Energy Matters Global and Domestic

[Hell Razor5543]

I doubt that you could put solar panels in that configuration over canals, as there is only typically a foot or so height difference between the water and the banks. Anybody who says the canals don't bring in much money is not looking at the 'invisible' financial aspect, as I have met foreigners enjoying a sedate canal holiday in the UK (one couple had been doing this for a very long time). There are also small businesses where non-perishable items are transported around some of the UK on the canals, as it is usually a lot cheaper than by road (provided you allow for plenty of time for your goods to arrive), as well as other business models (I have heard of a travelling blacksmith on the canal network).

[mickthemaverick]

Yes indeed James, I also recall seeing a travelling sadler and a sculptor working from a pair of narrow boats. Let's not forget the income from fishing rights and boating licenses too!!

[myglaren]

Those canals look very shallow, too shallow for water traffic, more aqueducts that anything.
The use of otherwise unused land and the conservation of water are both excellent engineering points.
They may have plenty of land but water is a constant problem for a lot of them.

[Hell Razor5543]

The advantage of solar panels over irrigation canals (in hot climate countries) is that they would shade the water, which should also reduce evaporation loss. If that can be shown to happen then farmers would be happier with the idea, as they would then reasonably expect an increase yield when harvesting their crops.

[myglaren]

That was their primary purpose James.

[NewcastleFalcon]

Lead by example, no not the UK, no not Norway

Europe's (the EU's) largest oil producing Country is to phase out oil and gas production by 2050

They have teamed up with a few others and formed the. Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (Boga) at COP26, which has conveniently ignored one effective action , the managed decline of the oil and gas production whether through control of licences, or carbon taxation. Business as usual, and expansion of oil and gas exploration and production is incompatible with any notion of reducing CO2 emissions.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/ ... hing-back/

Regards Neil

[NewcastleFalcon]

Well progress on the "Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance" formed at COP26...

a Website

https://beyondoilandgasalliance.com/

Founder Members

Website's are a bit old hat now though, what you really need are facebook, youtube, whatsapp, instagram, wechat etc etc, and probably the most difficult to achieve on such a subject...funny content that goes viral.

REgards Neil

[mickthemaverick]

It's good to see anything actually coming out of COP26 which has dropped into the shadows again! Great to see Wales and Ireland there with France . I feel a bit let down that GB is not among the founders as it would help our general international standing, following Brexit, to be seen as leaders again. I hope that the countries that really matter eg, Russia, USA, China, Arab States and Norway get involved though, sadly, I have my doubts!!

[NewcastleFalcon]

I'm sure Dave will come up with a COP26 de-briefing soon

Wouldn't have taken much for the UK to sign up to the fossil-fuel managed phase out. It really is the crux of the problem. Burning fossil fuels makes things worse, COP26 is striving to reduce greenhouse gases by co-operation of as many nations on the planet it can. UK is in the chair, why not lead?

Probably because it would upset the fossil fuel lobby, and those countries which have evolved an even greater dependancy on fossil fuel than the UK for their economy, development and power.

An agreed consensus across so many participating countries is always going to be a bit of a fudge. The statement that comes out of it isn't even going to commit to the phase out of coal, never mind oil and gas.

The saviour of fossil fuels business as usual is of course that little tag on...yes its fine if you employ carbon capture and storage. That way the CO₂ when you burn fossil fuel, or steam reform it into hydrogen, is piped to holes in the ground or under the sea and remains safely trapped in the strata for.....(well we dont know...its unproven and we dont know how leaky our drillings in our former gas and oil fields are but no one will really notice if any or all of it leaks out the minute we pump it in.) When the existing ones get full...(academic...we will probably never be able to tell if they are full or not due to leakage which we wont be able to be sure where it went) we will just drill new holes, vent a bit of methane and start the process again.

REgards Neil

[NewcastleFalcon]

While we are having a CCUS moment, here's the debut on the FCF for the UK Governments Intellectual Property Office. The UK aims to become a global leader in CCUS, and aims to deploy CCUS at scale in the 2030s. To facilitate this, the government has invested over £130 million in R&D and innovation to develop CCUS in the UK.

You may be better off waiting for the film to come out but here is 28 pages of their finest work. Doesn't tell us much except that the largest holder in CCS Patents worldwide is Exxon Mobil, Air-Liquide followed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Largest holder of CCUS Patents is GE, followed by Air-Liquide, and the Korean Institute of Energy Research.

Maybe our global leader bit involves giving the rest a decent head start.

Carbon capture, usage and storage
A worldwide overview of patenting related to the UK’s ten point plan for a Green Industrial Revolution

At least the intro bit tells us what the abbreviations stand for

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of capturing carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere and storing (or sequestering) it long-term.

Carbon capture and utilisation/usage (CCU) The capture of carbon dioxide, and its recycling for further usage.

Carbon capture and utilisation/usage (CCUS) The capture of carbon dioxide its utilisation and any unused carbon is then stored.

Regards Neil

PS for a decent coverage of Carbon Capture and storage the British Geological Survey have produced "Understanding carbon capture and storage" link here https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geolo ... d-storage/

[Hell Razor5543]

I am of the personal opinion that a lot of the delegates at COP26 believe that COP stands for "Carry On Polluting".

[myglaren]

Not the same without Barbara Windsor.

[NewcastleFalcon]

An agreed consensus across so many participating countries is always going to be a bit of a fudge. The statement that comes out of it isn't even going to commit to the phase out of coal, never mind oil and gas.

Well it was in, then out it came and "phase down" got the meek and mild nod.

In general though it was always going to be impossible to collectively sign up to either a "hard" or "soft" agreement on action.

That in no way prevents Countries leading by example and taking individual and co-operative action. The UK and Europe in particular have a massive opportunity to lead, and relatively lesser problems to solve, and the technology and resources to do it.

REgards Neil

[Sloppysod]

I think the only way forward, to remove the reliance on fossil fuels, cannot be legistrated by Governments, its got to be done by companies via pressure from the public. Too much money, from taxes and donations, keeps too many governments in power. As quite a few of the delegates at COP26 said "the decision should be made, not so you get reelected but because it's the right thing to do". That is why the GB & Europe will not sign up to BOGA.... yet.
The only time the rich and powerfull will accept global warming, is when they can't go to the likes of the Maldives anymore, and thats because, just like similar islands, they would have been washed away.
The changes required will be driven by people.

[NewcastleFalcon]

One thing that governments can do is set a policy framework, targets, and create either level playing fields, or playing fields skewed in a particular orientation. Depends on your view but a level playing field for fossil fuels in 2021, would see progressive carbon taxation of fossil fuels from now until 2050, to achieve a target of net zero carbon emissions.

The price of fossil fuels has not taken into account the negative effects of their use in terms of pollution and greenhouse gases whether that be coal, oil or gas. No country, or the United Nations can enforce either a timetable or a method of achievement of net zero, on another country. For all its perceived failings stemming from that plain fact, COP does bring together most of the Countries of the world, to encourage actions and plans to be declared and committed to, reviewed, monitored and updated. Even the big sideline players India China yes the USA and even Saudi Arabia, while not quite joining in as much as many would like as of now, have made commitments.

China often gets tagged onto a range of cliches about emissions. So whats going on with China? Yes a few counter arguments would point out that hypocritically the UK and others do a fair bit of using China as a public convenience to export manufacturing emissions, and waste, and keep large container ships in bunker fuel and business. Yes and as well as [sarcasm] the excusable and indispensable smart-phones[/sarcasm], that includes cars, batteries, solar and wind gubbins too.

Dave's done a video which told me more about China than I knew before, link here for the curious. I've started it at some of the Carbon Capture and Storage bit...proper wool over the eyes but easily sucked up myth.

Can we fix Climate Change without China

Regards Neil