Climate Change And Other Pollution

At least, not a direct substitute. Solar and Wind have proven to be successful partial cost-effective substitutes for fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are stored energy, and solar and wind are not. Renewables are a disruption, and disruptions are usually not one-for-one substitutions. There are two strategies for replacing fossil fuels in the grid, and they can be used together: 1: Add energy storage for when renewable energy levels fall below a threshold. 2: Base load "solar and wind": Design to provide base load at a low threshold of wind and light. Without such strategies, it is impossible to reach the goal of removing reliance on fossil fuels. With the right strategy, it is possible to realise benefits go far beyond just replacement.

COP26. It sounds like a police officer who can't be named. For me it raises questions such as: Why "COP26" and what happened to the first 25 COPs?Are all decisions are made in advance, or is anything really agreed at the conference?Is there more than politicians and fossil fuel companies agreeing spin and token gestures?

Reports from COP27 seems indicate the key initiative this year to make wealthy nations cover the cost of the damages poor nations will incur as a result of emissions that have main originated from those wealthy nations. The proposal as it stands has a missing an essential piece, and trying to cover for that essential piece, appears most to likely to increase emissions, and move COP away from a focus on solving the climate crisis and instead toward just fighting over the cost. This is a troubled look at the key flaw in what has been put forward and the real solution that should be in place.

There are many claims that EVs result in more emissions than fossil fuelled vehicles. The reality is that even when an EV is powered from a 'dirty' grid, it is clear that driving an EV creates less emissions. What is less clear, is whether the emission reduction when driven justifies the emissions that are created when building the EV? Buying an EV is better for the environment in the long term than buying an ICE vehicle but can be worse for the environment than not buying any new vehicle at all. The key finding is that while it is best to stop buying so many new ICE vehicles ASAP, there should be no rush to replace existing ICE vehicles with EVs, and instead allow existing vehicles the around two decades until their normal scrap date.

Yes, big oil with value at over US$7 billion per day in revenue at stake clearly has a vested interest in arguing against climate change and downplaying risks, but on the other hand, aren't there also vested interests exaggerating and overstating the risks of climate change? Effectively could 'big renewables', 'big science' or 'big climate', be out lobbying and out promoting 'big fossil'? Is this really a balanced fight, or is it more like the might of 'big tobacco' vs 'whistle blower medical research' all over again? This is a look at the financial might on each side of the argument, and the respective motives for each side to overstate their case.

From "the biggest corruption scandal ever" in Brazil, problems in Venezuela, human rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to the problems caused by lobbyists against action on climate change, an abundance of fossil fuels is a source of political power, yet rarely force for good, and Australia, with a wealth of coal and gas, is not spared. The current crisis in Ukraine not only drives up energy prices globally, but it also creates a dilemma for gas producing nations.

After friend told me "I am not interesting in electric cars, because I will wait for hydrogen cars", I did the research, and found that such a future would make no sense, and will never happen. It turns out that hydrogen cars were never "the ultimate", are now worse at times or range problem, and they were only ever expensive to build and operate, higher emissions, limited interim stop gaps, for the time until we solved limitations of battery EVs.

Move to renewables for energy, and electricity for transport, and we solve the climate problem. But renewables require storage, and uptake of EVs requires home charging, and there is a cost to both. But what if electric vehicles could solve the "green power grid" problem, provide energy security, and avert a threat of increasing inequality, and reduce costs? It turns out this dream scenario is definitely possible but can be fully realised only if the home charging problem is solved.

If you were ‘big oil’, and you were trying to delay action on climate change impacting the fossil fuel industry, what would be your strategy? Would you point the finger elsewhere to create maximum division? This is a questioning look as to whether a misdirection is trying to confuse blame on for climate change, and […]

The race to stop CO2, has led to many 'scams' projects involving hydrogen, but it is not always clear who is being scammed: the public, or the proponents of hydrogen projects. What is the attraction behind the obsession with hydrogen? This is a look at the motives, the myths and the facts around hydrogen projects. Spoiler: There are some valid roles for hydrogen, but hydrogen has no role as an energy source, and even any potential role as an energy carrier is highly questionable.