Article
Gary
113 w
How to produce electricity without heating up the Planet's Biosphere.
A Jargon light article without all the business & politcal vagueness of "carbon markets" and "climate-friendly" blah blah blah.
Generally, Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), Methane (CH 4) & Nitrous Oxide (N₂O), which are collectively termed Green-House-Gases (GHG), regulate the average temperature of the Planet's atmosphere and Planet's surface. Human activities are increasing ( Fig. 1) the levels of atmospheric CO₂ (e.g., burning Carbon-based fuels), CH 4 & N₂O (e.g., animal agriculture)
I'd also add biomass (plants) and biofuels use to that carbon dioxide concentration. In other words, assuming that the CO₂ is sequestered (e.g., plant growth. i.e., photosynthesis) sometime in the future, when biomass (e.g., forests) or biofuels are burnt, is based on erroneous science ( e.g., research that does not consider other variables such as woodland ecology and human health)
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level" (INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 2007)
Figure 1. Graphs provided by NOAA. Global monitoring laboratory. Human activities are increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
The science says we must reduce atmospheric CO₂, CH 4 & N₂O (GHG) emissions to prevent disruptive climate change (but we are increasing GHG emissions).
"Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Scientists are also observing changes across the whole of Earth’s climate system; in the atmosphere, in the oceans, ice floes, and on land" ( INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 2021)
That doesn't mean the actual target is reducing our present GHG emissions. Reducing our present GHG to zero emissions is the method to aim for if we are to eventually reduce the CO₂, CH 4 & N₂O that human activities have already emitted into the Planet's atmosphere (post-industrial revolution).
The Planet's atmosphere needs to go net negative GHG in order to "rebalance the books"
CO₂, CH 4, N₂O emissions (+) & CO₂, CH 4, N₂O sequestered (-) = The Atmospheric Carbon balance
Generally, the aim is to stabilize the atmospheric GHG to the levels before the industrial revolution. Before humans began, for example, burning Carbon-based fuels ( coal, etc) on an industrial scale.
In general, human activities need to reach zero GHG emissions so as to give the planet a chance to sequester (e.g., photosynthesis. i.e., plant, phytoplankton growth) the GHG emissions we have already emitted. However, anthropogenic activities are still increasing atmospheric GHG. In others words, the decision-makers (politicians & industry) are causing GHG emissions to increase. In other words, going the wrong friggin way! (back-to-front decision-makers).
Whilst there are many reasons why we are emitting GHG into the atmosphere, these reasons are generally due to the poor choices of governments & industries ( i.e., business-as-usual). For example, the burning of wood fuel (biomass), promoted by many politicians, some biased science papers, & of course, the wood fuel industries, has replaced the burning of fossil fuels in power stations, such as Drax in the UK. Drax's "renewable" energy claims are based on weak scientific research and industrially biased & unethical monetary agendas ( burning wood produces particle pollution that causes diseases)
"It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral!","the authors did not do full carbon accounting, instead ignoring biogenic CO2 from combustion"
Burning wood fuel is increasing GHG emissions, & causes air pollutants that are harmful to humans (i.e., inhaling particle-smoke pollution causes disease) Burning "Biomass" is not "renewable" energy because it's generally degrading the Planet's ecology. For example, when forests are destroyed and turned into tree plantations, that method has devastating effects on wildlife populations and, over time, degrades soil quality.
Generally, burning stuff ( a favourite human pastime) is ecologically unsustainable & causes a myriad of health & environmental issues. The fossil fuel industries go to a lot of effort (energy expenditure), to acquire and sell a single-use product, that is then destroyed. In other words, during use, the product goes up in smoke. In other words, is turned to "dust" & waste gases ( air pollution, particle pollution)
It would seem that too many politicians and industries "leaders" don't understand how to produce electricity without heating up the Planet's atmosphere & without poisoning our immediate air supplies (how "silly" of them?).
So, here is a step by step guide to help these politicians and industries make better decisions. The guide could be called "100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything"
- Construct renewable technology that once operational (i.e., generating electricity), emits very little CO₂, to remain operational (& zero CH 4 & N₂O emissions)
- Use that electricity to power stuff & for the hydrolysis of H2O (water) to produce green hydrogen. Use that green hydrogen (H₂) to manufacture steel. Use that steel to manufacture renewable energy technologies (etc)
- Recycle the steel! (reduce CO₂ emitting mining operations)
Fundamentally, we need a low CO₂ electrical energy system, that once operational, can be maintained using the electricity it generates & the green hydrogen it helps to produce (hydrolysis).
Nuclear power & burning biomass are toxic "lemons" ( misinformation! "cherry-picking" the information that aligns with the agenda & ignoring the information that contradicts the agenda ). In other words, unsustainable choices (technologies) that produce & leave behind toxin pollution "problems". However, many are cognitively biased by their priors ( e.g., money)
How much CO₂ does the construction, operation, decommissioning (they stockpile nuclear waste) of a nuclear plant emit? I'd like to see an unbiased, side by side comparison, of the "lifecycle" CO₂ emissions of nuclear V's renewable technology ( & the generally ecological degradation that each method courses. e.g., mining).
For your information, we also need to stop eating agricultural animal meat, which will free up land that can be ecologically restored (e.g., rewilding), so as to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. For example, by eating a plant & fungi based diet. There are already many alternative non-animal agricultural meat (& products) food choices available, ranging from "meat alike products" to cultured meat. Cultivated meat is produced by in vitro cell cultures of animal cells.
Personal disclaimer. I don't work in any industry, nor have shares in any industry. However, If I had the money to invest, it would be in renewable energy. Not the "fake renewable" biomass industries, nor the non-carbon neutral & dangerously polluting nuclear industries.
Welcome, let's solve the climate crisis together
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Write a climate review
Voice your opinion on how businesses and organizations impact the climate.
Open for Climate Dialogue™
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
0 trees planted
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
Download the app
We plant a tree for every new user.
•
112 w
Development is expensive cause it is a weak market. The new paradigm is paying people for eco work. Which is what EverGreenCoin is doing.
•
•
113 w
This is a very good guide that should be used by our decision-makers
•
113 w
It should. Though many of those decision-makers are influenced by the fossil fuel, wood fuel & nuclear industries ( in fact some politicians own coal companies)
•
113 w
Excellent!
•
113 w
Thank you for the constructive feedback.
•
•
113 w
Brilliant
•
113 w
Thanks for the inspirational words.
•
113 w
Nice idea
•
113 w
Evidenced-based solution :-)