For more good news, check out what’s happening in Panama right now. Massive protests have led the Supreme Court to declare a Canadian copper mine unconstitutional. It’s a story worth following.
Yeah, wow indeed. Isn't copper needed for the production of wind powered turbines and electric motors? Where do you think it's going to come from in the quantities necessary to make the transition happen in the timeframe that is being pushed?
"The point of climate negotiations should not be to produce a deal, no matter how many pixels are spilled about that prospect over the next two weeks. It’s to stop the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
We've put the foxes in charge of the henhouse - does anyone believe that anything truly meaningful will come of this COP-out? Greta is right - it's all "blah, blah, blah." So was the bard: "It is a tale told by an idiot: full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."
We'll see song & dance routines, we'll see "big" promises and goals, we'll be reassured, we'll be told story after story after story. But we won't see any meaningful progress as long as the foxes are running the show. We need to get the foxes out of the damn henhouse.
Bill, I've been an environmental activist all of my adult life, so I'm especially conflicted about the fact that I use gas in my house as do most of my friends and family. I'm also on a fixed income so as much as I'd like to switch to solar, my personal financial circumstances won't allow it. I was able to install heat pumps -- a blessing for sure. But this brings me to a problem that has plagued us as environmentalist for decades -- how do we talk about renewal energy to people who can't afford it. I cringe at some of the holier-than-thou rhetoric environmentalist use.
The average immigrant's GH emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US, which should not be surprising since so many come from third world countries, in large part because they want to be able to live like Americans. We're taking in immigrants at the rate of more than 20 million/decade (20 million is the population of NY State), according to data from the Census Bureau, a rate which they project will continue for the next 40 years. It would be nice if we could welcome the world to a better life, but to think we can do that is a form of American exceptionalism that will only lead us astray.
Furthermore, the flood of immigrants is hurting the Democratic Party. As per Ruy Teixeira, "The Democrats' Immigration Problem": https://substack.com/inbox/post/137887616
The sooner we install renewable electric generation and storage, electrify industry, businesses, homes and transportation, the sooner the fossil fuel industry will be out of business. But if we keep electing candidates that represent the fossil industry, these things will never happen.
Which is worse....The article itself or the bizarre array of comments? What in the world is this guy Tim MacDonald saying? All I see is socialism. Just look at his bio here and see what he labels himself. Unreal!
Climate progress sounds like total hoodwink. Green colored energy, net zero pacts, green new deals, green lifestyle are all extensions of late capitalism and infinite economic growth. The entire ‘climate rush’ is about energy at the heart of it all. A rotten civilization always needs more and more and more energy and new scams to go!
As an author and journalist, Bill, I am sure you appreciate that words matter. Every word evokes an ecosystem of meaning and nuance that informs that emotions in the hearer.
That is why I have a bone to pick with the words you and others continue to use, including "phase out", "fossil fuels", and "emissions".
First thing. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. A fossil is a bone that has been mineralized into stone. You cannot burn stones as fuel.
What we are burning are hydrocarbons that were formed by holding carbohydrates under pressure over time.
Carbohydrates are formed by plants using photosynthesis to take energy directly from the sun and use it to hold carbon atoms in chemical bonds with other atoms to form carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates are the batteries that power life. They are broken down through respiration to release the energy used to chemically bind carbon atoms so that that energy can be used to power the metabolism of life. The respiration of carbohydrates releases carbon atoms back into earth’s atmosphere, where it is taken up again in photosynthesis. A virtuous cycle.
These are carbon "emissions", but they are not habitat geoengineering carbon emissions. So, we need to be careful to choose words that don't confuse the audience. "Emissions" is an audience-onfusing word.
It's not emissions that we need to focus on. It's energy. Energy from hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons cannot be respirated. They are not the batteries of life.
Carbon atoms chemically bound into hydrocarbons are durably removed from earth’s sky chemistry, never to return.
The binding of carbon atoms into hydrocarbons allows the thermodynamic balance between radiant cooling and solar heating of the earth to stabilize within ranges that support the habitats on earth that living things inhabit.
Those habitats must be stabilized at the right levels in order to be habitats that we humans can inhabit.
When we extract energy from hydrocarbons through combustion to power our technologies, we break the geobiochemical bonds that hold carbon atoms durably removed from earth’s sky chemistry and reset the geothermodynamic balance that sets the habitats on earth to geoengineer habitats on earth that we humans cannot inhabit.
So, no more "emissions" talk. And no more talk about "fossil fuels". Those words are confusing the audience.
Also, not more talk about "phase out". Also, confusing to the audience.
We do have to stop extracting energy from hydrocarbons.
Many will agree that is not a very prudent thing to be doing.
But we can’t just stop. We can't just "phase out". We need to replace, so that can retire.
Replace to Retire Energy Extraction from Hydrocarbons.
That needs to be our call to action.
Before we can retire energy extraction from hydrocarbons, we first have to replace the energy that will be lost to our economy with new energy technologies that will not geoengineer habitats on earth that we will not be able to live in.
We need to rapidly reconfigure our global energy technologies portfolio, by adding new energy technologies that will not geoengineer habitats on earth that people cannot inhabit, so we can then delete, and permanently retire, energy extraction from hydrocarbons that is geoengineering habitats on earth in which we cannot live.
How are we going to organize such a rapid reconfiguration of our global energy technologies portfolio, replacing first, so that we can retire, second, energy extraction from hydrocarbons, for energy parity with habitat longevity and social equity?
How are we going to finance that reconfiguration?
The law is the way.
Specifically, the law of fiduciary duty.
Even more specifically, the law of fiduciary duty as it applies to the exercise of plenary powers of discretionary authority over tens of trillions of society’s shared savings aggregated into social superfunds for the social purpose of provisioning the social goods of Workplace Pensions and Civil Society Endowments in delivering an ever present, evergreen certainty in security continuing on into the future for qualifying individuals, directly, that must also be, of necessity, a future of security for all of society, consequently.
We can use retirement money to finance the retirement of hydrocarbons and the stabilization of human-friendly habitats on earth for ourselves and our posterity.
I think we should keep trying to figure out if we can actually do it, but i think the main thing is to make sure we don't use the prospect of perhaps someday doing so to prolong the fossil fuel era
If we change the framing from “reduce emissions” to “reduce global temperature” with strict monitoring and enforcement (jail not fines) the moral hazard is moot meaningless.
What you’re proposing - “reduce global temperature” with strict monitoring and enforcement (jail not fines) - borders on Eco Fascist insanity.
If it’s not already across said border.
Your ideology presupposes that the ONLY factor that controls temperature is human emissions of CO2 from burning hydrocarbons. That is demonstrably wrong and intentionally malevolent by design.
Can you suggest an effective strategy that produced quick results? I was being facetious in the extreme to make a point.
It’s absurd. Infeasible.
Name one NGO that isn’t advocating “leave it in the ground” implicitly. Or how reducing emissions will have any cooling effect without complementary drawing down CO2 and CH4 on an urgent emergency basis?
If the goal is to cool the oceans and atmosphere, set a target trajectory and monitor/enforce temperature. Don’t you agree?
Carbon capture costs money - mostly taxpayers' money. Sucking down CO2 isn't like renewables, that make money from the making and selling of energy.
Seems like it would be taxes or levies. No good having it paid by a carbon tax because a carbon tax that works will end up with no revenues when energy companies all switch to low emissions; getting them to evade a carbon tax is the point whole point of having one.
How much Will to do it might depend on how disrupted climate is when emissions settle around zero - that's if the disrupting hasn't reduced the ability to do and pay for it.
we need to meet asap i have a single simple solution to reduce the world's oil consumption by 2/3rds. And increase the supply of all goods and produce.
A little "Inconvenient History" for everyone: -- to make it crystal clear why we are here.
For decades - the Science of Physics told the world that "everything was being used - that there was no "free lunch", i.e. "free energy" as far as producing electricity was concerned - and no one was thinking about the environment.
That totally changed when another field of Science "hit us between the eyes" - that we had been increasingly polluting our atmosphere to the point that we were ever increasingly reaching a point of "no return" - known a 1.5 C "tipping point".
--- US Patent 464,666 was granted / to Nikola Tesla / on Dec. 8th, 1891 / the man that discovered and ultimately gave the world the AC power system in use today.
Embedded in Patent 464,666 was also the discovery (unclaimed) of the "electrical means" of producing "over-unity" electric power.
--- a Tesla based / solid-state power supply design / continuously / "over-unity" / powered a test load -- at 103% -- in 1982.
--- a refined / Tesla based / mechanical-electrical power design / continuously / "over-unity" powered an "off-the-shelf' AC motor with "pure", i.e., no harmonics or "electrical noise" sinusoidal sinewave wave-form at 120 VAC / 60 Hz -- the same AC power required for all US homes today.
The unit was tested by Northwest Laboratories of Seattle WA - at their facility / with their test gear / tested their way / -- at 293% -- on Sept. 8th, 1984.
--- US Patent 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS /on Sept. 8th, 1992 (based on Tesla's 464,666 Patent) was granted for a totally solid-state / electric power supply design.
"Over-unity" was specifically not claimed - as the US/DOD or US/DOE would have it rejected - before being forwarded to the Patent Office for examination.
However -- if one carefully reads the Patent ABSTRACT and physically graphs out the singular / sequential outputs (in a circle as described): -- one finds "over-unity" - -and it is definitely not "free energy" - totally within "define Physics".
Fast forward to today.
--- the unit has a maximum designed "selectable voltage) output of either:
a.) 480 VDC / 480 Amps, or;
b.) 480 VAC / 480 Amps / with the proper number of output phases and operating frequencies required by any major AC power system in use -- world-wide.
c.) 3-phase / 400 VAC / 160 Amps per phase is specifically specified for vehicular power.
"If it's good enough for Tesla...".
Specifically -- the system, named the POD MOD for "P"ower "O"n "D"emand "MOD"ule is designed to be installed either:
--- "at" any existing or new "stationary" location,, i.e., any home; commercial; or industrial site -- world-wide, or
--- "in" any existing or new "moving" vehicle, of any size or weight; be it on land / sea / or in the air as a propeller; rotor; turbine; "whisper-jet"; or hi-bypass jet engine powered private or commercial aircraft; making available:
--- unlimited range of travel, and;
--- unlimited time of travel -- all without any (all battery required) "recharging" at any time.
There is one feature that eliminates the need for any battery power use:
--- each "small" / "lightweight" / unit has it's own on-board "start-up" power source;
--- making it a "stand-alone" electric power supply - but with two caveats:
1.) it will supply up to maximum electric power output (electricity) until it is turned off; where it can be immediately turned back on; and;
2.) it does not require being connected to any external electric power source / for any reason / at any time.
3.) it's existence makes all polluting (or supposedly otherwise - like solar) electricity producing systems;
--- from all polluting / remotely located electric power producing sites / to distributing utility:
--- totally redundant, i.e., unnecessary;
4.) it's existence makes all forms of the polluting internal internal combustion engine:
--- totally redundant, i.e., unnecessary.
Absolutely none of the above changes -- will happen: unless we get the POD MDO technology into use.
This is because the "powers that be", i.e., the Oil and Gas Industry, along with every Government (including the US) that "has it's 'head down and locked', i.e., for:
The way I see it two to three times more CO2 by weight than fuel burned is the unavoidable, intractable arithmetic that makes CCS unworkable. As well as much more of it to deal with the equipment for handling, transporting, storing has much more demanding engineering requirements than the fuels ever have. All the spent oil and gas fields cannot hold the CO2 just from the coal and gas that came out of them - well, they are full of uncapped, unmapped boreholes and distant from where they get burned - but just the amounts of CO2 are so much larger they would not FIT.
The one ray of hope in all of the gloom is the successes of renewable energy. If there is any "most acceptable" way to deal with the climate problem it is building a sufficient abundance of low, potentially zero emissions energy to displace actual fossil fuel use - not deal with the CO2 after - and do it cost effectively. So that even the wasteful energy use of people who don't care will be low emissions. There will be other constraints on our wastefulness but primary energy use doesn't have to be one of them.
Within the last decade solar electricity crossed into cost-competitiveness with fossil fuels and already the most built new electricity in the world by a very large margin. That quickly. Yes, the stock of existing electricity generation is huge but the tide of market forces has turned, is unstoppable and the deniers are fiercely opposing and obstructing the things that will make renewables reliable - transmission projects, offshore wind, big batteries, because renewable denial is the new climate denial.
Energy storage? No-one was going to build that first, as a prerequisite to wind and solar; strong commitment to solar and wind at large scale has been the prerequisite to building energy storage. It was only 7 years ago that South Australia got it's Big Tesla Battery, to widespread ridicule. At least 20 times it's capacity is already up and operational in Australia and multiple battery mega factories are up and running around the world. That quickly. The gas sector is arguing and lobbying hard to make gas the backup to all the wind and solar but in Australia batteries - Small Modular Storage - have already made new gas plants unviable.
The successes of wind and solar are why RCP 8.5 is not considered a realistic possibility anymore (not climate science being wrong) - and that is a HUGE deal. Truly wow! Imagine how well we can do with climate policies that are genuinely ambitious.
It is what has undercut the pessimistic belief zero emissions can't be done and induced leaders of political parties and governments to at least be able to say they are committed to zero emissions by 2050.
For more good news, check out what’s happening in Panama right now. Massive protests have led the Supreme Court to declare a Canadian copper mine unconstitutional. It’s a story worth following.
WOW!
Yeah, wow indeed. Isn't copper needed for the production of wind powered turbines and electric motors? Where do you think it's going to come from in the quantities necessary to make the transition happen in the timeframe that is being pushed?
"And Guterres is right: there’s one way to do that, and it’s renewable energy. Phase out fossil fuels period, and stat.
Everything else is just smoke."
"The point of climate negotiations should not be to produce a deal, no matter how many pixels are spilled about that prospect over the next two weeks. It’s to stop the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
We've put the foxes in charge of the henhouse - does anyone believe that anything truly meaningful will come of this COP-out? Greta is right - it's all "blah, blah, blah." So was the bard: "It is a tale told by an idiot: full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."
We'll see song & dance routines, we'll see "big" promises and goals, we'll be reassured, we'll be told story after story after story. But we won't see any meaningful progress as long as the foxes are running the show. We need to get the foxes out of the damn henhouse.
Bill, I've been an environmental activist all of my adult life, so I'm especially conflicted about the fact that I use gas in my house as do most of my friends and family. I'm also on a fixed income so as much as I'd like to switch to solar, my personal financial circumstances won't allow it. I was able to install heat pumps -- a blessing for sure. But this brings me to a problem that has plagued us as environmentalist for decades -- how do we talk about renewal energy to people who can't afford it. I cringe at some of the holier-than-thou rhetoric environmentalist use.
Ethanol production results in more CO2 emissions than it saves, according to this paper in the nation's premier scientific journal, from last year
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2101084119
And, the US is running out of groundwater according to this recent article from the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groundwater-drying-climate-change.html
The average immigrant's GH emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US, which should not be surprising since so many come from third world countries, in large part because they want to be able to live like Americans. We're taking in immigrants at the rate of more than 20 million/decade (20 million is the population of NY State), according to data from the Census Bureau, a rate which they project will continue for the next 40 years. It would be nice if we could welcome the world to a better life, but to think we can do that is a form of American exceptionalism that will only lead us astray.
Furthermore, the flood of immigrants is hurting the Democratic Party. As per Ruy Teixeira, "The Democrats' Immigration Problem": https://substack.com/inbox/post/137887616
The sooner we install renewable electric generation and storage, electrify industry, businesses, homes and transportation, the sooner the fossil fuel industry will be out of business. But if we keep electing candidates that represent the fossil industry, these things will never happen.
Wrong
Your position would be different if CO2 emissions were what really mattered to you and your acolytes.
That it is not, and you object to nuclear, puts your actual objective into clear focus.
We are at least grateful for that.
Which is worse....The article itself or the bizarre array of comments? What in the world is this guy Tim MacDonald saying? All I see is socialism. Just look at his bio here and see what he labels himself. Unreal!
Climate progress sounds like total hoodwink. Green colored energy, net zero pacts, green new deals, green lifestyle are all extensions of late capitalism and infinite economic growth. The entire ‘climate rush’ is about energy at the heart of it all. A rotten civilization always needs more and more and more energy and new scams to go!
The Global Green Scare Is NOT WORKING!
Thank you, Bill. Great informative post.
As an author and journalist, Bill, I am sure you appreciate that words matter. Every word evokes an ecosystem of meaning and nuance that informs that emotions in the hearer.
That is why I have a bone to pick with the words you and others continue to use, including "phase out", "fossil fuels", and "emissions".
First thing. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. A fossil is a bone that has been mineralized into stone. You cannot burn stones as fuel.
What we are burning are hydrocarbons that were formed by holding carbohydrates under pressure over time.
Carbohydrates are formed by plants using photosynthesis to take energy directly from the sun and use it to hold carbon atoms in chemical bonds with other atoms to form carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates are the batteries that power life. They are broken down through respiration to release the energy used to chemically bind carbon atoms so that that energy can be used to power the metabolism of life. The respiration of carbohydrates releases carbon atoms back into earth’s atmosphere, where it is taken up again in photosynthesis. A virtuous cycle.
These are carbon "emissions", but they are not habitat geoengineering carbon emissions. So, we need to be careful to choose words that don't confuse the audience. "Emissions" is an audience-onfusing word.
It's not emissions that we need to focus on. It's energy. Energy from hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons cannot be respirated. They are not the batteries of life.
Carbon atoms chemically bound into hydrocarbons are durably removed from earth’s sky chemistry, never to return.
The binding of carbon atoms into hydrocarbons allows the thermodynamic balance between radiant cooling and solar heating of the earth to stabilize within ranges that support the habitats on earth that living things inhabit.
Those habitats must be stabilized at the right levels in order to be habitats that we humans can inhabit.
When we extract energy from hydrocarbons through combustion to power our technologies, we break the geobiochemical bonds that hold carbon atoms durably removed from earth’s sky chemistry and reset the geothermodynamic balance that sets the habitats on earth to geoengineer habitats on earth that we humans cannot inhabit.
So, no more "emissions" talk. And no more talk about "fossil fuels". Those words are confusing the audience.
Also, not more talk about "phase out". Also, confusing to the audience.
We do have to stop extracting energy from hydrocarbons.
Many will agree that is not a very prudent thing to be doing.
But we can’t just stop. We can't just "phase out". We need to replace, so that can retire.
Replace to Retire Energy Extraction from Hydrocarbons.
That needs to be our call to action.
Before we can retire energy extraction from hydrocarbons, we first have to replace the energy that will be lost to our economy with new energy technologies that will not geoengineer habitats on earth that we will not be able to live in.
We need to rapidly reconfigure our global energy technologies portfolio, by adding new energy technologies that will not geoengineer habitats on earth that people cannot inhabit, so we can then delete, and permanently retire, energy extraction from hydrocarbons that is geoengineering habitats on earth in which we cannot live.
How are we going to organize such a rapid reconfiguration of our global energy technologies portfolio, replacing first, so that we can retire, second, energy extraction from hydrocarbons, for energy parity with habitat longevity and social equity?
How are we going to finance that reconfiguration?
The law is the way.
Specifically, the law of fiduciary duty.
Even more specifically, the law of fiduciary duty as it applies to the exercise of plenary powers of discretionary authority over tens of trillions of society’s shared savings aggregated into social superfunds for the social purpose of provisioning the social goods of Workplace Pensions and Civil Society Endowments in delivering an ever present, evergreen certainty in security continuing on into the future for qualifying individuals, directly, that must also be, of necessity, a future of security for all of society, consequently.
We can use retirement money to finance the retirement of hydrocarbons and the stabilization of human-friendly habitats on earth for ourselves and our posterity.
We can use the law to do that.
That needs to be our new Call to Action.
"Oblivia Coalmine"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL8NSfj0hR8
Oblivia is speaking for our pensions etc. etc.
Look for every opportunity to call or divestment of the investors from fossil fuels!
Excellent column.
Do you think we should consider sucking down CO2 after we quash fossil fuel emissions, in order to reduce warming, or is carbon capture just doomed?
I think we should keep trying to figure out if we can actually do it, but i think the main thing is to make sure we don't use the prospect of perhaps someday doing so to prolong the fossil fuel era
If we change the framing from “reduce emissions” to “reduce global temperature” with strict monitoring and enforcement (jail not fines) the moral hazard is moot meaningless.
What you’re proposing - “reduce global temperature” with strict monitoring and enforcement (jail not fines) - borders on Eco Fascist insanity.
If it’s not already across said border.
Your ideology presupposes that the ONLY factor that controls temperature is human emissions of CO2 from burning hydrocarbons. That is demonstrably wrong and intentionally malevolent by design.
Can you suggest an effective strategy that produced quick results? I was being facetious in the extreme to make a point.
It’s absurd. Infeasible.
Name one NGO that isn’t advocating “leave it in the ground” implicitly. Or how reducing emissions will have any cooling effect without complementary drawing down CO2 and CH4 on an urgent emergency basis?
If the goal is to cool the oceans and atmosphere, set a target trajectory and monitor/enforce temperature. Don’t you agree?
That makes sense now.
Say, are you at COP this week?
Carbon capture costs money - mostly taxpayers' money. Sucking down CO2 isn't like renewables, that make money from the making and selling of energy.
Seems like it would be taxes or levies. No good having it paid by a carbon tax because a carbon tax that works will end up with no revenues when energy companies all switch to low emissions; getting them to evade a carbon tax is the point whole point of having one.
How much Will to do it might depend on how disrupted climate is when emissions settle around zero - that's if the disrupting hasn't reduced the ability to do and pay for it.
Perhaps we should urge a multinational, state-backed CO2-sucking effort, carefully independent of fossil fuel industries?
We must all fight to end our addiction to fossil fuels and join the electric revolution.
Give me lithium, or give me meth!
we need to meet asap i have a single simple solution to reduce the world's oil consumption by 2/3rds. And increase the supply of all goods and produce.
A little "Inconvenient History" for everyone: -- to make it crystal clear why we are here.
For decades - the Science of Physics told the world that "everything was being used - that there was no "free lunch", i.e. "free energy" as far as producing electricity was concerned - and no one was thinking about the environment.
That totally changed when another field of Science "hit us between the eyes" - that we had been increasingly polluting our atmosphere to the point that we were ever increasingly reaching a point of "no return" - known a 1.5 C "tipping point".
--- US Patent 464,666 was granted / to Nikola Tesla / on Dec. 8th, 1891 / the man that discovered and ultimately gave the world the AC power system in use today.
Embedded in Patent 464,666 was also the discovery (unclaimed) of the "electrical means" of producing "over-unity" electric power.
--- a Tesla based / solid-state power supply design / continuously / "over-unity" / powered a test load -- at 103% -- in 1982.
--- a refined / Tesla based / mechanical-electrical power design / continuously / "over-unity" powered an "off-the-shelf' AC motor with "pure", i.e., no harmonics or "electrical noise" sinusoidal sinewave wave-form at 120 VAC / 60 Hz -- the same AC power required for all US homes today.
The unit was tested by Northwest Laboratories of Seattle WA - at their facility / with their test gear / tested their way / -- at 293% -- on Sept. 8th, 1984.
--- US Patent 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS /on Sept. 8th, 1992 (based on Tesla's 464,666 Patent) was granted for a totally solid-state / electric power supply design.
"Over-unity" was specifically not claimed - as the US/DOD or US/DOE would have it rejected - before being forwarded to the Patent Office for examination.
However -- if one carefully reads the Patent ABSTRACT and physically graphs out the singular / sequential outputs (in a circle as described): -- one finds "over-unity" - -and it is definitely not "free energy" - totally within "define Physics".
Fast forward to today.
--- the unit has a maximum designed "selectable voltage) output of either:
a.) 480 VDC / 480 Amps, or;
b.) 480 VAC / 480 Amps / with the proper number of output phases and operating frequencies required by any major AC power system in use -- world-wide.
c.) 3-phase / 400 VAC / 160 Amps per phase is specifically specified for vehicular power.
"If it's good enough for Tesla...".
Specifically -- the system, named the POD MOD for "P"ower "O"n "D"emand "MOD"ule is designed to be installed either:
--- "at" any existing or new "stationary" location,, i.e., any home; commercial; or industrial site -- world-wide, or
--- "in" any existing or new "moving" vehicle, of any size or weight; be it on land / sea / or in the air as a propeller; rotor; turbine; "whisper-jet"; or hi-bypass jet engine powered private or commercial aircraft; making available:
--- unlimited range of travel, and;
--- unlimited time of travel -- all without any (all battery required) "recharging" at any time.
There is one feature that eliminates the need for any battery power use:
--- each "small" / "lightweight" / unit has it's own on-board "start-up" power source;
--- making it a "stand-alone" electric power supply - but with two caveats:
1.) it will supply up to maximum electric power output (electricity) until it is turned off; where it can be immediately turned back on; and;
2.) it does not require being connected to any external electric power source / for any reason / at any time.
3.) it's existence makes all polluting (or supposedly otherwise - like solar) electricity producing systems;
--- from all polluting / remotely located electric power producing sites / to distributing utility:
--- totally redundant, i.e., unnecessary;
4.) it's existence makes all forms of the polluting internal internal combustion engine:
--- totally redundant, i.e., unnecessary.
Absolutely none of the above changes -- will happen: unless we get the POD MDO technology into use.
This is because the "powers that be", i.e., the Oil and Gas Industry, along with every Government (including the US) that "has it's 'head down and locked', i.e., for:
--- "commercialization only" decisions already made;
--- "to hell with lowering consumer billing rates";
--- "really tackling the Global Warming / Climate Change disaster we have:
--- because "...the business types think they can just take all of that money with them;
--- and the Governments / including COP298 ---are quite happy;
--- "...to not going to get in their way..."
This is actually what we are up against.
The way I see it two to three times more CO2 by weight than fuel burned is the unavoidable, intractable arithmetic that makes CCS unworkable. As well as much more of it to deal with the equipment for handling, transporting, storing has much more demanding engineering requirements than the fuels ever have. All the spent oil and gas fields cannot hold the CO2 just from the coal and gas that came out of them - well, they are full of uncapped, unmapped boreholes and distant from where they get burned - but just the amounts of CO2 are so much larger they would not FIT.
The one ray of hope in all of the gloom is the successes of renewable energy. If there is any "most acceptable" way to deal with the climate problem it is building a sufficient abundance of low, potentially zero emissions energy to displace actual fossil fuel use - not deal with the CO2 after - and do it cost effectively. So that even the wasteful energy use of people who don't care will be low emissions. There will be other constraints on our wastefulness but primary energy use doesn't have to be one of them.
Within the last decade solar electricity crossed into cost-competitiveness with fossil fuels and already the most built new electricity in the world by a very large margin. That quickly. Yes, the stock of existing electricity generation is huge but the tide of market forces has turned, is unstoppable and the deniers are fiercely opposing and obstructing the things that will make renewables reliable - transmission projects, offshore wind, big batteries, because renewable denial is the new climate denial.
Energy storage? No-one was going to build that first, as a prerequisite to wind and solar; strong commitment to solar and wind at large scale has been the prerequisite to building energy storage. It was only 7 years ago that South Australia got it's Big Tesla Battery, to widespread ridicule. At least 20 times it's capacity is already up and operational in Australia and multiple battery mega factories are up and running around the world. That quickly. The gas sector is arguing and lobbying hard to make gas the backup to all the wind and solar but in Australia batteries - Small Modular Storage - have already made new gas plants unviable.
The successes of wind and solar are why RCP 8.5 is not considered a realistic possibility anymore (not climate science being wrong) - and that is a HUGE deal. Truly wow! Imagine how well we can do with climate policies that are genuinely ambitious.
It is what has undercut the pessimistic belief zero emissions can't be done and induced leaders of political parties and governments to at least be able to say they are committed to zero emissions by 2050.