As with data and climate sciences - assumptions within policiy directives can often create the opposite of what was intended - again, we us AI to filter out assumptions
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 4483
AI As a Reflective Tool
Based upon our own areas of expertise and the frustrations of the Agenda driven Politicalised policies of NET Zero (see our article from 2 years ago), The Assumpitons that Net Zero is ham-strung by (December 2024 Article), Decarbonisation and Carbon Capture (which stemmed from a question from our recent Investment contact). We decided to test Artificial Intelligent {AI} to assist us with its deep research capabilities to consider how to CHANGE THE NARRATVE (Of the Politics of Climate Change Agenda).
Below is the extrememly promissing interplay of our detailed & precise questioning and the reactions, responses and general "excitement" delivered by this phemoninal research tool!
Our Opening Questions - Nice and Simple.
""'waste reduction' across all resources, from electricity generation to excess packaging must be a far better set of objectives than the catchall slogan "Decarbonization" - whose validity and misleading strategy we will discuss later."" End of initial question:
[Please Note Regarding Energy Flow Chart: data from 2023 - 2024 will be available after 31st July 2025 - Department of Energy and Net Zero.] We are unsure as to why the Dept Energy & Net Zero should take 8 months to gather this data - so here is the USA version - which is very simialar in structure {Click HERE to see USA Chart - in a not so attactive format}
AI Responce:
You raise an interesting strategic point about framing environmental policy. "Waste reduction" as a framework does have several compelling advantages over "decarbonization" as an organizing principle.
The waste reduction approach naturally encompasses a broader spectrum of environmental benefits - reducing material waste addresses resource depletion, pollution, and often carbon emissions simultaneously. When you minimize packaging, for instance, you're cutting material extraction, manufacturing energy, transportation fuel, and disposal costs all at once. Similarly, improving electrical efficiency reduces both carbon emissions and the need for additional power infrastructure.
From a political and economic standpoint, waste reduction often aligns more naturally with cost savings and efficiency gains that businesses and consumers can readily understand. Companies are generally motivated to reduce waste because it directly impacts their bottom line, whereas carbon reduction can sometimes feel like an additional cost or constraint.
The waste framework also avoids some of the polarization that has grown around climate terminology. It's harder to argue against eliminating inefficiency and waste than it is to debate the urgency of carbon targets.
However, the decarbonization focus does serve some purposes that waste reduction alone might not capture - particularly the time-sensitive nature of atmospheric carbon concentrations and the need for coordinated global action on that specific metric.
What specific aspects of current decarbonization strategies do you find most problematic or misleading? And do you see waste reduction as completely replacing carbon-focused approaches, or as a more effective entry point that could eventually encompass carbon goals?
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 3646
The Net Zero Acolytes have got it all wrong! And its not Just Us - NetZeroWatch
My Christmas/New Year Message {a Present} to You - the general population and our 'deaf' Government See Letter to Dept of Energy & Net Zero
Government reliance on CENTRALISED power {electricity} generation is part of the root of their poor assumptions. It's the default position of 'Government' to think of CENTRALISATION - and that's just one problem that we will discuss in detail below. But Centralised Electricity Generation {gas/coal/bio-mass etc} is surprisingly inefficient - at converting fuel into electricity. Coal was the least efficient at 22%, with various Gas engines getting into the 30-35% fuel conversion efficiencies.
BUT the reason is the HEAT produced - is "squandered" up those Cooling Towers - if you read our previous articles you will see the futility of the Centralised Electricity Strategy - when there are clear, inexpensive and energy efficient alternatives {see later}.
The other assumptions {re Net Zero}, we have brought to your attention before in these articles on this platform Net Zero - They Haven't Got a CLUE and Again Net Zero - Cold Feet and the biggest question about "Fossil Fuels" a known misnomer
But, let us return to our interrogation with AI - Chat GPT in this case back in March 2023. Here we had to cajole AI into at least considering the alternatives {for once} and not being influenced by continued agenda politics {as we are again being subjected to in late 2024 and as it appears well into 2025. It has to STOP - as the Nation is being herded in the wrong direction - by politics and NOT Science. Read our Discussions with Chat GPT about Electricity Generation HERE
Once you read that - it's patently obvious that in order to radically improve Fuel Efficiency, we need to move to localised DECENTRALISED ENERGY {plus attendant Heat Networks}. For good strategic reasons -
- energy resilience,
- grid embedded energy and
- far greater energy efficiency.
Factor in, Bio-Methane production from Organic Waste Streams to power such decentralised systems then we have ENERGY AUTONOMY at the local level.
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 2347
Our article entitled "Net Zero they do not have a Clue" has garnered a big responce, we penned it on 22nd June 2023 with a big section devoted to the Parliamentary debate covered by Hansard.
The image shown is part of the problem: 8 cooling Towers sending 65-70% of the Heat Energy in a Centralised Electricity Generating plant up into the sky! This cannot continue - Generation INEFFICIENCY is a major issue with the Centralised Power Network, both in the UK and other nations. It is too inefficient - so those EV vehicles getting their {electrical} charge from the 'mains' are just "importing" their waste.
But now Reuters reports, of news from Shell and BP, tends to indicate serious reservations - and thus COLD FEET!! Litterally!
See the Reuters Report in Full below: Web Linkage: https://1.reutersevents.com/LP=36061,
""Net zero and hydrocarbons – a case of and, not or""
""Media reports that Shell is taking an axe to jobs in its low-carbon solutions and hydrocarbon units -- Reuters reporting in October that around 15% of the Anglo-Dutch supermajor’s workforce would be cut -- have reinforced concerns that the industry’s commitment to net zero may be eroding in a high commodity price climate.
According to the reports, 200 jobs will go in 2024, with another 130 will be placed under review by the company.
The news represents a potential challenge for a company whose low-carbon division was intended to spearhead a transition to clean energy.
But it is not alone. BP – the first oil major to set a course to net zero back in 2020 – has also faced criticism from environmental activists over a scaling back of ambitious emission reduction targets. Climate-focused investors reacted negatively to BP’s February 2023 announcement that it would aim for a 20-30% cut to emission by 2030, compared to 35% previously.
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 7050
|
Type of fuel - source Government 24th Mar 2022 |
Rate |
|
|
Petrol, diesel, biodiesel and bioethanol |
52.95 p per litre |
5p reduction in budget |
|
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) |
28.88 p per kg |
reduced in budget |
|
Natural gas used as fuel in vehicles, for example biogas |
22.57 p per kg |
reduced in budget |
|
‘Fuel oil’ burned in a furnace or used for heating |
9.78 p per litre |
reduced in budget |
Transport Fuel Duty and Heating Fuel Duty
Firstly, looking at these tables, one wonders at the logic applied by those Civil Servants to arrive at such numbers? Was it a gallons to litres issue? Who can tell.
With the reduction of 5p on Petrol and Diesel it must be stressed that LPG, CNG and LNG powered vehicles already had a big advantage in respect of “fuel duty” and have further been slightly reduced in this year's budget too [see table]. With Natural gas /bio gas at less than 50% [42.6% in fact] of even the new Petrol/Diesel duty. Also LPG [Liquefied petroleum gas] is only 54.5% of the ‘normal’ [petrol/diesel] fuel duty.
Also please note the Bio-diesel and Bio-ethanol both attract FULL duty per litre. This makes little sense given the processes involved to create these fuels – although growing crops to make these is not ideal.