The cooling effect of SO2 was certainly known when the IMO regulations were decided upon. It was decided that the public health advantages outweighed the climate warming. One can certainly quibble whether this decision was correct or not, but it wasn't done in ignorance.
(My take would have been be to allow high sulphur fuel out on the high seas, where there's very few humans around (or flora and fauna in general). )
Notably, politically the notion of forests as carbon sinks have been a very convenient fig leaf for politicians not wanting to reduce emissions in other parts of society.
Apparently there is a yearly car check during which the odometer can be read, and there are other options like entering the data yourself, but the legislation is not yet completely finalised.
The peace price is different, and it's been a bit of a hit and miss at least since Kissinger got it.
And the economics prize, though it's not officially really a Nobel prize.
But the core science prizes, AFAICT, are pretty spot on. Of course there are always many worthy contenders of a prize and one can quibble should this or that person really deserve to get it instead of another person, but I haven't heard of any outright frauds or some trivial advancement getting the prize.
For example the recent nobel prize for Chemistry being awarded to David Baker, Dennis Hassabis and John Jumper.
Why the hell is David Baker on that list? He was just the head of a very big lab that was working in the traditional way using largely physics based approaches, making incremental progress.
AlphaFold blew that whole approach out of the water.
They cite the design of Top7 back in 2003 - it's not at the level of impact as Alphafold.
The impact of Alphafold is obvious to all - the importance of the 2003 Baker paper doesn't stand out to me from 1000's of other possible candidates - that's where self-promotion, visibility and politics plays a part.
The 2003 Baker paper has 2249 citations over 22 years. The 2021 AlphaFold paper has had 43876 citations in 4 years..........
So yeah, Denmark and particularly Norway are a bit richer than the others, but the others are in the same ballpark.
If I had to bring up some particular reason, gas grids are more or less non-existent in the Nordics, and electricity is cheaper than in central Europe or UK.
Looks like the expansion to 300 MW will have Stockholm beat soon if it hasn't already happened! Or is that in a different plant? Wasn't entirely clear to me, but great progress nonetheless!
My understanding is that at the moment there's no expansion happening at the Katri Vala plant (the 160MW mentioned in the link above), the 300 MW is the total heat pump capacity spread out over half a dozen locations.
Air-source heat pumps are also somewhat common in retrofits where the remaining expected lifetime of the building isn't big enough to be worth spending some 20-30k€ (?) that installing a ground source heat pump costs. A significant part of the cost being drilling the hole.
Similarly for small houses the cost of the hole drilling might not be worth the reduction in electricity consumption.
(My take would have been be to allow high sulphur fuel out on the high seas, where there's very few humans around (or flora and fauna in general). )
reply