Carbon capture and sequestration in all of its various ineffective, inefficient and expensive forms is having another run up the hype cycle. Nothing has really changed. The problems still exist. The alternatives are still better. The potential for use is still minuscule. And so, the CCS Redux series, republishing old … [continued]
For a decade I’ve been tracking the exponential expansion of wind, solar, and to a lesser extent hydro electricity generation in China, mostly against nuclear generation’s much flatter growth trajectory. In recent years I’ve been looking at other aspects of generation, in part because of the regular refrain of delayers … [continued]
In recent months I’ve returned to the overlapping subjects of geoengineering and carbon capture, both of which I’d mostly satisfied myself about years ago. Both, however, are re-ascending the hype scale and at least for aspects of geoengineering, my curiosity was unsatisfied.
In recent months it’s become clear that there’s a distinctly non-cottage industry in Germany producing unintentionally and intentionally misleading reports about hydrogen for energy. Today yet another significant and respected organization crossed my screen, dena, or the German Energy Agency. (Lower-case is their branding and it’s an acronym of a … [continued]
Carbon capture and sequestration in all of its various ineffective, inefficient, and expensive forms is having another run up the hype cycle. Nothing has really changed. The problems still exist. The alternatives are still better. The potential for use is still minuscule. And so, we’ve got this CCS Redux series, … [continued]
Carbon capture and sequestration in all of its various ineffective, inefficient and expensive forms is having another run up the hype cycle. Nothing has really changed. The problems still exist. The alternatives are still better. The potential for use is still minuscule. And so, the CCS Redux series, republishing old … [continued]
Another day, another review of a major hydrogen for energy report which doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Unfortunately, this one is from the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), its science and knowledge service which employs scientists to carry out research in order to provide independent scientific advice and … [continued]
In recent months I’ve apparently taken on a sideline of assessing major total cost of ownership studies from reputable organizations, specifically looking at their usually weird assumptions around hydrogen. Now it’s the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research‘s turn, although it’s not a TCO study in this case. They’ve released … [continued]
Getting ChatGPT and its image-generating sibling DALL-E to put square wheels on vehicles is as tough as getting hydrogen to make any fiscal sense for ground transportation. Unless you ask it to put square wheels on a hydrogen vehicle, it seems. Michael Sura’ is a Slovakian transportation expert, with years … [continued]
Scope 1 emissions emerge directly from a company’s activity. Scope 2 emissions are related to operational electricity use. Scope 3 emissions are those produced by a company’s customers and supply chain — both upstream (before) and downstream (after) its own operations. They typically account for around 80% of a company’s … [continued]
