Mr Monbiot rides again:
Sunak will also promote “sustainable aviation fuel”, though there is, and can be, no such thing.
George relies upon this paper at The Ecologist. Just the place all of us go for our dose of reality. That paper neatly missing that people are actually already making fuel which will meet – good enough at least – flight requirements. That Porsche project in Argentina.
What’s happening here is that Georgie is using something cooked up by some mates as proof – when the cooked piece hasn’t been subjected to the normal processes required to turn it into a proof. Further, even that paper says:
This may offer potential in the distant future but currently is far too expensive at £900 per tonne of CO2 and produces fuel at around four times the price of conventional fuels.
OK. So flying gets more expensive. And?
Thursday was supposed to be “green day”, when the government, forced to act by a court ruling, would unveil a new, more detailed plan for achieving net zero emissions. Instead, the occasion has been rebranded “energy security day”.
I’m sure Rashee Soonak, before being mercifully flushed away forever by the electorate, would protest that there’s nothing the Conservatives (with their 80 seat majority in our legislative body) can do about “lefty lawyers”.
But never mind, folx. They’re definitely going to “stop the boats” (letting them all in by aeroplane is “stopping the boats”) and finally ban laughing gas to defeat The Joker.
“OK. So flying gets more expensive. And”?
Tim, how much longer are you going to accept things getting “more expensive. And?” before you tell them to fuck off?
Berliners showed just how concerned they are over the weekend when 82% of them chose not to vote for net zero.
The fact that I have just received my Direct Debit amount from EDF may explain my foul mood this morning……
Tell me about it Addolff. My electricity will double in price when my fixed price deal ends next month. Having acquired kit to measure my consumption I’m now looking at how to reduce the base load in the house a bit (270W or so). I can turn some of my computer kit off but network switches, firewall etc need to be on 24/7.
Despite all the evidence that “sustainable” fuels are not sustainable, some persist in calling them green. I even know someone who’s trying to talk up hydrogen. The way new products and ideas work is thus. The public can vote for them with their wallets. Insofar as the sane public are never going to vote for sustainable fuels when there are better and more rational choices, the alternative is to force sustainable fuels down the public’s throats. From the tone of the blog piece above it even seems that the blogger backs the forcible option.
TG, I live on my own in an old house with solid walls, but double glazed, modern, system condensing boiler, insulated loft, front door that appears to be hermetically sealed to counter fallout from an NBC attack.
Heating on for three hours in the morning and three hours late afternoon. My energy cost has tripled in two years.
The only thing causing these price increases is politics.
Meanwhile….
“A new study reports that increased vegetation growth during the recent decades, known as the “Greening Earth”, has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of heat and water vapor transfer to the atmosphere.” reports NASA
And
“In a paper published in Nature Climate Change, we show that the Earth has been getting greener over the past 30 years. As much as half of all vegetated land is greener today, and remarkably, only 4% of land has become browner.
Our research shows this change has been driven by human activities, particularly the rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere.”
I’m just popping out to start up my car in the staff car park. Everyone has to do their bit.
Andrew C – That’s not Science.
Science is when you tell people they have to be poor and gay and eat insects like Dracula’s man-slave.
For, uh, the Environment?
What’s the difference between that extra cost and APD? A few quid more? That’s then a marketing thing “fly guilt free”.
And best of all, the train wankers can’t make the eco argument.
– That Porsche project in Argentina.
Did they move from Chile for better Nazis?
“. . . a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of heat and water vapor transfer to the atmosphere.” reports NASA
Which is odd, because CO2 derived increased water vapour in the atmosphere is a thing they’ve been harping on about for ages as the cause of global warming.
Which is odd, because CO2 derived increased water vapour in the atmosphere is a thing they’ve been harping on about for ages as the cause of global warming.
Don’t worry, there’s always another computer model or three available to “prove” manmade warming dogma is real.
It’s Science™.
What’s “sustainable” mean? Shirely it means that if you use some today, there’s still some tomorrow. Petroleum is sustainable for several centuries.
Darwin and Hooker got involved with Ascension Island around 1850 or so?
Ran across an article on the web, Hubert Lamb, by Bernie Lewin, on the web, free. Interesting read, especially the bit on page 35 about CRU deliberately releasing “Frightening” statements to keep the Golden Eggs going, plus the “what if nothing we predicted, or is less than, happens”.
That I believe was/is the basis for the far future dates, can’t be caught out.
“OK. So flying gets more expensive. And”?
At first glance you would not imagine Tim to be an eco-zealot advocating that we stop flying, eat bugs, and be happy with less – but there it is. Weird cheerleading for the Eco-fuel Holy Grail seems poorly though out. Eco fuels will probably wind up being at least 10-100 times more expensive that extracted fuels. The fuel might be pitched a cost competitive only if the assumptions are made that carbon taxes for fossil fuels continue to increase, pretty much limitlessly and would not apply to eco fuels. The pilot plant in Chile (literally the windiest place they could find) only generates some the Hydrogen on site from electrolysis. The CO2 is obtained commercially and stored on site and even the water for the electrolysis is provided by tanker. It is a tiny pilot plant at best. The idea that somehow the CO2 will be magically extracted from the atmosphere and used to create eco-fuels is a completely unproven technology at a commercial scale. My guess is that the whole eco-fuel hype is – much like a lot of green initiatives – largely a combination of government grants, tax write offs and virtue signaling.