By Steve Goreham
“The green movement calls for a shutdown of coal and gas power plants. At the same time, it demands a switch to electric vehicles, electric home appliances, and green hydrogen produced by power-intensive electrolyzers. This and the AI revolution portend a breakdown of the so-called energy transition.”
Twenty-three states have adopted goals to move to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. State governments propose to retire coal- and gas-fired power plants and adopt wind and solar systems. But these goals conflict with efforts to promote electric vehicles (EVs), electric appliances, and a new application (AI) that will increase the demand for electric power.
The green energy push seeks to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions to fight human-caused global warming. Leaders tell us that without a complete transformation of electric power, transportation, and home appliances to achieve Net Zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, we are doomed to suffer from increasingly severe climate change impacts.
Michigan
For example, Michigan passed Senate Bill 271 on December 29 of last year, as part of its “Healthy Climate Plan.” The bill requires 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. Michigan’s electrical power in 2022 was generated by gas (34%), coal (29%), nuclear (22%), with wind and solar at 12%.
Michigan plans to close its gas and coal plants, which provide 63 percent of the electric power, while also retiring nuclear plants. At the same time, the state wants residents to switch to EVs and electric appliances.
The Healthy Climate Plan calls for two million EVs to be on the road by 2030 along with expanded electric-powered mass transit. It calls for replacement of gas appliances with electric heat pumps. But today, more than three quarters of Michigan homes are heated with natural gas. The state is also the largest user of propane fuel for home heating.
Efforts to adopt EVs and heat pumps will produce rising electricity demand and directly conflict with efforts to close power plants. Michigan’s carbon-free electricity goals appear to be impossible to achieve.
In 2022, 60 percent of US electric power was generated by coal and natural gas. About 85 percent came from the traditional generators: gas (40%), coal (20%), nuclear (18%), and hydroelectric (6%). After two decades of subsidies, wind and solar provided only about 15 percent of US electricity.
US demand for electricity has not grown since about 2005. But the push to electrify homes and transition to EVs will usher in a new era of rising power demand.
Almost all states striving for Net Zero by 2050 will run into the problem that Michigan faces. Shutting down coal and gas plants while promoting electric vehicles and heat pumps will produce electric power shortages. The only states that may be able to approach carbon-free electricity are Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, where hydroelectric generators produce most of the power.
ISO – NE Warning
The New England Integrated System Operator (ISO) issued a report in 2022 that looked at four scenarios to decarbonize the New England power grid by 2040. The report projected increases in power demand from EVs and electrification of home and business heating.
Only one scenario could meet state decarbonization goals and rising demand. That scenario called for 84 gigawatts of new wind, solar, and storage, to provide 56 percent of electricity by 2040.
But the ISO concluded that such a wind-, solar-, and battery-dominated system would not be reliable, requiring periodic operator-imposed blackouts. Even with 2,400 gigawatt-hours of battery-energy capacity and system reserve margins that were 300 percent over typical electricity demand, the system would fail for an estimated 15 days, and be at risk of failure an additional 36 days each year.
Wind and solar buildouts also conflict with alarming climate forecasts. Climate warnings call for increasingly severe weather, including stronger and more frequent storms, floods, and droughts. Yet climate-policy advocates demand a switch to intermittent wind and solar electricity sources. Wind and solar typically fail to operate during heatwave, cloudy, rainy, snowy, or stormy weather conditions.
After a transition to electrified energy systems, blackouts would be more severe. When the lights go out, residents won’t be able to cook with an electric stove or drive an EV either.
Other nations also depend upon coal, gas, and oil generators for much of their electricity. Examples of hydrocarbon-produced power in 2022 were Australia (52%), China (64%), Europe (38%), India (77%), and Japan (65%). Switching to EVs and heat pumps while shuttering coal and natural gas generators will not be possible in most countries.
Two additional trends will drive electric power demand. First, the revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) requires data centers to upgrade servers with high-performance computer processors. Data center power consumption will jump by a factor of six to ten over the next decade, rising from about 1.5 percent of world power demand today to approach ten percent of world demand.
Second, governments are pushing to establish a new green hydrogen fuel business to power heavy industries such as steel. Production of green hydrogen from electrolysis of water is very electricity intensive.
The electricity required to drive electrolyzers to produce hydrogen to power a single steel plant with a four-million-ton annual capacity will require solar installations covering an area of approximately 70 square miles. About 5,000 terawatt-hours of electricity would be needed to drive electrolyzers to generate hydrogen for the world steel industry, equaling one and one-half times total non-hydroelectric global renewable electricity generated today.
The green movement calls for a shutdown of coal and gas power plants. At the same time, it demands a switch to electric vehicles, electric home appliances, and green hydrogen produced by power-intensive electrolyzers. This and the AI revolution portend a breakdown of the so-called energy transition.
—————————-
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts at MasterResource can be accessed here.
No problem.
Just turn all that Black and Gray to Yellow
Hello Yellowcake Road
Abandon all net zero programs, fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid.
That is what China and India are doing— fire up all the fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel plant and nuclear generators but retain if not add some miniscule wind and solar into the grid so the net zero fanatics will remain blind in their zealotry.
China drives world renewables capacity addition in 2023
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202401/13/content_WS65a22a99c6d0868f4e8e30aa.html
China also.drives.the world in Coal Usage for energy generation.
China also drives the world in global emissions with 1/3 total global emissions
China is only second though with total global energy impoverished… just behind india
Do not be obsessed by IPCC and mass Media CO2/GW-scaremongering
El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Refer to this URL to see additional images
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
EXCERPT
.
WV and CO2 Vertical Profiles
.
WV is about 20,000 ppm near the surface. It rapidly decreases to about 2,000 ppm at 6 km, and 250 ppm at 10 km, due to WV condensing/freezing on particles and cloud formation. See image
https://d-nb.info/1142268306/34
.
CO2 is about 410 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 395 ppm at about 6 km, and 390 ppm at 10 km, mostly due to its high molecular weight, 44, versus air, 29. See image
.
Almost all available IR photons are near the surface, where the WV/CO2 molecule ratio is at least 20,000/423 = 47.
.
WV molecules can absorb 92% of the available IR photons, because of more windows with wide absorption bands
.
CO2 molecules can absorb at most 8%, because of a few windows with narrow absorption bands; the major band is centered on 14.9 micrometer. See Image 11A
.
Whereas, CO2 molecules are much more abundant than WV molecules at higher elevations, the remaining 14.9 micrometer photons are relatively few, plus temperature is about -50 C, plus molecules move slower and are further apart, which reduces collisions and impacts.
.
If a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, it cannot as easily transfer its energy to other molecules, as at sea level, because air pressure at 10 km is 26.4 kPa, or 25% of sea level, and 5.475 kPa at 20 km, or 5% of sea level, which means the effectiveness of a CO2 molecule is reduced by a factor of 4 at 10 km, and by 20 at 20 km, plus any energy transfer takes place at -50 C.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html
Oh Lusername. You’re so willfully naive. If there’s an ambitious plan in China, then there’s a horde of overworked statisticians cooking the books. I wouldn’t be surprised if they ‘accidentally’ included all of their slaver panel exports. At the same time, you can rest assured that far more coal is being burned than is recorded.
OK, I’ll just give Joe a call and let him know.
Thank you.
Do you always post the exact same sentence?
Why should he use a different sentence if that old one says exactly what he wants to say?
facts is facts… get over it. !!
Yes I do, if you want some people to understand you your message must be repeated ad nauseum. I will do that shamelessly.
Any reduction of CO2 is mostly due to increased generation from gas, and decreased generation from coal.
The increased generation from wind/solar has been a peanut contribution compared to gas and coal, over the past 10 years
This is not a secret
It is is all there in the statistics
If the US had more wind and solar at very high cost/kWh, that would be inflationary and make the US even less uncompetitive on world markets, which is the intent of Europe, which imports its energy and materials.
WORLD’s LARGEST OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEM DEVELOPER ABANDONS TWO MAJOR US PROJECTS AS WIND BUST CONTINUES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major
EXCERPT
New York State had signed contracts with EU big wind companies for four offshore wind projects
Sometime later, the companies were trying to coerce an additional $25.35 billion (per Wind Watch) from New York ratepayers and taxpayers over at least 20 years, because they had bid at lower prices than they should have.
New York State denied the request on October 12, 2023; “a deal is a deal”, said the Commissioner
.
Owners want a return on investment of at least 10%/y, if bank loans for risky projects are 6.5%/y, and project cost inflation and uncertainties are high
The about 3.5% is a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project
.
The project prices, with no subsidies, would be about two times the agreed contract price, paid by Utilities to owners.
The reduction is due to US subsidies provided, per various US laws
All contractors had bid too low. When they realized there would be huge losses, they asked for higher contract prices.
It looks like the contract prices will need to be at least $150/MWh, for contractors to make money. Those contract prices would be at least 60% higher than in 2021
.
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, contract price $110.37/MWh, contractor needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, contract price $118.38/MWh, contractor needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, contract price $107.50/MWh, contractor needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, contract price $118.00/MWh, contractor needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-wind-electricity-price-increases-by-66-wake
.
NOTE: Empire Wind 2, 1260 MW, near Long- Island, was cancelled.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/equinor-bp-cancel-contract-sell-offshore-wind-power-new-york-2024-01-03/
.
Offshore Cancellations in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island
.
BP (BP.L) and Oersted (ORSTED.CO) have announced hefty writedowns , and US offshore project cancellations, in recent days, in the face of high inflation, high interest rates, and lack of the timely availability of specialized ships.
.
In Rhode Island, in March 2023, a procurement for offshore wind drew only one bidder – an 884 MW proposal from Eversource and Ørsted.
In August, Ørsted CEO Mads Nipper warned the company could walk away from unprofitable projects in the US amid the turbulence in pricing and supply chain issues.
.
Avangrid, a Spanish company, in September 2022, walked away from its 804 MW Park City wind project, planned for off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. It was no longer feasible at the 2019 contract price agreed with Connecticut.
At the time, the company said, inflation, higher interest rates and supply chain issues made the agreed price of $79.83 per MWh unprofitable.
In July 2023, Avangrid also walked away from its 1200 MW Commonwealth Wind project for Massachusetts.
The two projects became so unprofitable, it made better financial sense for Avangrid to pay $48, Massachusetts + $16, Connecticut = $64 million in walk-away penalties, rather than face much higher costs for building the project, with no prospect of a profit.
.
SHELL: LONDON, Nov 2 (Reuters) – Shell’s CFO said on Thursday, the firm had abandoned a power purchase agreement (PPA), at contract price of $76.73/MWh, for the planned 2400 MW South Coast offshore wind project, off the coast of Massachusetts, agreeing to pay a $60 million walk-away penalty, rather than face much higher costs for building the project, with no prospect of a profit.
https://ctexaminer.com/2023/10/03/avangrid-cancels-park-city-wind-contract-pays-state-16m-penalty/#:~:text=Avangrid%20agreed%20in%20July%20to,1%2C200%20MW%20Commonwealth%20Wind%20project
Bust Net Zero/ESG/Carbon Taxes/Green tax subsidies/energy taxes
Give us the best energy deal or we don’t want it.
Cheap energy…… everything else is BS lining deep pockets
Vote cheap energy! Frack On!
Bob: You may be on to something – it’s so crazy, it might just work.
This blackout alarmist is just as fake as climate alarmist.
The Horse Latitudes
Unable to sail and resupply due to lack of wind, crews often ran out of drinking water. To conserve scarce water, sailors on these ships would sometimes throw the horses they were transporting overboard. Thus, the phrase ‘horse latitudes’ was born.
Are you suggesting that when the wind doesn’t blow we should stop using cars to save electric?
It wouldn’t stop a blackout but I think smart chargers have an option to not charge, controlled remotely
Which is why, if I were ever forced suffer the misfortune of having to buy an EV, I would install a solar panel system that charges a powerwall battery that would be used to recharge my car(s). No grid source needed and no external control by govt
You haven’t done the math. Especially not about the productivity of your panels in winter. You cannot get enough power from any reasonable sized solar installation to power a car year round with average mileage, and if you could, the battery with enough capacity to collect the current and then charge it would cost more than the car.
Mandatory universal EVs means the end of mobility as we now know it.
Which might have some advantages, reduction of death and injuries from traffic accidents for instance. But people should be honest about the consequences of what they are advocating, and it really does mean huge social and economic changes. Its not business as usual with an electric motor.
But you will be required to connect to the grid so that your Powerwall and EV cam be drained as needed.
Chargers don’t charge, EVs don’t go.
Why are you so quick/eager to give up your freedoms?
Andrew,
not so, I’m sure the vast majority of people, including those that decree this change are not aware that wind and solar are not an equivalent to conventional generation nor can they replace them. Wind and solar fail to meet the criteria for an economi,stable and reliable generation on practical (Intermittency) and technical, e.g. inertia and reactive power input.
I fear it will take a large scale grid outage to show these legislators the folly of their actions. Make no mistake restoring power to a large section of a grid takes very many days, not just hours to restore especially as renewables are not able to assist in a black start scenario being asynchronous.
They would only complain that there obviously wasn’t enough unreliable generation supporting the grid and more ruinable energy was needed
If the wind and solar power fails to achieve the NetZero goals, with a modern economy intact, the legislators will just blame the “wreakers” and “deplorables”, not the criminally insane NetZero policies.
No, its real. You can see the result of the UK Net Zero plans if you take a look here:
https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors
Go down to the chart at the bottom. Now move along the ‘ALL’ line. You can see for instance that the capacity factor was 6.6% or higher 90% of the time. The curve is for the last 5 years.
This means that 10% of the time it was below 6.6%. But its worse than that, because the peaks in supply don’t coincide with the peaks in demand, so actually the real in use capacity factor is even lower.
There is no viable storage solution to this. You cannot run the country on wind. There is no solar in winter. The result of insisting on trying will be blackouts.
The UK is conducting this suicidal demolition of its energy policy in full view of the world, broadcasting a play by play real time account of what its doing. And with a ruling elite that are oblivious to what the data they are broadcasting is showing.
Even Exxon sees the Net Zero writing on the wall:
https://fortune.com/2024/02/27/exxon-ceo-darren-woods-interview-pay-the-price-for-net-zero/
His views are not very clear – it reads like the result of some very careful coaching and a lot of lip service. But really, it makes no difference what he or anyone says or thinks. Net Zero globally is not going to happen.
Outside of the US, UK and Australia the rest of the world has decided not to try to do it. This means that globally its not going to happen. We will see emissions moving up to at least 45 billion tons a year by 2035, mostly driven by China, India, Indonesia etc.
Within the UK, US and Australia the hysteria has taken a strong grip of the political classes. It is possible they will drive their countries into the ground trying to do Net Zero. But even in these countries its becoming clear that the only result of this will be economic depression. The technologies the activists are proposing to use to get to Net Zero (a) don’t deliver it (b) cost too much to be afforded (c) don’t deliver viable power.
And this is only the electricity generation, which is only about one third of emissions. No-one has any plans for eliminating the other two thirds.
On electricity, you cannot run an industrial economy on wind and solar power generation. If you try, the first result will be failure of the electricity supply leading to a depression. The second result, since these are all democracies, will be the ejection of the current political establishment. This is already happening – Holland was the first, with Wilders. Something similar is brewing in the UK with Reform. Look at the farmers demonstrations in lots of places in the EU.
Its not going to happen even in the West. And if it did, it wouldn’t make much effect on getting the world there.
Then tell us how it will work and where the additional electrical energy will come from and how it will be generated.
If the Eco-Nazis get their way, when (not if) we’re freezing and starving in the dark, it will be because of fools like you and the idiots they vote for.
The EIA diagram above is deceptive like many others of a similar type by comparing ‘apples and oranges’ or more accurately ‘apples and a lemons’.
Wind and solar are entirely distinct types of intermittent power generation and are not comparable to all the others including hydro that incorporates intrinsic storage.
The same gulf between ‘reliables’ and ‘unreliables’ applies when comparing costs.
The same madness rules in Sweden as well – all because the elite has surrendered to WEF and its leader, Schwab, son of one of the Nazi nomenclatura.
This iss the heart of the matter. Same foolishness in the UK. Its not just going to be a breakdown of the so-called energy transition. If persisted with it to the bitter end, as seems likely, it will be a breakdown of the economy and society.
And yet, in the UK, SNP, Conservatives, Plaid, Greens, Labour, Liberals are all hell bent on doing just that. Because climate. And yet the UK only does about 1.5% of global emissions, no-one is looking to it as an example, and so none of this can have the slightest effect on climate, even if you accept the whole climate crisis narrative.
It is really weird. A sort of mass hysteria in the political and media classes the like of which I can’t recall ever happening before. And so obviously making no sense.
Mass hysteria, indeed. The “Green” movement has spiraled downward into a moral panic like one of the mass manias described in Charles Mackay’s 1841 book, “Extraordinary Popular Delusion and the Madness of Crowds.”
The delusional part of the green movement is the notion that the domestication of fire can be abolished. The essence of so-called “decarbonization” is the notion that combustion fuels can somehow be prohibited, yet civilization can somehow continue.
It can’t. That’s where the greenies’ madness comes in.
The domestication of fire, more than any other development, distinguishes humans from other animals. Many animals from ants to elephants, have complex social organizations. Other animals use tools, build cities, fight wars, and use language. NONE but humans have tamed fire.
Other animals panic, also; stampede, commit mass suicide, and act counter to their best interests. Humans flatter ourselves for our high intelligence. Humans too seldom caution ourselves for our chronic failure to use it.
But what’s AI got to do with it?
It seems no article or argument is complete without mentioning it these days.
Personally, I prefer the real thing and authors who don’t need to reach for the latest word de jour.
Story tip – get your skates on….
“Every winter when the temperatures drop, the IJsmeester (ice master) in villages around the Netherlands carefully starts to flood a field with water to form enough thin layers of ice to create a perfect outdoor skating rink.
Now a Dutch startup wants to use the same technique to help solve a major ecological problem: melting Arctic ice and its devastating effect on the climate.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/27/climate-crisis-arctic-ecosystems-environment-startup-plan-pump-restore-melting-sea-ice-caps
These people are crazy!
EPA is clearly not with the program.
https://www.therightinsight.org/Not-Zero
https://www.therightinsight.org/Not-All-Electric
Correction: EIA
I think these governments assume they will be able to buy power from other jurisdictions, like New England buying power from Quebec, or Michigan from Manitoba, and that EVs are some magical thing that will not be add to their power needs (maybe they won’t, once they chase the remaining manufacturers out of Michigan and New York). But these people are of the class that can’t do the math.
The greenies seem to have a massive disconnect from reality. They want to power the world on pixie dust and unicorn farts. Since bovine flatulence has been cited as causing a global conflagration, wouldn’t unicorn emissions also be part of the”problem”? Asking for a friend.
Article says:”Michigan’s carbon-free electricity goals appear to be impossible to achieve.”
The sad part of all of this is it started under Granholm with an RES law. Then a republican governor and legislature did nothing to stop it. We have been screwed by both.
The electric company in my town has been sold several times because it has hydropower with the accompanying increase in electric rates. Other companies jockeying to meet senseless goals.
Now the governor is trying to shut Line 5 that will cause energy price increases and probably make folks in the UP reduce thermostat or change heating systems.
Foolishness every where up and down government.
Goreham ==> Very nice synopsis.
The only explanation I can find for this madness is the progressive filling of political and administrative roles in Western nations with imbeciles who can’t think critically and have no concept of how systems work. And all of this is based on a belief that the rising CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely due to use of fossil fuels and can only be harmful to people and the environment. Those conclusions are clearly wrong. There is no objective evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 has caused any of the predicted detrimental outcomes. Those outcomes only appear in incompetent computer models of climate. All of our observations show that things just get better and better during the period of rising CO2 and gentle climate warming. And yet the imbeciles who run our society want us to retreat into hunger, darkness, poverty and early mortality.
One quick way to fix the perception of the energy crisis among the clueless young is to prioritize [i.e. triage] electric distribution. My priorities would be:
Well, we all know that these green goals will never happen, especially not with the current mix of fuel sources. If this country had expanded nuke energy in the 80’s and 90’s we would at least have much more “green” power generation. Slightly O/T but I’ve been watching the Netflix doc series about Three Mile Island. I was just a kid when that incident happened, so I don’t recall much about it. The series is a bit overly dramatic and gives way more interview time to the anti-nukes than it should IMO, but it does demonstrate how this incident basically killed the future of nuke power in the US. Not to mention that no one was killed (or even injured) at TMI, yet still, here we are today….
While nuclear would help “green” power generation, the green lobby’s attack on end users is bound to fail, regardless of what fuel runs power plants. Businesses that get slammed with excess regulations and costs simply pull up stakes and move to more business friendly places (often out of the US entirely). Private consumers simply refuse to purchase more costly and less effective products, and make a huge stink (i.e. the proposed gas stove ban). EVs are still (and likely always will be) niche vehicles, not unlike motorcycles and rag top convertibles. Despite the best government effort to push them on consumers.
Of course, governments can simply ban choices they don’t want people to have (like stifling fuel economy regs and the UK wanting to ban repair of old cars). But as history tells us, they are treading on very thin ice at that point. First will come the black markets – perhaps there will be rogue repairmen like Tuttle in the movie Brazil to fix peoples’ ICE cars and gas furnaces….and with the expansion of 3-D printing, black market parts manufacturers. And if they really put the screws to the populace, all bets are off.
From the graph, power generation from coal has decreased by a factor of about 3 since 2007, with natural gas taking up most of the slack. Per MWh generated, natural gas emits about half the CO2 as coal, so that switching from coal to natural gas would decrease total CO2 emissions for the same power demand.
So why is the Biden administration trying to limit fracking for natural gas and exports from LNG terminals?
To fight ‘alleged’ human-caused Global Warming. You are unwittingly playing ‘their’ game if you do not tighten up your language.
From the graph, it is evident that with the swoon in coal (coupled with Net Zero destruction of the economy) electrical generation has flat-lined in the US. In EU-UK electrical generation is declining in output, despite grand plans to electrify all of society.
With a rash of bankruptcies in renewables manufacturing and installation beginning pre-Covid, now shaking the world’s largest green power companies – Siemens, Oersted, etc who need 40%+ hikes in subsidies on projects they had already signed contracts for, the renewables fantasy is at a tipping point and beyond recovery.
In 2019, when Germany in desperation was bulldozing over part of a wind farm to expand a coal mine to keep the lights and heat on, there was mention of renewables having peaked in Europe in 2017 (now firmly buried by left-totalitarian fixers). Also mentioned was the need to decommission 47GW of end of life wind power. At the same time, it was reported that investors were backing away from this sector.The graph above also seems to support a ~2017 peak renewables in USA!
There is an attempt to to hide this 2017 renewables peak, by two methods (1. Report percentage of renewables power without disclosing total power is declining frighteningly, and (2. By statistics on increased cumulative installments of renewables without correcting for farms no longer in service nor the 1-2% decline in output annually from existing generators!
Shouldn’t a big player in the sceptical side be digging at this. There is a big scoop to be had.
These mandates at the local, state and national levels are so unrealistic they’re laughable. Achieving Net Zero by 2050 is unattainable, and consumers, businesses and industries aren’t going to make any great efforts to overcome the problem. The reality is that only a small minority cares about these climate goals, and when governments claim they’re aiming for such-and-such or so-and-so regarding emissions targets, they’re just for effect.
Do electrolytes have to run continuosly?