Interesting solution for ev trucks
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
DonkeyApple said:
Sequestering CO2 from the air is a load of b
ks used by shell companies to scam cash out of idiots and idiot governments.
Agreed. Now, if we have to produce CO2 from some industrial processes then I think we should capture it and not just try and pump it underground, and IMO making fuel is a lesser evil. But I don't see it being scalable for aircraft and motor vehicles.ks used by shell companies to scam cash out of idiots and idiot governments. DonkeyApple said:
The SNP have just agreed to pay Carbon Engineering to set up one of their mystical machines in Scotland because they e failed in Canada, run out of backers in North America and have managed to convince the SNP idiots that there is much more CO2 in Scottish air than Canadian air.
Well they've out down the Welsh government which is obsessed with hydrogen...It's the same with sequestering using woodland. It's not a store but a delay as the CO2 is released back. The worlds trees release as much CO2 per annum as China. 10+ gigatonnes.
As for the CO2 for unicorn synth fuels. That snake oil industry is keeping very quiet about where they're sourcing it from and why their investing in the PR spin aboit atmospheric capture. There is only one source of CO2 large enough to fulfill any kind of efuel requirement and it's the same source that the Fischer Tropsch process has always used. Fossil fuels.
DonkeyApple said:
Don't forget that you can't sequester CO2 underground. That's another tax wheeze. Once you've tapped a well down into a reservoir it can never be sealed. Start re pressurising it with a gas and that gas comes back out. We've always known this but the carbon credit industry is investing billions in trying to get everyone to forget.
We have underground gas storage...DonkeyApple said:
It's the same with sequestering using woodland. It's not a store but a delay as the CO2 is released back. The worlds trees release as much CO2 per annum as China. 10+ gigatonnes.
Trees can also live for hundreds of years, wood products can also exists for hundreds of years, and charcoal can be created through electric furnaces and buried indefinitely...Evanivitch said:
DonkeyApple said:
Don't forget that you can't sequester CO2 underground. That's another tax wheeze. Once you've tapped a well down into a reservoir it can never be sealed. Start re pressurising it with a gas and that gas comes back out. We've always known this but the carbon credit industry is investing billions in trying to get everyone to forget.
We have underground gas storage...DonkeyApple said:
It's the same with sequestering using woodland. It's not a store but a delay as the CO2 is released back. The worlds trees release as much CO2 per annum as China. 10+ gigatonnes.
Trees can also live for hundreds of years, wood products can also exists for hundreds of years, and charcoal can be created through electric furnaces and buried indefinitely...Re trees, yes a minuscule amount could be delayed further by converting into chairs. And yea you could use vast amounts of electricity to synthesise a solid and thn spend vast amounts burying it. Neither are economically feasible. The last time trees were a true store of CO2 was during the Carboniferous Era.
Diatoms are the only true means to permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Hence the importance of trying to reach net zero. The key today is for the issue to not get worse and then wait for the oceans to do what they do. Which is the fundamental plan. The only reason that these inefficient and flawed sequestering plans are being discussed is because of the global shortage of carbon credits of offsetting. The great hope in this regard being green hydrogen and true carbon credits. We remain nearly 5 years away from knowing if that is viable sadly.
This worked with trolley buses as power can be supplied to the overhead cables at very regular intervals and there were only ever one or two buses taking the power.
On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It'd look a fking mess!
I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It'd look a f
king mess!I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
Edited by TheDeuce on Sunday 14th August 18:25
TheDeuce said:
This worked with trolley buses as power can be supplied to the overhead cables at very regular intervals and there were only ever one or two buses taking the power.
On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It's look a fking mess!
I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
Yup. Cheaper to burn diesel and buy carbon credits. On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It's look a f
king mess!I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
When we look at the entire EV market everything is a succession of patches and bodges to try and work around the problem of energy storage.
There is a valid argument for taking certain aspects of transport and simply running it as cleanly as possible on diesel until the battery problem is finally resolved. Absolutely every workaround, patch and bodge being done today and for the next decade or so will all be going straight in the bin the moment efficient energy storage appears. It's just a polluting waste and a hideous cost burden on the end consumer.
Cars work for a big range of applications. Vans should be working soon. Maybe with the big problems like HGVs the intelligent solution that wastes the least amount is to simply wait?
DonkeyApple said:
TheDeuce said:
This worked with trolley buses as power can be supplied to the overhead cables at very regular intervals and there were only ever one or two buses taking the power.
On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It's look a fking mess!
I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
Yup. Cheaper to burn diesel and buy carbon credits. On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It's look a f
king mess!I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
When we look at the entire EV market everything is a succession of patches and bodges to try and work around the problem of energy storage.
There is a valid argument for taking certain aspects of transport and simply running it as cleanly as possible on diesel until the battery problem is finally resolved. Absolutely every workaround, patch and bodge being done today and for the next decade or so will all be going straight in the bin the moment efficient energy storage appears. It's just a polluting waste and a hideous cost burden on the end consumer.
Cars work for a big range of applications. Vans should be working soon. Maybe with the big problems like HGVs the intelligent solution that wastes the least amount is to simply wait?
DonkeyApple said:
TheDeuce said:
This worked with trolley buses as power can be supplied to the overhead cables at very regular intervals and there were only ever one or two buses taking the power.
On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It's look a fking mess!
I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
Yup. Cheaper to burn diesel and buy carbon credits. On a short 10 mile stretch of motorway you could have over 200 trucks hooked up all needing at least 1kwh per mile, meaning you'd need a cable that could supply 2000kwh every 10 mins.
That's some huge cable to install and support!! In reality you'd have a single high tension cable for the live pickup and another for the nuetral, and then have several lower tension wires above with connecting links to the pickup cables. But even then you would still need very frequent support structures to carry the cables and allow suitable tension. It's look a f
king mess!I can imagine that if this were fully costed it would quickly become apparent the capital cost plus maintenance exceeded the costs of bigger batteries in the trucks, along with all the other downsides and complications involved in making it all work. You'd also have a motorway that could never allow passage of very tall special loads.
When we look at the entire EV market everything is a succession of patches and bodges to try and work around the problem of energy storage.
There is a valid argument for taking certain aspects of transport and simply running it as cleanly as possible on diesel until the battery problem is finally resolved. Absolutely every workaround, patch and bodge being done today and for the next decade or so will all be going straight in the bin the moment efficient energy storage appears. It's just a polluting waste and a hideous cost burden on the end consumer.
Cars work for a big range of applications. Vans should be working soon. Maybe with the big problems like HGVs the intelligent solution that wastes the least amount is to simply wait?
But I totally agree that for freight vehicles and probably half the vans on the road, it's better to let them keep using diesel until higher density cells are available. I'd rather that than see extreme effort and expense go into a temp solution - the money would be better used to increase R&D of better cells as that technology will help ever aspect of energy generation, storage and usage for cars, trucks, the grid, smartphones and laptops etc etc etc.
I'm never a fan of embracing new tech for the sake of being greener until it's generally as good at doing the job as what we already have. For most car users, current EVs are a direct replacement and in many cases actually more convenient and simple to drive and run. But for lorries... Nothing comes close to diesel right now. You can't steal half their load carrying capacity to use for batteries and we can't realistically look to adding power cables to the road network when for all we know a solid state battery breakthrough could make it all irrelevant before the systems even in use.
delta0 said:
Buying carbon credits isn’t really going to be financially sustainable in the long term. The price forecasts on credits is a lot higher than now and the price is already rising quickly. The current price already exceed forecasts from a couple of years ago for 2030! Latest forecasts are 3-4x higher. It’s going to be non-starter economically.
That's true, but you can exempt certain vehicles if it's patently obvious that there is no viable alternative to diesel. I suspect out government won't be in a hurry to make UK trucking vastly more expensive than our neighbours as that would in turn make all our exports very uncompetitive.They can however allow the trucks to burn dyed diesel and not apply the same burden to that as white diesel.
delta0 said:
Buying carbon credits isn’t really going to be financially sustainable in the long term. The price forecasts on credits is a lot higher than now and the price is already rising quickly. The current price already exceed forecasts from a couple of years ago for 2030! Latest forecasts are 3-4x higher. It’s going to be non-starter economically.
Yup. That's why so much money is going into the green hydrogen projects. You've got the likes of VW, Ineos, JCB et al all putting in small sums to have first access to the carbon credits produced when the hydrogen is burnt in EU power stations. Same with the money getting pumped by the carbon credit market into trying to get sequestering projects signed off.
The only way EU industry can come close to the 2050 target is if new markets for credits are set up. Expect lots of bribes and bodges over the next two decades.
That's assuming the end consumer has the means to pay for all those carbon credits anyway!
And we've also got the implosion of the biofuel market yet to happen. Pushing a fuel that financially rewards deforestation and soil destruction all while people starve is an insanity that has a short shelf life.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Sunday 14th August 18:58
DonkeyApple said:
Yup. That's why so much money is going into the green hydrogen projects. You've got the likes of VW, Ineos, JCB et al all putting in small sums to have first access to the carbon credits produced when the hydrogen is burnt in EU power stations.
Same with the money getting pumped by the carbon credit market into trying to get sequestering projects signed off.
The only way EU industry can come close to the 2050 target is if new markets for credits are set up. Expect lots of bribes and bodges over the next two decades.
That's assuming the end consumer has the means to pay for all those carbon credits anyway!
And we've also got the implosion of the biofuel market yet to happen. Pushing a fuel that financially rewards deforestation and soil destruction all while people starve is an insanity that has a short shelf life.
Yep, because the tech companies are smarter at finding workarounds than the regulators are at anticipating those workarounds.Same with the money getting pumped by the carbon credit market into trying to get sequestering projects signed off.
The only way EU industry can come close to the 2050 target is if new markets for credits are set up. Expect lots of bribes and bodges over the next two decades.
That's assuming the end consumer has the means to pay for all those carbon credits anyway!
And we've also got the implosion of the biofuel market yet to happen. Pushing a fuel that financially rewards deforestation and soil destruction all while people starve is an insanity that has a short shelf life.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Sunday 14th August 18:58
It's always been that way and always will be. Not least because the politicians are advised by heads of industry who will tell them that their targets can be met to keep them happy, whilst not telling them that the plan to meet one set of targets is to indirectly undermine the intended benefits in other areas. It's a classic case of the people seeking to direct industry suffering because they don't actually have a working knowledge of that industry. It would be like me accepting a job to run NASA without knowing a damn thing about how any of it works and why - the upshot is that NASA would effectively be running me, and I wouldn't realise.
Edited by TheDeuce on Sunday 14th August 19:10
DonkeyApple said:
Yup. That's why so much money is going into the green hydrogen projects. You've got the likes of VW, Ineos, JCB et al all putting in small sums to have first access to the carbon credits produced when the hydrogen is burnt in EU power stations.
Your opinion on synthetic fuel seems somewhat at odds with your belief anyone will be burning hydrogen in power stations.Edited by DonkeyApple on Sunday 14th August 18:58
Evanivitch said:
DonkeyApple said:
Yup. That's why so much money is going into the green hydrogen projects. You've got the likes of VW, Ineos, JCB et al all putting in small sums to have first access to the carbon credits produced when the hydrogen is burnt in EU power stations.
Your opinion on synthetic fuel seems somewhat at odds with your belief anyone will be burning hydrogen in power stations.Edited by DonkeyApple on Sunday 14th August 18:58
Green hydrogen has also been around for even longer but has the same problem of never being commercially viable. HIF is the first big investment by Siemens and Enel to establish whether cheap developing world electricity can by shipped, via the medium of hydrogen to ultra high cost developed markets. If it's successful it will also create vast amounts of carbon credits and that's why some of the West's big industrial polluters are slinging in some tax deductible pocket change to have first dibs on the credits. For example, VW pumped about €20m of cash into HIF. Washed it through Porsche for the PR, span some junk about burning some hydrogen in a few race cars but have secured prime position to get the carbon credits to help offset the emissions from building cars.
Burning hydrogen is definitely not going to be happening. This produces significant greenhouse gases which is what net-zero is aimed at. Also it is better to use a hydrogen fuel cell. Even better just use a battery, saves the huge amount of energy that is lost making the hydrogen in the first place.
delta0 said:
Burning hydrogen is definitely not going to be happening. This produces significant greenhouse gases which is what net-zero is aimed at. Also it is better to use a hydrogen fuel cell. Even better just use a battery, saves the huge amount of energy that is lost making the hydrogen in the first place.
Burning, as in oxidising is precisely what is planned for almost every molecule of green hydrogen imported to Europe of HIF proves viability. Within minutes of pumping off the ship it's going to be oxidised and the electricity released to the grid. There are three reasons why it won't be burnt in cars. The first one is that there won't be any for Barry and his car. Second is that if there was, Barry couldn't afford it and the third is exactly what you say, Barry wouldn't be allowed to burn it and produce the NOx.
In short, we aren't investing in GH for transport. It's being done to be used as a medium to import cheap renewable energy. It's a massive energy price arbitrage deal with the bonus of carbon credits being produced when it's converted back to water. In decades to come, if there is a surplus then it'll be used in manufacturing of non fossil fuel fertilisers. And while all this is happening all cars in the U.K. and EUROPE will continue to convert over to EV and the closest a British car will come to GH is when it recharges it's battery with electricity that was imported using GH as the 'battery'.
DonkeyApple said:
Burning, as in oxidising is precisely what is planned for almost every molecule of green hydrogen imported to Europe of HIF proves viability. Within minutes of pumping off the ship it's going to be oxidised and the electricity released to the grid.
There are three reasons why it won't be burnt in cars. The first one is that there won't be any for Barry and his car. Second is that if there was, Barry couldn't afford it and the third is exactly what you say, Barry wouldn't be allowed to burn it and produce the NOx.
In short, we aren't investing in GH for transport. It's being done to be used as a medium to import cheap renewable energy. It's a massive energy price arbitrage deal with the bonus of carbon credits being produced when it's converted back to water. In decades to come, if there is a surplus then it'll be used in manufacturing of non fossil fuel fertilisers. And while all this is happening all cars in the U.K. and EUROPE will continue to convert over to EV and the closest a British car will come to GH is when it recharges it's battery with electricity that was imported using GH as the 'battery'.
You said burning. That requires a flame to oxidise the hydrogen which produces lots of green house gases which is why it will not be burnt. If you are talking about the oxidation process of a hydrogen fuel cell then that is much more realistic. However we will need huge excess capacity of electricity to do this. It’s roughly 30% efficient so if we decided today we wanted to produce enough green hydrogen to power the UK we would need to triple the entire UK energy supply and have it 100% green. There are three reasons why it won't be burnt in cars. The first one is that there won't be any for Barry and his car. Second is that if there was, Barry couldn't afford it and the third is exactly what you say, Barry wouldn't be allowed to burn it and produce the NOx.
In short, we aren't investing in GH for transport. It's being done to be used as a medium to import cheap renewable energy. It's a massive energy price arbitrage deal with the bonus of carbon credits being produced when it's converted back to water. In decades to come, if there is a surplus then it'll be used in manufacturing of non fossil fuel fertilisers. And while all this is happening all cars in the U.K. and EUROPE will continue to convert over to EV and the closest a British car will come to GH is when it recharges it's battery with electricity that was imported using GH as the 'battery'.
I can see where there may be uses for green hydrogen for moving energy around but in reality it is going to be a small portion of energy supplies in future.
DonkeyApple said:
delta0 said:
Burning hydrogen is definitely not going to be happening. This produces significant greenhouse gases which is what net-zero is aimed at. Also it is better to use a hydrogen fuel cell. Even better just use a battery, saves the huge amount of energy that is lost making the hydrogen in the first place.
Burning, as in oxidising is precisely what is planned for almost every molecule of green hydrogen imported to Europe of HIF proves viability. Within minutes of pumping off the ship it's going to be oxidised and the electricity released to the grid. There are three reasons why it won't be burnt in cars. The first one is that there won't be any for Barry and his car. Second is that if there was, Barry couldn't afford it and the third is exactly what you say, Barry wouldn't be allowed to burn it and produce the NOx.
In short, we aren't investing in GH for transport. It's being done to be used as a medium to import cheap renewable energy. It's a massive energy price arbitrage deal with the bonus of carbon credits being produced when it's converted back to water. In decades to come, if there is a surplus then it'll be used in manufacturing of non fossil fuel fertilisers. And while all this is happening all cars in the U.K. and EUROPE will continue to convert over to EV and the closest a British car will come to GH is when it recharges it's battery with electricity that was imported using GH as the 'battery'.
Seriously, in the not to distant future the idea of transporting thousands of tonnes of low to medium energy density fuel around the globe will be laughable. It'll be archaic. We're literally only doing it now, and looking for mildly greener ways of doing it, because we don't quite have the cell tech to make better solutions workable. We're probably not far off though.
DonkeyApple said:
Don't forget that you can't sequester CO2 underground. That's another tax wheeze. Once you've tapped a well down into a reservoir it can never be sealed. Start re pressurising it with a gas and that gas comes back out. We've always known this but the carbon credit industry is investing billions in trying to get everyone to forget.
Yes, you can. Just not in simple gaseous form. Look at Carbfix in Iceland. It works. The trick is to power it using something that in turn doesn't produce CO2. However, it is wasteful, because we're not doing anything with that CO2.DonkeyApple said:
Sequestering CO2 from the air is a load of bks used by shell companies to scam cash out of idiots and idiot governments.
Paddy Lowe is peddling this tripe at the moment for his mythical unicorn juice. No cash in his company either.
The SNP have just agreed to pay Carbon Engineering to set up one of their mystical machines in Scotland because they e failed in Canada, run out of backers in North America and have managed to convince the SNP idiots that there is much more CO2 in Scottish air than Canadian air.
What do you mean "ran out of backers in North America?" They partnered with Occidental. That plant in the Permian Basin is under construction, and Oxy announced recently a plan to build out 35 plants, and they already have a business case and launch customers for carbon credits.ks used by shell companies to scam cash out of idiots and idiot governments. Paddy Lowe is peddling this tripe at the moment for his mythical unicorn juice. No cash in his company either.
The SNP have just agreed to pay Carbon Engineering to set up one of their mystical machines in Scotland because they e failed in Canada, run out of backers in North America and have managed to convince the SNP idiots that there is much more CO2 in Scottish air than Canadian air.
That Oxy plant is capture-and-store (underground). The synthetic fuels piece is being pursued by others.
DonkeyApple said:
As for the CO2 for unicorn synth fuels. That snake oil industry is keeping very quiet about where they're sourcing it from and why their investing in the PR spin aboit atmospheric capture. There is only one source of CO2 large enough to fulfill any kind of efuel requirement and it's the same source that the Fischer Tropsch process has always used. Fossil fuels.
You do your synth fuel R&D using fossil-fuel-based CO2, whilst others build out carbon capture. Then you marry the two.Unlike you, I have huge hopes for this - but then I've been talking about it (on here and elsewhere) for at least 15 years
Had we not gone down a blind alley of trying to electrify everything then we'd have got there a lot faster IMHO.delta0 said:
You said burning. That requires a flame to oxidise the hydrogen which produces lots of green house gases which is why it will not be burnt. If you are talking about the oxidation process of a hydrogen fuel cell then that is much more realistic. However we will need huge excess capacity of electricity to do this. It’s roughly 30% efficient so if we decided today we wanted to produce enough green hydrogen to power the UK we would need to triple the entire UK energy supply and have it 100% green.
I can see where there may be uses for green hydrogen for moving energy around but in reality it is going to be a small portion of energy supplies in future.
It is quite literally, what all the investment into GH is for. Energy arbitrage. It's set to be the new way for wealthy countries full of apex consumers to rape the sI can see where there may be uses for green hydrogen for moving energy around but in reality it is going to be a small portion of energy supplies in future.
t out of developing nations. It's going to be tremendous. A new robber baron age but green, cool and simply lovely. Enel will also be testing the viability of methanol production which is also destined for burning.
delta0 said:
Burning hydrogen is definitely not going to be happening. This produces significant greenhouse gases which is what net-zero is aimed at. Also it is better to use a hydrogen fuel cell. Even better just use a battery, saves the huge amount of energy that is lost making the hydrogen in the first place.
Whilst I believe in sustainable and renewable energy, and trying to minimise emissions, I am presently not convinced by the words 'net zero' and using that as a marketing technique for doing good whilst being an absolute target come what may.We are going to be polluting, no matter what, and just because we may not be able to sense it in the same way as before, it will still exist in some other form, maybe even worse than before.
It's a bit like invading a place and over a million innocent lives there are lost in the process, but saying: "well actually we've saved one million lives elsewhere, so it's net zero deaths".
DonkeyApple said:
It is quite literally, what all the investment into GH is for. Energy arbitrage. It's set to be the new way for wealthy countries full of apex consumers to rape the st out of developing nations. It's going to be tremendous. A new robber baron age but green, cool and simply lovely.
Enel will also be testing the viability of methanol production which is also destined for burning.
I can certainly see it as a means to create energy and distribute it to other countries. t out of developing nations. It's going to be tremendous. A new robber baron age but green, cool and simply lovely. Enel will also be testing the viability of methanol production which is also destined for burning.
captain.scarlet said:
Whilst I believe in sustainable and renewable energy, and trying to minimise emissions, I am presently not convinced by the words 'net zero' and using that as a marketing technique for doing good whilst being an absolute target come what may.
We are going to be polluting, no matter what, and just because we may not be able to sense it in the same way as before, it will still exist in some other form, maybe even worse than before.
It's a bit like invading a place and over a million innocent lives there are lost in the process, but saying: "well actually we've saved one million lives elsewhere, so it's net zero deaths".
It doesn’t mean we can ignore it. We can’t legally anyway. 2050 is the deadline. It’s not optional. We are going to be polluting, no matter what, and just because we may not be able to sense it in the same way as before, it will still exist in some other form, maybe even worse than before.
It's a bit like invading a place and over a million innocent lives there are lost in the process, but saying: "well actually we've saved one million lives elsewhere, so it's net zero deaths".
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff