would look at it, given an air-source heat pump is likely to be around price parity, and ground source heating even cheaper.
Installation, at the cheap end will be far cheaper than a heat-pump, but this will be more than made up for over the lifetime of the device. Furthermore, with the grants currently available, you are far better off going straight to a heat pump. This is a waste of time and money, and it would not be remotely surprising, if you had to remove it before the end of its life,as it would be costing too much
Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in
