Perhaps that not a single reference to the article is about measuring the benefits of forests. Therefore I am lead to believe that the benefits of current land use is not adequately valued, neither in dollar value, not carbon value.

Besides, the option should be putting solar in rooftops and above parking lots and above roads etc. Not taking pristine land for such a endeavour. That way we get the benefit of BOTH the solar farm and the forest, so almost 100% better.

I see potential, but ultimately it comes down to cost, energy density and time to market.

4,2MWh in a 40 footer is more than the 2MWh we see today, but it is still not enough. A city in the 100k-region can be at the 80MW mark, so with 4,2MWh@0.01C it would take 2000 containers to be able to run that city for the 100 hours spoken about in the article.

Don't get me wrong, it is an incredible achievement, not least geopolitically, but for it to take off costs need to be low. If they are at price parity with LFP/sodium batteries I'll want 1 for testing. If they are at half the cost I will start looking for places to stack containers.

"shouldn't exist"? More like, "we don't know how they are formed (yet)".

I guess the issue would be that there shouldn't have been enough time to form two black holes that large and have them meet by collisions. So either black holes are more common than thought, or there are other ways for them to form.

So, without the shift in fuel the emissions would be 2% higher? Why is that not a good thing?

Yes, we want total emissions lower, but without the efuel emissions would have been even higher.

I wonder what Shell has in this. Dont get me wrong, it is a good thing, but companies don't do things out of the goodness of their heart and I don't see the green wash as enough for this kind of commitment. Finding out may show a way forward for others.

Yeah, I know. Unfortunately Polar Night are hard to reach, which is why we've had to go to others to develop heat batteries.

The Chinese example was great to see, though! I wish we could get something similar going here, to be able to store energy. Extracting hydrogen is step 1, but also finding a good way to store it is crucial! There has been a lot of innovation in that regard lately, though.

Sure, this piece can't tell it's Fahrenheit from it's kWh and God forbid anybody mentions power. It is of relevance, though, that nuclear is very sensitive as a power source and is hampered in many ways. It's almost as if to be able to count on 1 reactor at any given time, 2 must be built.

Dont get me wrong, it is obvious that a mix is needed, because all sources have their own shortcomings. I just hope nuclear can be built fast enough. I don't think so, but would gladly be proven wrong☹️. The last European reactor took 15 years to build. The world needs to have transitioned by then.

Yes, and that is good. Now we need to be able to do it in Europe as well and in much larger quantities, both for heating and electricity.

Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily "we might reconsider our stance on troop mines". Rather it is: "we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation". Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.

Oh, it wasn't the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That's why it was sent publicly...

I'd say it is an obvious way to try to confuse BEV with LEV... To sell more ICE-cars...

Sweden is as expected. 200-something fatalities for 10 million people. Norway stands out😃

It got me thinking about definitions, though. For Sweden every death during transportation is counted (including busses, heavy trucks and single accidents with a bike), while the definition my 2 minute googling found for Canada said deaths resulting from accidents involving automobiles.