Btw... a mining magnate attacks the fossil fuel bosses? Hah...

Renewable energies require gigantic amounts of mineral resources: cement, sand, steel, copper, rare earths, ... This hunger for resources leads to gigantic environmental damage from mining, especially in developing and emerging countries with lax environmental laws. The use of mineral resources per MW of output or MWh of energy is disastrous compared to any fossil or nuclear power plant in many regions (depends on local climate). The green industry bosses don't like us to know. Repeat our confession! Wind and solar are green, ecological, and sustainable. A creed whose criticism amounts to heresy, even if green pundits would demand to build subsidized solar plants everywhere in Greenland or wind turbines along the Equator.

Well that was all about nothing really.

COP28 draft agreement omits plan to phase out fossil fuels, angering Pacific leaders.

So it's basically business as usual. :-(

Our fossil fuel loving right wing political parties after their fall from grace started peddling the idea of installing SMR's at fossil fuel power station sites as they're retired across the country, but that proposal has been shot to pieces.

Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds.


As if they didn't get the country in enough debt the last time that they were in, but they want us to get into more if we let them back in.

Unbelievable. :-O

Rental giant Hertz dumps EVs, including Teslas, for gas cars

Jan 11 (Reuters) - Rental firm Hertz Global Holdings (HTZ.O) is selling about 20,000 electric vehicles, including Teslas, from its U.S. fleet about two years after a deal with the automaker to offer its vehicles for rent, in another sign that EV demand has cooled.

Hertz will instead opt for gas-powered vehicles, it said on Thursday, citing higher expenses related to collision and damage for EVs even though it had aimed to convert 25% of its fleet to electric by 2024 end.

That's a curious one...

There is more to that story?...


All on our only one world...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Yes. America is BIG. Disney World to Disneyland is 2500 miles. Rental cars are for long trips. That isn't a strong point for EV's. EV's have near zero resale value so depreciation is too big a hit for a rental car company. FYI two years is about the life of a rental car anyway. It isn't the mechanical but the soft interior that gets beat up. Car companies don't make the interiors for three year old cars!

When the loony right wing deniers get in the way, you take a big stick to them.

States with big climate goals strip local power to block green projects.

Clean energy developers had planned a 75-turbine wind farm in mid-Michigan’s Montcalm County before local voters shot down the idea in 2022 and recalled seven local officials who had supported it.

About 150 miles (240 kilometers) southeast, Clara Ostrander in Monroe County found herself at the center of a similar conflict as rising medical costs forced her and her husband to consider selling land her family has owned for 150 years.

Leasing a parcel to an incoming solar farm could save the property, but neighboring residents complained so vehemently that Ostrander said the township changed its zoning to block the project.

“There are people in this township I will never, ever speak to again,” she said.

Local restrictions in Michigan derailed more than two dozen utility-scale renewable energy projects as of last May, according to a study by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Nationwide, and at least 228 restrictions in 35 states have been imposed to stop green energy projects.

The conflicts have hindered many states’ aggressive timelines for transitioning to cleaner energy production, with the ultimate goal of eliminating carbon pollution within the next two decades.

Michigan and more than a dozen other states are seeking to upend the decision-making process by grabbing the power to supersede local restrictions and allow state authorities to approve or disapprove locations for utility-scale projects.

The shift has sparked a political backlash that may escalate as more states seek to simplify getting green energy projects approved and built.

“We can’t allow projects of statewide importance that are critical to our state energy security to be vetoed on purely local concerns,” said Dan Scripps, chair of Michigan’s Public Service Commission.

Scripps and two other commission members now have the power to site large-scale renewable energy projects in the state under legislation passed by Michigan lawmakers and signed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in November.

Michigan joined Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Minnesota in requiring utility providers to transition to 100% carbon-free electricity generation by 2040. A sixth state, Rhode Island, is shooting for 100% renewable energy by 2033. The goals are consistent with the Biden administration’s target of carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and a net-zero emissions economy by 2050. Other states have long-standing goals lower than 100%......

Continuing denial of human consequences:


‘Safe’ air-quality levels in US, UK and EU still harmful for health, study says
wrote:

Even small amount of exposure to minute soot particles – known as PM2.5 – raises the risk of cardiovascular disease

Stay safe folks?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The data safety sheet for H2O has a LD50 level.

The data safety sheet for H2O has a LD50 level.

Meaning what regarding this thread topic?


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The data safety sheet for H2O has a LD50 level.

Meaning what regarding this thread topic?

Median lethal dose. I don't know if Gary means toxicity of... or drowning in... water.

[EDIT to add:] I also think that compared to the air pollution 50 years ago (and the laws back then), we have excellent air quality today. This can still be improved a little further with a lot of effort. Does that make sense? I assume that's what Gary's comment intended.

On the other hand, there are hundreds of permitted substances in food chemistry, some of which are probably very harmful to health in the long term, but which are not yet covered by laws and regulations. That doesn't bother us so far.

Close. Everything is dangerous to life.

So what is the LD50 for whatever his complaint is for?

Twiggy blasts the right wing coalition and calls for the end of subsidies that support the fossil fuel industry.

Andrew Forrest slams fossil fuel industry and Coalition for nuclear energy 'bulldust'.

It's the same everywhere, in Australia or in Europe. There is a black and white discussion. Nuclear: yes/no. Wind: yes/no. Solar: yes/no. We only move forward when we go back to the beginning. What do we want? Put up wind turbines? Cover square miles of fields with solar cells? H2-ready gas power plants? More Nuclear reactors? No! We want to reduce CO2 emissions on a global scope, not within our region, not in theory, not in an accounting calculation,... but IN REALITY. In Germany we still follow the ideology of 100% wind and solar. We'll need a few more years to admit the total failure of our strategy. (Electricity supplies will be at risk, our import dependance grows fast, customer tariffs continue to rise, large industry is leaving the country, small industries are losing competitiveness which only relocates our CO2 footprint to distant countries). Electrical engineers and economists have clearly identified the fundamental misconceptions in detailed reports. Our politicians continue to blindly follow their green ideology. Their answer to electrical limits: more wind turbines... to physical limits: hydrogen... to economic limits: more subsidies. Doomed to failure.

We have to look at reality: Today's LCOE comparisons between wind, solar or nuclear are complete nonsense. When it comes to renewables (intermittent, unrealiable sources), the costs of backup capacities, which are essential to operate a transmission grid are not taken into account. Electricity feed-in has to follow (in Europe) 15 minute slots (365d * 24h * 4 slots per hour). In every slot, feed-in energy must serve the load... or blackout. Transmission distance: With massive proportion of renewables compared to fossil power plants, electricity is transmitted over much longer distances which stresses our existing transmission grid to the limits. Thus, our 100% Wind&Solar strategy requires a gigantic grid expansion... almost building another transmission grid to the existing one. Current plans calculate costs of 200...500 billion Euros for Germany alone. Poles of overhead lines are made of tons of steel which have a CO2 footprint too. Workers climbing 400 kilovolt overhead lines are rare specialists. The rotating masses of the synchronous turbo generators of fossil power plants provide extensive storage of instantaneous energy (rotational energy) free of charge. Indispensable for the stability of the grid. No wind or solar farm provides it (asynchronous AC generators). Reactive current compensation... and other electrical engineering details. Replacing them costs a lot of money. This is all part of the LCOE of renewables if you want to do a fair, realistic comparision of LCOE.

Instead politicians initiate impressive projects, lots of plans, presentations on paper, but almost impossible to implement in reality until our fossils should be dismantled.

They say LNG is more CO2 efficient than coal? Our gas power plants will be converted to burn hydrogen. On a sheet of paper or in reality? Does it save CO2 to liquify methane, then transport it halfway around the globe? Unknown gas leaks, losses everywhere.... Ouuch methane is a more potent climate killer than CO2. Never mind!

It's necessary to move away from ideology and the simple green mantras. Back to small-scale economic calculation in balance sheets everywhere, on every level. How much does it cost? How much CO2 savings does it achieve IN REALITY? Is that efficient?

Renewable energies must be able to supply electricity markets without fixed feed-in tariffs. They have to market their electricity in 35,040 time slots over the year (i.e. provide backup capacity themselves or bind it contractually). CO2 exhaust certificates help to achieve that. More market liberalism, less political plans. And no bans on technologies, whether nuclear fission or fusion or whatsoever... [EDIT to add:] including all fossils. don't ban them; let them compete for CO2 certificates.

If we can get rid of ideology the energy system of the future supposedly will be consisting of lots of wind turbines, lots of solar, but also many nuclear power plants. ...and eventually also hydrogen-based energy storage. We should immediately develop CCS (carbon storage&capture) technology and provide it to emerging economies which don't have the money we spend for crazy ideologic experiments. But try to start a CCS discussion in Germany and you will be confronted with an outcry against. Burning million tons of our local dirty lignite for another twenty years is okay for these NIMBY's, but storing CO2 below surface is dangerous and evil.

... Unfortunately, the various "carbon capture" projects are all little more than "greenwash" and simply will remain too inefficient, far too costly by far, and are on far too small a scale to be useful.

In short: Not practical.

We do far better with improved less polluting farming practices!


There are better ways...

But fully agreed that we need a much more holistic and practical approach rather than allowing the politicians to forever procrastinate whilst they kick the problem along, never-never time, to their next term of government.

All on our only one planet...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Unfortunately, the various "carbon capture" projects are all little more than "greenwash" and simply will remain too inefficient, far too costly by far, and are on far too small a scale to be useful.

The Norwegians tell different. They start to capture and liquify CO2 from their cement industry to then pump it down to deep underground exhausted gas deposits (underground mineralization of CO2). They look for cooperation with European countries. They have the geological and geophysical expertise (oil and gas industry) to do this, a reliable regulation through a stable government as well. We have to wait and see. Maybe that's a transition path for their (state owned) fossil ressources industry from oil&gas extraction to CO2 storage in the future. They also have the money to do it large scale and Norwegians are smart people, not known to invest money into non-profitable projects.
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/carbon-capture-and-storage/
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/landingssider/ny-side/sporsmal-og-svar-om-langskip-prosjektet (FAQ in English)

We do far better with improved less polluting farming practices!

Farmers explain they would have to work their fields twice as often if they would do without chemical pesticides (Monsanto & Co.). Less chemicals, but more diesel consumption. Difficult trade-offs. But clearly: fewer farm animals, more vegetarian food saves CO2.

But fully agreed that we need a much more holistic and practical approach rather than allowing the politicians to forever procrastinate whilst they kick the problem along, never-never time, to their next term of government.

Procrastinating is wrong. But a hasty, purely ideological based approach is also wrong. We can witness both extremes at different countries in Europe.

I read an opinion somewhere, that decisions on energy policy or the transformation of energy systems are incompatible with today's decision making in democracies:

• decisions have long term consequences, take decades to implement, are extremely costly and hard to adjust if defective
  
• election terms of parliaments, thus political horizons of governments are far too short for this
  
• public discussion favoures progressive ideologues (lacking competences) over responsible scientific experts or expert professionels
  

So, not politicians but a suitable group of selected, established experts from the relevant scientific and practical fields (economy, electric engineering, physics, ...) should be responsible for strategies, preparing decisions, counseling governments. The crucial point is to defend such council against short-termed political influence or the dirty old games of industry lobbyists. Maybe that's a theoretical idea, never achievable in a real world inhabited by imperfect human beings.

Just another moronic denier who tries to defends the indefensible (as well as his pay packet).

The head of one of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies has spoken of a “dirty secret” in the fight against climate change.

In another story 1 has to wonder why they were the only idiots to put that seal in the 1st place when ho one else did.

Coles 2 litre and 3 litre home-brand milk cartons to become recyclable as bottle seals are phased out.

You really have to wonder where these companies come up with these lame excuses from.

Note that this is known from over a 100 years ago!

Apparently Strange Quantum Effects Turn CO2 Into Into a Greenhouse Gas

So... We knew of the effects of all that all that time ago. Ya can't say any of the subsequent consequences are any surprise...



Meanwhile, as part of those deadly consequences:

New Evidence Suggests Record-Breaking Hurricanes Are Coming

And all the deadly Denial is swept away?



All ongoing on our only one planet...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

A profitably convenient Denial:


MPs and activists challenge claim North Sea oil and gas supports 200,000 jobs
wrote:

Government has repeatedly used figure to justify more fossil fuel developments despite climate crisis

Are 200,000 jobs really supported by the oil and gas industry in the North Sea?...

... the most recent Office for National Statistics data suggests 27,600 people are directly employed...

... on how the 200,000 figure was calculated ... the energy minister Graham Stuart said it came from the industry body Offshore Energies UK and referred to direct, indirect and induced jobs supported by the sector. He did not explain how the 200,000 figure was calculated...

... “The government has been defending its dangerous plan to mandate annual oil and gas licences by claiming the sector supports 200,000 British jobs. But that figure comes directly from the industry itself and has not been independently verified. Rather than delivering a much-needed just transition for oil and gas workers, the government is deliberately cherrypicking its data..."

... “Instead of getting across the detail and coming up with a coherent plan, this government has abdicated responsibility for making sure workers and communities aren’t left behind to the market and an industry that prioritises shareholder returns over investment in jobs. What’s urgently needed are politicians prepared to take a clear-eyed look at the sector and where it is headed and who will come up with a plan for delivering a managed and crucially fair transition for workers and communities.”...

... And our planet burns...

All on our only one planet...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)