Why Net Zero threatens a wonderful land-that was

Kingston on Thames, Surrey, England. Spring 1962. A brand new Ford Zodiac pushes out from a brand-new house on a brand-new estate to begin a Sunday outing down to the south coast. Mum, Dad and their two kids on the back seat pass rows of new houses, all like theirs, all lived in by people like them. With cars like theirs at the fronts. This is Macmillan’s England, and people have never had it so good. Even, for the first time, the working classes. As the last new estates around Chessington drop behind and the real country begins at Box Hill, someone puts on the car radio. Listen! It’s the Shadows Wonderful Land,: and here, today, its dreamy tones are true. For as they head south on the A24 (soon to be massively widened) the temples of all this wonderful modernity are still visible in the brave new petrol stations and car showrooms sprouting across the sleepy countryside. The car has made people profoundly mobile and independent. People talk about them endlessly. Buy them, sell them Discuss performance. Your car is a badge of who you are, where you have arrived at, especially if you are a man. As our travellers pull into Worthing for a welcome ice cream they have indeed crossed a wonderful land.

This is the brave new world still remembered as the base line by the two children in the back of the Zodiac. Fast forward 2025 and they are well into their seventh decade. But they still remember the promise of those years with aching nostalgia. Their own lives, minus the usual vicissitudes of marital, family and work problems, have been tolerable enough: prosperous even, as their waistlines testify. But outside the narrow world of work and golf club, there have been disturbing changes. First crack in the wall came with the 1973 oil crisis, which demonstrated their country’s humiliating dependence on foreign oil. Tax cuts and North Sea Oil brought a brief sugar rush of prosperity: but now the world is a dark distrustful place hopelessly split between rich and poor where nothing ever works and everything is broken, from roads to trains to hospitals. Foreigners just keep coming and coming and coming. Above all the USA, their great patron and guarantor of all their security, is rapidly losing its ability to prosper and protect.

Now add something worse. All those grandchildren they sent off to University have come home to tell them that everything they believed in was wrong. That burning oil warms the planet to disastrous levels. [1] That vehicle emissions are a massive cause of mental and physical health disorders.[2] So are the plastics made from oils in abundance , which now pollute every imaginable stretch of sea air and land.[3] That, therefore, the whole cult of buying cars, comparing them, fiddling with them and collecting them turns out to have been as deluded as say smoking tobacco ,drinking alcohol or keeping slaves. That in effect, their whole lives have been a bit of a mistake That they now, with so little time left to enjoy , must give it all up.

It’s a big ask. Especially when incredibly rich industries run incredibly well funded political and media campaigns to tell these same baby boomers that they not only can go on burning fossil fuels, they really ought to- must. Because only that way lies the road to a better yesterday when the world was young. And straight. And white. Here is the challenge facing all of us who call ourselves progressive or educated . We have no idea if we shall succeed We know we will need swimming lessons if we do not,

[1] Burning of fossil fuels – Understanding Global Change

[2] Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic – PMC

[3] 5 Harmful Effects of Plastic on Human Health

(See also LSS 9 4 24;26 9 24; 20 9 25)

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=the+shadows+wonderful+land&&mid=E99EB6B5B2B6CEBD22FBE99EB6B5B2B6CEBD22FB&&FORM=VRDGAR

Capturing Carbon from the sea-a new idea to contain global warming

One thing we know for certain: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn’t going down any time soon. Last time we looked, it was about 420ppm, which is 50% higher than it was before the industrial revolution. [1] People are not cutting back fast enough. Natural “sinks” like oceans and forests are being destroyed. And despite all the valiant efforts to replace these natural systems with technologies that capture CO₂ from the burning atmosphere, they are not happening fast enough. We are going to crash through the 1.5^O safe limit. Is there any hope of a short cut which might give us a lifeline?

According to Professor Tom Bell of Exeter University there is indeed. Seawater holds 150 times as much carbon dioxide as air does. And so he and his teams have devised a Cunning Plan to start pulling all the extra deadly gas form the water, and putting it to safe storage. We’ve two versions of the story today. One from Jonah Fisher of the BBC[2] if you’ve only got time for a quick espresso. For the double latte and piece of cake crowd, there’s a really clear set of pages from Exeter University itself.[3] We found the graphics to be rather good on this one.. so give it a go.

All of which brings a wry smile to those of us with long memories. Notice, good reader, how the project is being funded by the UK Government. Back in the 1970’s it used to run hundreds of initiatives like this. Many of which later spun off into successful products which in turn founded the fortunes of many a successful export company. (An elderly member of our Editorial Board can bear personal testimony of this from the world of Forensic Science) Then along came the free marketeers, bleating their mantra “Private sector good; public sector bad” like so many sheep from Animal Farm. You can see the results of that “thinking” in the UK Trade Gap, which has been widening steadily ever since. Professor Bell thinks his project can be scaled to capture 14 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. It could be a major industrial and export success for Britain. Surely this one should be left to the pragmatists?

[1]https://www.ibtimes.com/atmospheric-co2-more-50-percent-higher-pre-industrial-era-3529972#:~:text=Concentrations%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20in%20the%20atmosphere%20in,

[2]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr788kljlklo

[3]https://sites.exeter.ac.uk/seacure/

#global warming #carbon capture #atmosphere #oceans

How Perovskite panels could save the planet

One of the joys of growing up in 1980s London was to witness how the grim concrete monoliths of the 1970s were slowly displaced by towers of glittering glass. Particularly in the City and Docklands, where money was no object. But there was one hidden problem: althoughthese buildings looked modern, they still consumed immense quantities of old fashioned coal and oil to heat, with fateful consequences for us all. Certainly, you can tack on solar panels here and there. But the aesthetics and very shape of the buildings mean that the power they throw out will not come within shouting distances of keeping these buildings’ inmates, healthy, wealthy and warm.

But what if you could turn all that glass itself into solar panels? What if every one of those magnificent windows was a brimming source of electricity, producing almost as many watts and amps and volts and electrons as a the real panel on your garage roof. Fortunately the City Solar Project has made just such a breakthrough We have lifted this tiny quote from a really upbeat article by Anthony Cuthbertson of the Independent, to give you an idea of the currents of excitement flowing around this project (oh, please!-ed)

By combining organic solar cells with the so-called “miracle material” perovskite, the scientists were able to achieve an efficiency of 12.3 per cent – close to that of commercial solar cells.[2]

Now, we’ve covered Perovskite a couple of times before on this blog (LSS 12 1 21;13 11 23) so many of you will know all there is to know about it: but we’ve put in a link for those who came to us late. The real point is not just that scientists and engineers are bringing us closer and closer to a cleaner, more sustainable world. It’s that those who say sustainable energy is not possible are starting to look very archaic indeed.

thanks to P Seymour

[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/solar-panel-transparent-window-efficiency-record-b2721698.html

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite

#perovskite #solar panels #sustainable energy #global warming #work #architecture

Clean, Green Copper?

One of the downsides of making the change to a clean, renewable economy is the enormous cost of some of the technologies. And we are talking energy and pollution here, not money. It’s an uncomfortable truth which enemies of progress gleefully point out wherever and whenever they can. Take copper for example. It’s going to be central to any green ecosystem, showing up as vital component of anything and everything from electric cars to eco power plants. But, as the superlative Robin McKie of the Guardian points out, mining it demands enormous quantities of energy. As for the waste left behind- we almost dare not think.

Yet Robin is nothing if not hopeful . In this article he reviews a whole set of hopeful new technologies which are designed to find cleaner, more sustainable ways of pulling out this vital metal. Demands of brevity force us to extract only one(no pun intended) as it fits with the vaguely biological ambience of this blog

a company, RemePhy, has been started by Imperial PhD students Franklin Keck and Ion Ioannou……They have used GM technology to develop plant-bacterial systems that have an enhanced ability to extract metal from the soil. “Essentially, you will be able to grow these crops on land contaminated by waste left over from the mining of metals such as copper, and they will extract that metal,” (explainer-London’s Imperial College is nurturing many of these initiatives-ed)

The oldest trope on this blog is our admiration for when clever people tweak existing ideas and suddenly do something really useful in a new und unexpected way. Imagine the strategic benefits to a country that not only supplies itself with copper, but cleans itself up as it goes along. The benefits of Science and Reason, we suppose?

[1]tps://www.theguardian.com/global/2025/mar/02/copper-scientists-london-energy-electrical

#copper #metals #mining #pollution #imperial college #renewables #clean energy

Energy from Nuclear Waste: A last Hurrah for American Science?

The news that a team of scientists at America’s prestigious Ohio State University have created a remarkable new battery that captures energy from nuclear waste might once have passed almost unremarked. Our link from Andrew Cuthbertson of the Independent[1] details how the remarkable Professor Cao and his team have taken spent nuclear fuel from reactors and converted the gamma rays into light, which can then power photovoltaic cells. We’ve put in a couple more links if you want to know more[2] [3] But for us, today, our interest lies in a slightly different direction. We suspect that astute readers my guess where.

For this kind of breakthrough used to be commonplace in the American Heartland. Starting after 1865 a vast ecology of Universities, Research Institutes and hopeful start-up companies grew. It gave the USA the economic power to surpass and then destroy the British Empire and to defeat Germany and the USSR in both armed and commercial conflicts. sitting at the centre of it was a belief in Science, at least among a sufficient mass of the population to count.

The current President of the United States looks hell bent to destroy all that. [4] as this link to a Nature main article shows. And look again at Anthony’s article. Which other country gets a mention? China, of course. Slowly ,steadily and with much less noise they steal a march on poor old Uncle Sam and its hapless, impulsive leader. Americans should ask themselves this question: is all this really worth it just to appease the prejudices of 20 million or so voters? Will any of you actually be voting in 2035, anyway?

_{with thanks to P Seymour}

[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nuclear-battery-atomic-waste-electricity-b2704893.html

[2]https://news.osu.edu/scientists-design-novel-battery-that-runs-on-atomic-waste/

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

[4]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00562-w?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=bf0c0e5f06-nature-briefing-daily-20250226&utm_medium=email&utm_te

#nuclear energy #china #usa #economics #science #technology

Offshore wind: a rare success for the Tories

Bertrand Russell always counselled : “don’t be so keen to diss the other guy. Much of the time you will be less right, and he less wrong, than you imagine.” That is the rough gist of what he said and we have alluded to it before in these pages. Nowhere have we seen the doctrine better echoed than in an article by Professor Rebecca Willis (Guardian 20 June 2024).[1]For when historians come to write the history of the Government first elected in 2010, they will do well to consult her piece.

Professor Willis is clear: the UK is the number two superpower in turbine energy generation. Second only in fact to the Peoples’ Republic of China, a somewhat larger political entity. How was this done? Rebecca tells us:

growth in offshore wind can be traced back to a 2014 decision to establish a new support mechanism for low-carbon generation. ……..;.;. it guarantees a set price for units of electricity. If the market price falls below the set price, the generator receives a top-up payment. If the market price rises above the set price, the generator pays back the difference.

It essentially stabilises the market and provides certainty for power generators, making it worth their while to invest for the long term. As a result of this and similar policies, the cost of offshore wind in Europe has fallen by 60% over the past decade, to become a cheap source of electricity.

They had a plan. They aligned it with economics. The result was not only a boost for manufacturing, but a strategic success , as was shown when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and gas prices skyrocketed. But even this far sighted achievement was badly compromised, as Rebecca explains:

But then Tory politicians began to listen to siren voices from a small but powerful anti-net-zero lobby, funded by dark money from fossil-fuel companies

Now certain oily politicians are pushing back on net zero itself, as if ignoring reality will somehow make it all more bearable. And they are full of venom to towards those who disagree. Our view at LSS is that of Russell. You can’t like everyone; but try to be polite. You never know from what corner salvation is going to come. Even the Conservative Party.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/20/tories-green-legacy-labour-government-climate-green-energy-uk-offshore-wind

#wind turbines #oil money #net zero #renewables #climate change #global warming

Will multicoloured hydrogen save the world?

Photo by Rafael Classen rcphotostock.com on Pexels.com

When we were young, hydrogen came in one colour-and you couldn’t see it. It was a just a load of bubbles the Teacher made in the chemistry lab. Fast forward fifty years, and it seems to come in a baffling spectrum of colours. There’s Green, pink, grey, gold, blue, black, brown and turquoise. [1] This handy guide from the National Grid will take you further. They’re all different industry nicknames where the stuff comes from. Just to confuse matters, different people seem to use the same nicknames to mean different things. But underneath all this lies one simple truth-hydrogen gas could represent a useful path to a sustainable future, and still enjoy what might pass for a tolerable lifestyle.

For reasons of space, we’ll concentrate on one exciting sounding candidate which insiders dub Gold hydrogen. The redoubtably named International Electrotechnical Commission waxes rather lyrical about it here [2] It’s a reputable outfit, and there are some good links for those with the coffee time to delve a little further. But-all that glistens is not gold, as Shakespeare once memorably observed. Writing in The Conversation, David Waltham produces a thoughtful balance sheet of the pros and cons of Gold Hydrogen (bewilderingly, his definition of it is a bit different to the IEC’s) He is far from anti; but this well-expressed caveat is well worth bearing in mind

The big question, though, is how seriously to take gold hydrogen. Will it turn out to be an over-hyped distraction of very limited utility? Or will it provide a pain-free path into a low-carbon future? The truth probably lies between these extremes, but only time (and further research) will tell us.

Well said Professor Waltham. That’s how LSS thinks. On just about everything.

[1]https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/hydrogen-colour-spectrum#:~:text=Green%20hydrogen%2C%20blue%20hydrogen%2C%20brown%20hydrogen

[2]https://www.iec.ch/blog/could-white-and-gold-hydrogen-be-clean-fuel-options#:~:text=By%20contrast%20white%20hydrogen%20refers,conventional%20ways%20of%2

[3]https://theconversation.com/gold-hydrogen-natural-deposits-are-turning-up-all-over-the-world-but-how-useful-is-it-in-our-move-away-from-fossil-fuels-220230

#hydrogen fuel #fuel cell #green hydrogen #gold hydrogen #sustainable #global warming #climate change

Electric Cars: A vault to the future, or just a current fad?

Photo by Chris LeBoutillier on Pexels.com

“Just because something appears in the Daily Mail,” observed George Orwell,”does not automatically mean it’s a lie.” Astute readers will know how, having lost the argument on carbon emissions, climate deniers spend their time sniping and snarking at every new technological advance. Remember all those hecatombs of pigeons supposedly murdered by marine wind farms? Which is not to say that we at LSS dismiss every criticism, every reasoned argument, about how we get to a sustainable world safely, with the minimum possible collateral damage. There’s a debate to be had, especially when it is mooted in the august pages of the New Scientist [1].

One of the troubles with electric vehicles (EVs) is the kind of unpleasant things like lithium (and cobalt) you need to mine to make the batteries, And, as this piece by New Scientist photographer Tom Hagen shows, the local consequences of doing so can be frightful. This is Chile; but you’d find something like it similar production sites across the world. And some pretty dire working conditions, especially in places like Africa. At which point despair seems a very understandable reaction. Surely the cost of making these new EVs, and powering up the grids to run them, makes the whole enterprise futile?

The despair trap is a product of oversimplification; “if a thing is not 100% good, it must be bad. Gotcha!” runs the thinking. In the real world, lasting solutions are a mosaic set of compromises and trade offs, as every engineer knows. On balance, the environmental benefits of using electric vehicles are already in excess of the costs.[2] And this is before the dreadful health impacts of nitrate and particle emissions from our archaic old fleet of combustion vehicles[3] is taken into account (LSS passim).[3] Compared to the world we lived in 10 or 20 years ago, we’re actually rather cheered to live in a world where someone is actually doing something. However imperfect, it’s better than sliding blindly down the ramp to destruction, which is what they did in the Good Old Days.

^{With thanks to Gary Herbert}

[1]https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25333710-200-lithium-fields-beautiful-from-the-air-trouble-on-the-ground/

[2]https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

[3]https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/air-pollution

#pollution #electric vehicles #new scientist #lithium #cobalt #particulates #nitrates #batteries

Will the Millwall Molecule finally give us clean energy?

“Nobody likes us, we don’t care!” UK football fans will recognise the chant as the calling card of the fans of Millwall FC, who rejoice in their reputation as the hardest of hard nuts, feared by the followers of all other clubs. Which is a funny way to start a blog on nuclear fusion, most of whose exponents tend to be, to put it politely- in a very different place on the intellectual spectrum. But read on, gentle reader, read on.

LSS has always had a thing about nuclear fusion, that process whereby clashing hydrogen atoms should mimic the processes in the heart of the Sun, and thereby afford limitless supplies of clean, cheap energy. And recently, our early suspicions of all the money and effort thrown in over the last 70 years have been tempered by genuine reports of progress in the shape of short ignitions (LSS passim) OK, you’ve got the plasma nice and hot. But how do you hold there long enough to be any use. According to Darren Orf of Popular Mechanics, the answer is to use Tungsten. The South Korean KSTAR team have thrown away the carbon in their containment vessels and replaced it with this toughest, hardest of metals, normally used in things like light bulb filaments and the best knives. Now it will take its place at the cutting edge (another joke like that and you’re fired-ed) of what could be the most important research and development project on our planet this century.

Alright, Tungsten is an atom, not a molecule. Technically. But it’s hard, mate, as they say in South London. And thanks to it, we are ready to cast aside our earlier reservations and for the first time since about 1973, embrace hope.

_{thanks to P Seymour for this story}

[1]https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a46278296/south-korea-artificial-sun-fusion/

#tungsten #wolfram #nuclear fusion #plasma