Jonas’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CCS saves mankind

  David, nice of you to quote James Hansen. If you have read his 350 paper, you know that CCS is crucial to save mankind's behind.

  The technology is safe, tested and reliable. That's not the question. There are several commercial plants up and running across the world.

  The point is that we need to develop CCS in order to couple it to bioenergy, so that we can generate carbon-negative energy -- which is what we need to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

  It seems like you often forget this. CCS coupled to bioenergy is the key to the climate fight. No other renewable energy technology is carbon-negative. They all remain carbon-neutral at best. And we know carbon-neutrality is not nearly enough. We need to go from 387ppm to 350ppm CO2. You know this. On Politico lets shill get away with the basic dodge at the center of the 'clean coal' campaign posted 11 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Don't want to be advocate of the devil

  But what would be wrong with carbon capture and storage?

  According to James Hansen -- not a right-wing pro-coal nut -- coal with CCS is okay, but what's even more important, the development of CCS is crucial for the transition to carbon-negative bioenergy.

  So what's up with the rather narrowminded rejection of the technology of carbon capture and storage?

  This technology basically saves humanity's behind. On Coal front group sets up 'Blogger Brigade' to fight reality posted 11 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bottom of the pyramid craves energy

  A huge market segment is being forgotten here: the 2.5 billion people without access to energy in developing countries.

  There's a huge market for decentralized electricity generation on a village and town scale, in the Global South.

  Take India. A small company founded by an U.S. student and his Indian friend is building tiny combined heat and power plants based on crop residues, in villages. They build a micro-grid, have a smart system of selling the power to each family, and bank in on both carbon credits and on selling ash to the cement industry.

  It's a big winner. (Check them out if you want: http://huskpowersystems.com/ - I'm not affiliated to these entrepreneurs).

  Really sexy venture capital dares to invest in these initiatives. The socalled 'bottom of the pyramid' craves for energy, has enough purchasing power and you don't have the hassle of having to wait until big infrastructure works come your way (as with e.g. wind in the U.S.).

  Let's go South. On The VC models are to blame, not the green technologies posted 11 months ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dear Madeleine

  Dear Madeleine,
  75% of the world's hungry and poor people are farmers living in the developing world.

  Why are they hungry? Because they don't have the money to buy a diversity of food. And why don't they have the money? Because they don't have access to profitable agricultural markets.

  If we could help these farmers produce biofuels, they could receive more money for their work. And they would become less poor and less hungry.

  In short, in order to fight hunger and poverty, an increase in agricultural prices is a good thing. Remember 75% of the world's poor and hungry, are farmers in developing countries. They make more money and go less hungry when they get better prices for their products.

  So contrary to what you think, economists understand that an increase in corn prices is actually great for the world's poor.

  Best regards and welcome to the world of complexity!

  JonasOn What U.S. leaders could learn from a 13-year-old posted 11 months ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Fairly weak assessment

  Mm, not very impressive: this study doesn't even take into account the most important form of renewable energy, namely bioenergy.

  According to all EU studies, biomass-based energy (CHP) is -- by far -- the most cost-effective, the most energy efficient, and the technology that reduces GHGs most.

  Check the EU's renewable energy technology roadmap.

  But I do have the impression that Americans are not yet much involved in biomass. It must be that their attention is kept off of this most important of renewables, because of their mania with stupid liquid biofuels. They're wasting all that biomass and land on the least efficient of all options. Biomass for electricity and heat is five to ten times more efficient than converted into liquid fuels.

  I'm confident that with Steve Chu as Secretary of Energy, this will obviously change. He's chair of the Energy Biosciences Institute, so he probably knows the difference between loser biofuels, and winner biomass. On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 1 week ago 31 Responses