Carbon Chemist

Tag: infrastructure

  • The World’s Biggest Maker of EVs Has the Worst Appraisal of Human Rights

    The World’s Biggest Maker of EVs Has the Worst Appraisal of Human Rights

    [ad_1]

    “[BYD’s] disclosures show a serious lack of transparency on human rights diligence in its battery supply chains,” said Amnesty’s Callamard. “Other low-scoring firms, such as Hyundai and Mitsubishi, lack the necessary depth and information about implementation across key human rights due diligence areas.”

    “The commitments these companies report on are often vague and provide little evidence of meaningful action, showing they have a long way to go to meet international standards,” Callamard said.

    While companies such as Renault and GM have stated their commitment to human rights due diligence, and rank higher than some of the lowest-scoring companies, they still provide limited evidence of fully integrating these commitments into their supply chain operations, with scant information about their risk assessments, according to the Recharge for Rights report.

    BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla, and VW have “more to do” to “identify actual and potential human rights risks across [their] supply chains,” said Amnesty, but the fact that they achieved a “moderate” score “should stand as a model for the others to follow,” stated Recharge for Rights.

    Auto Compliance

    Six of the 13 companies featured in the Recharge for Rights report responded to WIRED, stressing that they take the issues raised by Amnesty seriously. BMW, GM, Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai all sent statements regarding their poor scoring.

    Mitsubishi said Amnesty’s report was based on information dating from 2023, “but we have initiated numerous efforts since then.” These measures, said the Japanese company, include using AI to “analyze potential connections with suppliers related to conflict minerals and other issues.”

    Nissan provided WIRED with its Sustainability Data Book, which included minerals-sourcing best practices, adding that the company respected the “human rights of all stakeholders” and complied with “applicable laws, regulations, and standards.”

    “Our supply chain compliance program sets out the highest standards,” stated Hyundai, adding it was “committed to a sustainable, ethical supply chain that upholds human rights, environmental protection, and safety.”

    “We have been committed to respecting human rights for years, even beyond legal requirements,” Mercedes-Benz stated, highlighting that it “ranks the best among the evaluated automobile manufacturers” in Amnesty’s report.

    BMW pointed WIRED to the group’s compliance management documents. General Motors said it was committed to “sustainable and responsible sourcing of goods and services.” A Ford spokesperson offered to be interviewed on a Zoom-style call but, at the agreed time, did not show up.

    History of Criticism

    Digging up minerals can be exceedingly lucrative for mining companies, but people who live in proximity to these resources rarely, if ever, benefit. For some Brazilian communities, this changed last month following a court case that will be keenly studied by the industries that rely on such minerals, including the automotive sector.

    The largest class action in English history was filed in London on October 21, a claim involving 700,000 individuals seeking redress after a devastating tailings dam rupture in 2015 on the Doce River in southeastern Brazil. Nine years later, the Doce River—which the Krenak Indigenous people revere as a deity—is still poisoned with the iron ore mine’s deluge-related toxins.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The EV Buyers’ Guide to an Uncertain Future

    The EV Buyers’ Guide to an Uncertain Future

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration is likely to make big changes to US federal electric vehicle incentive programs. Buy or lease now, probably.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The UK Has No Coal-Fired Power Plants for the First Time in 142 Years

    The UK Has No Coal-Fired Power Plants for the First Time in 142 Years

    [ad_1]

    On Monday, the UK saw the closure of its last operational coal power plant, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, which has been operating since 1968. The closure of the plant, which had a capacity of 2,000 megawatts, brought to an end to the history of the country’s coal use, which started with the opening of the first coal-fired power station in 1882. Coal played a central part in the UK’s power system in the interim, in some years providing over 90 percent of its total electricity.

    But a number of factors combined to place coal in a long-term decline: the growth of natural-gas-powered plants and renewables, pollution controls, carbon pricing, and a government goal to hit net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

    From Boom to Bust

    It’s difficult to overstate the importance of coal to the UK grid. It was providing over 90 percent of the UK’s electricity as recently as 1956. The total amount of power generated continued to climb well after that, reaching a peak of 212 terawatt hours of production by 1980. And the construction of new coal plants was under consideration as recently as the late 2000s. According to the organization Carbon Brief’s excellent timeline of coal use in the UK, continuing the use of coal with carbon capture was given consideration.

    But several factors slowed the use of fuel ahead of any climate goals set out by the UK, some of which have parallels to the situation in the US. The European Union, which included the UK at the time, instituted new rules to address acid rain, which raised the cost of coal plants. In addition, the exploitation of oil and gas deposits in the North Sea provided access to an alternative fuel. Meanwhile, major gains in efficiency and the shift of some heavy industry overseas cut demand in the UK significantly.

    Through their effect on coal use, these changes also lowered employment in coal mining. The mining sector has sometimes been a significant force in UK politics, but the decline of coal reduced the number of people employed in the sector, reducing its political influence.

    These had all reduced the use of coal even before governments started taking any aggressive steps to limit climate change. But, by 2005, the EU implemented a carbon trading system that put a cost on emissions. By 2008, the UK government adopted national emissions targets, which have been maintained and strengthened since then by both Labour and Conservative governments up until Rishi Sunak, who was voted out of office before he had altered the UK’s trajectory. What started as a pledge for a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 now requires the UK to hit net zero by that date.

    These have included a floor on the price of carbon that ensures fossil-powered plants pay a cost for emissions that’s significant enough to promote the transition to renewables, even if prices in the EU’s carbon trading scheme are too low for that. And that transition has been rapid, with the total generations by renewables nearly tripling in the decade since 2013, heavily aided by the growth of offshore wind.

    How to Clean Up the Power Sector

    The trends were significant enough that, in 2015, the UK announced that it would target the end of coal in 2025, despite the fact that the first coal-free day on the grid wouldn’t come until two years after. But two years after that landmark, however, the UK was seeing entire weeks where no coal-fired plants were active.

    To limit the worst impacts of climate change, it will be critical for other countries to follow the UK’s lead. So it’s worthwhile to consider how a country that was committed to coal relatively recently could manage such a rapid transition. There are a few UK-specific factors that won’t be possible to replicate everywhere. The first is that most of its coal infrastructure was quite old—Ratcliffe-on-Soar dates from the 1960s—and so it required replacement in any case. Part of the reason for its aging coal fleet was the local availability of relatively cheap natural gas, something that might not be true elsewhere, which put economic pressure on coal generation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • An Underwater Data Center in San Francisco Bay? Regulators Say Not So Fast

    An Underwater Data Center in San Francisco Bay? Regulators Say Not So Fast

    [ad_1]

    NetworkOcean isn’t alone in its ambitions. Founded in 2021, US-based Subsea Cloud operates about 13,500 computer servers in unspecified underwater locations in Southeast Asia to serve clients in AI and gaming, says the startup’s founder and CEO, Maxie Reynolds. “It’s a nascent market,” she says. “But it’s currently the only one that can handle the current and projected loads in a sustainable way.”

    Subsea secured a permit for each site and uses remotely operated robots for maintenance, according to Reynolds. It plans to fire up its first underwater GPUs next year and also is considering private sites, which Reynolds says would ease permitting complexity. Subsea claims it isn’t significantly increasing water temperature, though it hasn’t published independent reviews.

    NetworkOcean also believes it will cause negligible heating. “Our modeling shows a 2-degree Fahrenheit change over an 8-square-fot area, or a 0.004-degree Fahrenheit change over the surface of the body” of water, Mendel says. He draws confidence from Microsoft’s finding that water a few meters downstream from its testing warmed only slightly.

    Protected Bay

    Bay Area projects can increase water temperatures by no more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit at any time or place, according to Mumley, the ex-water board official. But two biologists who spoke to WIRED say any increase is concerning to them because it can incubate harmful algae and attract invasive species.

    Shaolei Ren, a University of California, Riverside, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering who’s studying the environmental impact of AI, compares plans for an underwater data center of NetworkOcean’s announced capacity, when running fully utilized, to operating about 300 bedroom space heaters. (Mendel disputes the concern, citing Project Natick’s apparently minimal impact.) A few years ago, a project that proposed using San Francisco Bay water to cool a data center on land failed to win approval after public concerns were voiced, including about temperatures.

    The San Francisco Bay is on average around a dozen feet deep, with salty Pacific Ocean water flowing in from under the Golden Gate Bridge mixing with fresh runoff from a huge swath of Northern California. Experts say it isn’t clear whether any location in the expanse would be suitable for more than a tiny demonstration between its muddy, shallow, salty, and turbulent parts.

    Further, securing permits could require proving to at least nine regulatory bodies and several critical nonprofits that a data center would be worthwhile, according to spokespeople for the agencies and five experts in the bay’s politics. For instance, under the law administered by the Conservation and Development Commission, a project’s public benefit must “clearly exceed” the detriment, and developers must show there’s no suitable location on land.

    Other agencies consider waste emissions and harm to the region’s handful of endangered fish and birds (including the infamous delta smelt). Even a temporary project requires signoff from the US Army Corps of Engineers, which reviews obstruction to ship and boat traffic, and the water board. “For example, temporarily placing a large structure in an eelgrass bed could have lingering effects on the eelgrass, which is a critical habitat for certain fish,” the water board’s Lichten says.

    NetworkOcean’s Kim tells WIRED that the company is cognizant of the concerns and is avoiding sensitive habitats. His cofounder Mendel says that they did contact one of the region’s regulators. In March, NetworkOcean spoke to an unspecified US Coast Guard representative about testing at the bottom of the bay and pumping in seawater as a coolant. The company later shifted to the current near-surface plans that don’t involve pumping. (A Coast Guard spokesperson declined to comment without more clarity on whom NetworkOcean allegedly contacted.)

    For permanent installations, Kim and Mendel say they are eyeing other US and overseas locations, which they declined to name, and that they are engaging with the relevant regulators.

    Mendel insists the “SF Bay” test announced last month will move forward—and soon. “We’re still building the vessel,” he says. A community of marine scientists will be keeping their thermometers close.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What Cancún’s Tourists Don’t See Is a Sprawling Concrete Jungle

    What Cancún’s Tourists Don’t See Is a Sprawling Concrete Jungle

    [ad_1]

    This story originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

    The wide mowed lawns and leafy trees, the sports fields shining under their illuminated lights, the bouncy castles in the children’s play areas—especially the bouncy castles—are what Celia Pérez Godínez envies. These are the trappings of the wealthy neighborhood she travels to every day as a domestic worker in Cancún. Pérez envies the rich.

    She tells me this sitting on a rotten wooden bench one August afternoon, her 7-year-old son getting his scooter stuck on the broken path here many miles away in the north of the city, in a tiny park. Full of garbage and wild vegetation, it’s a short distance from where Pérez lives, close to the city outskirts. As we talk, a homeless person in the background shouts and laughs as if at a joke only he understands.

    Pérez is a 33-year-old single mother from San Marcos, Guatemala. She migrated in 2013 to Cancún, Mexico’s over-promoted and hugely popular tourist destination. She rarely has enough time and money to go to the beach and cannot find green areas or decent, safe public spaces for her son to play, having to make do with the few parks, like this, that are available. This is not the life she expected. “You hear that Cancún is wonderful, but when you get here … it’s a disappointment.”

    At 54 years old, Cancún is the youngest city in Mexico. It was designed from scratch in the 1970s as a new holiday destination in the country. In this respect, it’s been a wild success. But as an urban project, it is a failure. Designed for 200,000 people, the population of its urban sprawl now exceeds 1 million. Before, much of this area was jungle; today there are hundreds of hotels. Accelerated real-estate development has bitten into the surrounding vegetation year after year.

    This growth has been an environmental nightmare but also a social one, giving vastly unequal benefits to the city’s richer and poorer inhabitants. According to recent research by Christine McCoy, an academic at the University of the Caribbean, most people in Cancún live without the minimum green areas or public spaces needed for proper recreation, leisure, rest, or socializing. This is especially true in those regions where the most vulnerable live.

    Click play to see Cancún’s urban development from 1984 to 2022.

    This inequality has evolved despite Cancún’s rapid expansion consuming huge amounts of green space. Between 2001 and 2021, the surrounding region lost at least 30,000 hectares of jungle, according to data from Mexico’s National Forestry Commission. On the land ripped from the jungle there are now residential and hotel projects. And according to data seen by WIRED, plenty more developents are on the way. At the federal level, since 2018 the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources has received 40 requests for further land use change in the area. If approved, 650 more hectares of jungle will disappear.

    Data obtained through freedom of information shows what urban development projects have been processed over this period, these ranging from 2,247 tiny, popular housing units on the one hand to a 20-story, 429-room all-inclusive luxury hotel. Crucially, none of these include applications for public parks or green areas to be developed or improved, in a city that is already bursting at the seams, having exceeded its tourist carrying capacity for more than a decade.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Paris Olympics Promised Flying Taxis—Here’s Why They Failed to Launch

    The Paris Olympics Promised Flying Taxis—Here’s Why They Failed to Launch

    [ad_1]

    Six months before the Olympic Opening Ceremony, Dirk Hoke, CEO of Volocopter, was still hopeful. “[We’re] making people aware that this is not science fiction,” he told WIRED in February, touting the flying taxi as a sustainable, safe and quiet mode of transport that would become normal in just a few years. “It works and it starts this year.”

    Flights on Volocopter’s VoloCity model would be free-of-charge and initially three routes were planned across Paris. Even as those plans were made public, Hoke had yet to travel in one of his own vehicles. “I would love to,” he said, “but so far, according to the regulation, only test pilots are allowed.” Still, his tone was optimistic. “We will hopefully start flying in July and then start also with passengers, probably in August.”

    But just two months later, Hoke started expressing doubts in German media. After being rejected for a state loan, the company was facing the prospect of insolvency “in the foreseeable future,” if its shareholders would not agree to more financing, he told newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.

    At the same time, backlash to the project was mounting, with critics complaining the VoloCity (which could only transport one passenger at a time) was more akin to a private plane than any form of public transport. “We don’t need them,” says Lazarski. She believes the flying taxis would create visual and noise pollution in the skies above Paris, without giving its residents anything back. “It’s not mass transportation,” she says, claiming the vehicles would only be used by the most privileged. “They’re for business people.”

    Lazarski was not alone in her concerns. Seventeen thousand people have signed a petition so far, calling for the project to be scrapped and politicians in charge of Paris also joined the backlash—pitting politicians in the capital against the wider region and government.

    Dan Lert, deputy mayor in charge of the green transition called the VoloCity an “absurd gadget” that will “only benefit a few ultra rich people.” His colleague David Belliard, deputy mayor in charge of mobility, echoed that sentiment. “It is useless, it is anti-ecological, it is very expensive,” he said in July.

    Volocopter, however, defended its product as affordable. “We strongly believe that when we go into the hundreds and thousands of these vehicles, that we can easily reach a price per equivalent seat which is only a bit higher than a taxi on the street,” Hoke said in February.

    Yet other flying taxi executives have acknowledged that getting to that point will take time and first there will be a period where these vehicles cater to the wealthy. “A lot of the initial use cases will be first and business class passengers connecting with flights,” Michael Cervenka, chief technology officer of UK-based flying taxi company Vertical Aerospace, said earlier this year.

    By late July, it was clear Volocopter’s plans for the Paris Olympics were being scaled back, even as the company claimed its immediate money problems had been solved. “It’s a technological advance that could be of use,” transport minister, Patrice Vergriete, insisted, acknowledging the flying taxis might not be able to welcome any passengers in time for the Olympics. Publicly, Volocopter was careful not to credit the public backlash with the setback, instead blaming an American supplier “not able to provide what it had promised,” and its failure to win approval from the European Union Aviation Safety Authority to operate commercially.

    Lazarski does not consider the failure so far of flying taxis a victory. “It’s more relief,” she says. But for her, the battle is not over. As vice president of UFCNA, the French union against aircraft nuisance, Lazarksi is involved in a legal challenge against plans to operate a vertiport on the river Seine for flying taxis to take off and land from central Paris. That launchpad has already secured permission from the government to operate until December. The race for the Olympics may be over. But the dream of flying taxis over Paris is not dead.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The US Grid Is Adding Batteries at a Much Faster Rate Than Natural Gas

    The US Grid Is Adding Batteries at a Much Faster Rate Than Natural Gas

    [ad_1]

    While solar power is growing at an extremely rapid clip, in absolute terms, the use of natural gas for electricity production has continued to outpace renewables. But that looks set to change in 2024, as the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has run the numbers on the first half of the year and found that wind, solar, and batteries were each installed at a pace that dwarfs new natural gas generators. And the gap is expected to get dramatically larger before the year is over.

    Solar, Batteries Booming

    According to the EIA’s numbers, about 20 GW of new capacity was added in the first half of this year, and solar accounts for 60 percent of it. Over a third of the solar additions occurred in just two states, Texas and Florida. There were two projects that went live that were rated at over 600 MW of capacity, one in Texas, the other in Nevada.

    Next up is batteries: The US saw 4.2 additional gigawatts of battery capacity during this period, meaning over 20 percent of the total new capacity. (Batteries are treated as the equivalent of a generating source by the EIA since they can dispatch electricity to the grid on demand, even if they can’t do so continuously.) Texas and California alone accounted for over 60 percent of these additions; throw in Arizona and Nevada, and you’re at 93 percent of the installed capacity.

    The clear pattern here is that batteries are going where the solar is, allowing the power generated during the peak of the day to be used to meet demand after the sun sets. This will help existing solar plants avoid curtailing power production during the lower-demand periods in the spring and fall. In turn, this will improve the economic case for installing additional solar in states where its production can already regularly exceed demand.

    Wind power, by contrast, is running at a more sedate pace, with only 2.5 GW of new capacity during the first six months of 2024. And for likely the last time this decade, additional nuclear power was placed on the grid, at the fourth 1.1 GW reactor (and second recent build) at the Vogtle site in Georgia. The only other additions came from natural gas-powered facilities, but these totaled just 400 MW, or just 2 percent of the total of new capacity.

    The EIA has also projected capacity additions out to the end of 2024 based on what’s in the works, and the overall shape of things doesn’t change much. However, the pace of installation goes up as developers rush to get their project operational within the current tax year. The EIA expects a bit over 60 GW of new capacity to be installed by the end of the year, with 37 GW of that coming in the form of solar power. Battery growth continues at a torrid pace, with 15 GW expected, or roughly a quarter of the total capacity additions for the year.

    Wind will account for 7.1 GW of new capacity, and natural gas 2.6 GW. Throw in the contribution from nuclear, and 96 percent of the capacity additions of 2024 are expected to operate without any carbon emissions. Even if you choose to ignore the battery additions, the fraction of carbon-emitting capacity added remains extremely small, at only 6 percent.

    Gradual Shifts on the Grid

    Obviously, these numbers represent the peak production of these sources. Over a year, solar produces at about 25 percent of its rated capacity in the US, and wind at about 35 percent. The former number will likely decrease over time as solar becomes inexpensive enough to make economic sense in places that don’t receive as much sunshine. By contrast, wind’s capacity factor may increase as more offshore wind farms get completed. For natural gas, many of the newer plants are being designed to operate erratically so that they can provide power when renewables are under-producing.

    A clearer sense of what’s happening comes from looking at the generating sources that are being retired. The US saw 5.1 GW of capacity drop off the grid in the first half of 2024, and aside from a 0.2 GW of “other,” all of it was fossil fuel-powered, including 2.1 GW of coal capacity and 2.7 GW of natural gas. The latter includes a large 1.4 GW natural gas plant in Massachusetts.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Much Will It Cost to Charge Your Electric Car? It’s Complicated

    How Much Will It Cost to Charge Your Electric Car? It’s Complicated

    [ad_1]

    Another weird feature of electricity pricing are demand charges. These are fees that EV charging site hosts pay, and are based on their highest usage, in 15-minute to one-hour intervals, during a pay period. These demand charges help utilities deal with the various costs of building and maintaining an electric grid. But they’re frustrating in the EV charging context, because some chargers get used very rarely—but when they are used demand a lot of electricity in a short amount of time. That leads to demand charges.

    These demand charges can hit the “hundreds of thousands annually for a specific site,” says Rachel Moses, who directs sales, marketing, and business development at Electrify America.

    Meanwhile, some utilities charge “peak” pricing—that is, more money when lots of other people are using electricity. This means it tends to cost more for charging sites to provide electricity between 4 pm and 9 pm, when everyone heads home, turns on their televisions, air conditioners, or heat units, and perhaps plugs in their cars. It all amounts to slightly unpredictable charging prices.

    Electrify America says its pricing is “station specific,” meaning it will charge customers more money to charge at stations that are more expensive for it to run. But other EV charging companies take a broader approach and average out the costs of running their whole network to figure out pricing across a wider area.

    What’s more, companies are permitted to charge dynamic prices for EV charging, meaning they can change. There is, fortunately, a limit to this strategy. Rules around national public-charging infrastructure funding means that any chargers built with public funds can’t change their prices when you’re in the middle of charging your car, even if the price the company is paying for its electricity changes.

    This all means it’s hard, right now, to predict what you’ll pay to top up at a public fast charger. No wonder drivers are frustrated.

    Nu Gas Station?

    But should drivers be frustrated? Not quite knowing what you’ll pay to charge up your car at a public fast charging can be annoying. But it’s also not a full reflection of most peoples’ EV experiences.

    The real advantage of owning an electric vehicle is that, while you can only find gas at a gas station, cars can be charged in lots of different locations. At home, at the grocery store, at work: These places might not all have fast chargers, but plenty have outlets and “level 2” slower chargers where drivers can get a bit of juice.

    Headlines—and some drivers—get really hung up on public charging stations. But some 90 percent of today’s electric vehicle drivers have garages, driveways, or other places where they can charge their cars overnight. Someday, that won’t be the case, and public chargers will have to fill in the gaps for people who live in apartments or park on the street.

    But for now: Maybe don’t get too caught up on public chargers, which today mostly fill in the gaps when EV drivers are on long car trips.

    “We have this gas-station model in our heads,” says Kellen Schefter, the senior director of electric transportation at the Edison Electric Institute, an association representing US investor-owned electric companies. “If our goal is only to replicate the gas-station model for EVs, we’ve missed out on one of the real advantages of EVs.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Japan Launches a Development Project for Self-Driving EV Taxis

    Japan Launches a Development Project for Self-Driving EV Taxis

    [ad_1]

    The company also hopes automakers will adopt Autoware to develop their own autonomous vehicles, and Suzuki and Isuzu Motors have already invested in Tier IV. In this respect, Tier IV’s strategy is different from that of Waymo , a US company that is vertically integrating the development of most of the technology required for self-driving taxis.

    A Good Role Model

    In rural areas of Japan, public transportation infrastructure such as trains and buses are being shut down one after another, and Japan’s aging population has resulted in a serious shortage of taxi and bus drivers. Given this situation, regulators have raised the possibility that self-driving taxis will no longer need approval from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism if they are operate jointly with existing taxi companies.

    Even now, self-driving taxis can be operated as long as there is a person in the driver’s seat who also acts as a supervisor, so robotaxis are easy to introduce into an area even if professional drivers are in short supply. Even if fully autonomous driving is realized, there is a good chance that it will be possible to respond by remote monitoring in some areas.

    Tier IV hopes that by quickly demonstrating its model for self-driving taxis, more corporate partners will adopt the company’s technology and hardware to provide services. “We think it would be enough for us to commercialize our own areas in about three locations,” says Tier IV’s Kato. “By making this a reference model, we want to make it easy for partner companies to deploy their services.”

    In other words, just as Google has developed its Pixel series as a model in the world of Android smartphones, it would make sense for Tier IV to package and provide everything from the platform to the solutions and vehicles needed for operation, and demonstrate their commercial operation as a package.

    The company is also looking to distribute Autoware around the globe. “Japan is the only country that is showing the service as a reference model,” says Kato, “but we are considering providing software, hardware, solutions, and other things to the global market.” In fact, Autoware is most widely used in China and is spreading to the United States, Taiwan, and other countries.

    “In the future, we will be able to flexibly respond to requests depending on the region and demand, providing only software, only parts, or even entire vehicles and systems,” says Kato. “Which part will take up more weight will depend on the country or region, and frankly we don’t know yet. Still, we want to be in a position to provide everything if there is a demand.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Greener Is Getting Going

    Greener Is Getting Going

    [ad_1]

    We’ve reached a tipping point where we’ve got a cleaner alternative for most transport. Now we have to commit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link