Energy, the environment & climate change.

hilts said:
Don’t want a falling out it’s not worth it, you and I always pop up on these discussions. On this subject you are the anti vaxxer or the flat earther. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly neither of those! But appreciate the good humour nevertheless. Cheers mate.
 
Manchester33 said:
It's a myth that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions | Chris Goodall and Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian

Wind Energy's Carbon Footprint - FactCheck.org

It's a huge myth and one that is peddled by people with strong financial interests within the Gas/Oil industries.
Click to expand...
I think it used to be the case years ago when the technology was less advanced but there's no way it would have progressed the way it has if that was the case now. I used to be against wind power for that reason but I'm happy to admit I've been proven wrong and its place alongside other low carbon energy generation methods is as important as any other. Equally important is the use of nuclear to provide electricity that is not dependent on weather, along with a flexible energy source to take up the slack when wind and solar are having bad days as it's difficult to change the output of a nuclear power station to match demand. At present that flexible source is gas which is much more environmentally friendly than coal and oil, but long term the big challenge is to replace it with something that has zero or minimal emissions.
 
Manchester33 said:
If we're speaking solely about CO2 emissions, western lifestyles are to blame. You have countries like Bangladesh with a population of 163m who produce around 84.5 MT CO2 per year. Compared to the UK with a population of 68 million who produce 379 MT CO2 per year.

It's easy for us to look at countries with huge populations and point the finger, but we only have ourselves in the west to blame. The average Brit produces 10x more CO2 than the average Bangladeshi person. The usual comeback to that point is 'well I don't want to live like an average person from a poor Asian nation', which sums up just how selfish we are, as it's those in the poorer nations that will suffer from climate change.
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily an issue of selfishness but rather just a consequence of development. UK per capita CO2 emissions are decreasing whereas in Bangladesh they are rising. At current rates, Bangladesh will eventually surpass UK CO2 output.

The combined increases from developing nations is why efforts to make the UK carbon neutral is pointless as is calling us selfish. It has to be a global effort otherwise we are wasting our time.

Even today, if the US and China does not kerb their CO2 output then the worlds effort to do so is a waste of time.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I thought it might be. I've heard it from many sources but I'd never really bothered to check.
Click to expand...
I think its well known that once in operation to generate the same amount of electricity wind turbines significantly reduce carbon emissions compared to a fossil fuel even a bio fuel equivalent but if someone can correct me on that I would be glad to hear otherwise.

The issues with turbines are their longevity , noise , the impact on flora and fauna to clear the land required to install them and in Australia of course for example combined with the fact they supply intermittent energy especially when the differential in air pressure in minimal in surrounds and the wind blows too hard as we don't make any and we ship high quality coal to China to assist them in making them to sell back to us to install we assist them in increasing their carbon footprint at our expense.
 
inbetween said:
It's not necessarily an issue of selfishness but rather just a consequence of development. UK per capita CO2 emissions are decreasing whereas in Bangladesh they are rising. At current rates, Bangladesh will eventually surpass UK CO2 output.

The combined increases from developing nations is why efforts to make the UK carbon neutral is pointless as is calling us selfish. It has to be a global effort otherwise we are wasting our time.

Even today, if the US and China does not kerb their CO2 output then the worlds effort to do so is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point. If China doesn't start to wean itself off coal whatever the rest of us do will have no effect. The answer is not to think 'fuck it' though, it's to put pressure on China to do what's right.
 
west didsblue said:
I think it used to be the case years ago when the technology was less advanced but there's no way it would have progressed the way it has if that was the case now. I used to be against wind power for that reason but I'm happy to admit I've been proven wrong and its place alongside other low carbon energy generation methods is as important as any other. Equally important is the use of nuclear to provide electricity that is not dependent on weather, along with a flexible energy source to take up the slack when wind and solar are having bad days as it's difficult to change the output of a nuclear power station to match demand. At present that flexible source is gas which is much more environmentally friendly than coal and oil, but long term the big challenge is to replace it with something that has zero or minimal emissions.
Click to expand...
Well put and FWIW I agree with this sentiment other than I have never been against the wind being used to generate electricity if its done in an environmentally friendly way not specifically related to CO2 generation as important as that is.

i think we missed the boat on nuclear here in OZ it nearly passed both houses back in 1972 but legislation has to change now to even discuss its use for electricity as opposed to using it for cancer treatment as is the case in Lucas Heights for the critical radioisotopes.
 
inbetween said:
It's not necessarily an issue of selfishness but rather just a consequence of development. UK per capita CO2 emissions are decreasing whereas in Bangladesh they are rising. At current rates, Bangladesh will eventually surpass UK CO2 output.

The combined increases from developing nations is why efforts to make the UK carbon neutral is pointless as is calling us selfish. It has to be a global effort otherwise we are wasting our time.

Even today, if the US and China does not kerb their CO2 output then the worlds effort to do so is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Not sure any great change was ever started by everyone all at once at the exact same time.

If some countries had made a stand a few decades ago the US and China would probably be a lot further forward. It’s a great excuse mind and one that continues the never ending shit show. It’s a perpetual Groundhog Day of excuses that leads to the inevitable.
 
mancity1 said:
i think we missed the boat on nuclear here in OZ it nearly passed both houses back in 1972 but legislation has to change now to even discuss its use for electricity as opposed to using it for cancer treatment as is the case in Lucas Heights for the critical radioisotopes.
Click to expand...
As I recall it the WA Government under Charlie Court were looking at a nuclear power station in the late 1970s. They even identified a site, around 80Kms north of Perth.

I thought it was at Ledge Point but a wiki search tells me that it was at a place a bit further south.

I think back in those days no-one appreciated the extent of the gas reserves sitting off the Pilbara coast.
 
mancity1 said:
I think its well known that once in operation to generate the same amount of electricity wind turbines significantly reduce carbon emissions compared to a fossil fuel even a bio fuel equivalent but if someone can correct me on that I would be glad to hear otherwise.

The issues with turbines are their longevity , noise , the impact on flora and fauna to clear the land required to install them and in Australia of course for example combined with the fact they supply intermittent energy especially when the differential in air pressure in minimal in surrounds and the wind blows too hard as we don't make any and we ship high quality coal to China to assist them in making them to sell back to us to install we assist them in increasing their carbon footprint at our expense.
Click to expand...
Don't forget 'windmill cancer'...

Vast swathes of wind/solar farms north of LA that I've driven past a few times. Perfect location for them up there as it's fairly open and windy, plus the sun shines a LOT. Other locations like you say are not the best. They do have an impact, but are they are better than the alternative overall? Environmentally, yes. But in terms of lifestyle we'd all have to make huge changes to the way we live.

Given that solar doesn't produce when the sun doesn't shine and wind turbines don't produce if they aren't turning which means that the biggest problem is going to be storing the energy once it has been converted from mechanical to electrical energy or direct from PV. Maybe we'll have to improve efficiency of devices and rely on low capacity storage solutions at a more local level to negate transfer losses, but even that has its drawbacks with the finite supply of materials to make batteries.

As Kermit the Frog once said 'It's not easy being green'.
 
The Northern Baptist said:
I’ve got a masters degree in Renewable Energy Engineering. There are so many obstacles in place preventing the government achieving this net zero goal they have its ridiculous. Technical, financial, behavioural and having enough ppl to actually do all the work.
Click to expand...
I am doing my masters now mate. Did you do yours at Loughborough?
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Don't forget 'windmill cancer'...

Vast swathes of wind/solar farms north of LA that I've driven past a few times. Perfect location for them up there as it's fairly open and windy, plus the sun shines a LOT. Other locations like you say are not the best. They do have an impact, but are they are better than the alternative overall? Environmentally, yes. But in terms of lifestyle we'd all have to make huge changes to the way we live.

Given that solar doesn't produce when the sun doesn't shine and wind turbines don't produce if they aren't turning which means that the biggest problem is going to be storing the energy once it has been converted from mechanical to electrical energy or direct from PV. Maybe we'll have to improve efficiency of devices and rely on low capacity storage solutions at a more local level to negate transfer losses, but even that has its drawbacks with the finite supply of materials to make batteries.

As Kermit the Frog once said 'It's not easy being green'.
Click to expand...
The efficiency of solar is pretty much fixed. It comes down to the energy band gap of the semiconductor material. If using silicon it is theoretically impossible to get over a certain level of efficiency.
There are people who are adding different materials together (adding a layer of perovskite to silicon) which can boost the efficiency a bit, but these technologies are just coming on line.

The same is applicable to wind turbines, they will never be able to theoretically go above around 50% efficiency, as it is practically impossible to have infinite sized blades.

To be fair, efficiency is just a selling point for the manufacturers. Wind turbines and photovoltaics do not operate at standard conditions.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Don't forget 'windmill cancer'...

Vast swathes of wind/solar farms north of LA that I've driven past a few times. Perfect location for them up there as it's fairly open and windy, plus the sun shines a LOT. Other locations like you say are not the best. They do have an impact, but are they are better than the alternative overall? Environmentally, yes. But in terms of lifestyle we'd all have to make huge changes to the way we live.

Given that solar doesn't produce when the sun doesn't shine and wind turbines don't produce if they aren't turning which means that the biggest problem is going to be storing the energy once it has been converted from mechanical to electrical energy or direct from PV. Maybe we'll have to improve efficiency of devices and rely on low capacity storage solutions at a more local level to negate transfer losses, but even that has its drawbacks with the finite supply of materials to make batteries.

As Kermit the Frog once said 'It's not easy being green'.
Click to expand...
Brilliant I love this simple summary of pro's and cons.

the fact that China is going gung ho on new and established coal fired power stations taking the piss on the US in their usual way is disturbing.

When our PM asked for the origins of the Wuhan virus to be investigated in our media alone with no formal request to any official because they refuse to talk to out Minister of Trade we got stung with massive taxes on barley , beef, coal ,wine and the list goes on.

The WTO China led investigation if we can call it that suggested in its drivel of 34 pages of a report it is still possible the virus was imported into China from frozen food (LOL).

this is China and the CCP , they take the piss out of everyone and call it fact.

I was very happy to see the massive protests in Adelaide yesterday when the drop kick premier over there was flooded with water over his car as he tried to sneak out of the new massive ugly Chinese Consulate building opening.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
In response to a post in the US Politics thread (@Nightmare Walking).

I often see this topic pop up in other threads, and people have some very strong opinions on the subject, often without having a particularly good understanding of the big picture stuff, let alone the finer details.

I'm by no means an expert on the subject. In fact I've probably only just scratched the surface myself. As an inhabitant of this planet I have a vested interest in doing my small part to make a difference (for the better) to the environment. In reality, in just by being alive we have a negative impact on the environment and no amount of 'green' practices are ever going to change that, certainly not in the 'developed' world.
Click to expand...
I posted this in the Attenborough Perfect Planet thread recently;

“
Just watching the final episode now.

I’ve spoken a lot about us needing a health revolution off the back of Covid. But I’ll tell you what, it won’t matter how healthy we are; Brexit won’t matter, Tories, Labour, racism, homophobia, tackling prejudices, equality, pandemics, lockdowns, our jobs, money, football, music, trainers, none of it will matter... because humans will be extinct!

How much more airtime on the News or talktime in our lives do all those things get over and above the amount of air/talktime the destruction of the planet gets? Go through the threads across this and the Politcs part of the forum and have a look at how many people are talking about climate, the environment, extinction... the Brexit thread is on about its Fourth Edition but this thread went into hibernation after a page and a half!

We concentrate on far too much of the wrong things. The most important thing in the world is looking after the planet and making it the best possible place it can be for humans and other species to, not just survive, but thrive for as long as possible.

Concentrating on political points scoring either way over who’s in government, or looking at the USA’s political and social issues like it’s a reality TV show... they are not important!

How many of us “do our bit”?

I’ve got rid of my car, I cycle run and walk everywhere (sometimes get the bus), I try to not buy plastics, try not put the heating on if I can help it, and I now vote for the Green Party... but I still use a lot of electricity, I still eat meat despite knowing how much farming contributes to CO2 emissions, and I’m not proactive in trying to change things. I don’t do anywhere near enough, but some people do nothing!

And even if I did completely change to a Green life, what good is one man doing it when the UK population grew by ~350,000 last year despite an excess deaths of 15% on top of the usual ~650,000 deaths we usually have a year. So despite some people going Green, despite Covid killing 100,000+ people, we are still 350,000 people up on this time a year ago. That’s 350,000 more carbon footprints. And globally, despite a global pandemic, the net population growth in 2020 was ~82,000,000. That’s the entire population of Germany more in the world, an entire country’s carbon footprint extra in a year, and what about the years before that and the years ahead? And what are govts doing about this unsustainable population growth and unsustainable way we treat the planet?

Why is hardly anybody talking about this? Why does the News spend every day moaning about schools reopening and lockdown ending, then moaning that schools reopened and lockdown ended too early, then moaning that schools should close and we should go into lockdown again... why is Katie Price getting interviewed live on BBC News about a programme where she’s simply cashing in on her son’s disability?.. why aren’t they talking about the planet, not just more, but some days/weeks/months at all?

And why aren’t we?
”
 
Doc on sewage uses the other night was very interesting; energy from urine.
EDIT.
If anyone thinks I’m taking the piss, here’s the link - about halfway through...
www.bbc.co.uk

BBC Two - The Secret Science of Sewage

The revolutionary science finding renewable resources and undiscovered life in sewage.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
I think some things we do, such as the way plastics are dumped into the oceans, are absolutely diabolical and should be a source of shame to all of us.

That said, I really don't buy into this narrative of "climate catastrophe" with respect to CO2 and warming etc. Climate change is a much better term. Our climate is always changing and yes the rate of change is faster but that does not mean the world will end. It will simply be a bit different, with some places warmer and wetter, others drier and some colder. And we are talking decades upon decades before there's anything dramatically detrimental and even then there will be some upsides never discussed, such as less people dying of cold, places which are currently not arable becoming viable for agriculture.

Neither do people typically consider the technological advances which may occur over the next 100 years to put changes into reverse if needed. "Free" clean energy from nuclear fusion reactors meaning near zero athropogenic CO2 output. Enormous carbon sequestration capability, either man-made or bio-engineered, for example.

It's not something for us to become complacent about, for sure. But it's not something to lose sleep over either, IMO. The hysteria around it is perhaps caused by people who wrongly believe the world is ending (because they know no better) and by factions whose self-interest is served by fuelling this melodrama. It's naïve to think that all of the content being pushed out is done with virtuous intent. Some of it is done for commercial gain. Does anyone think Elon Musk is on a mission to save the planet? I don't. Ditto to what extent are Volvo (for example) so concerned about the environment? Vs concerned about how to continue to sell cars?
Click to expand...
The world won’t end, in fact, long term, the world will thrive without humans; but the world will extinct many species if things don’t change. This could include humans, we aren’t particularly advanced physiologically to deal with what could come, compared to, say, crocodiles.

Have a watch of the series Earth: The Power Of The Planet with Prof. Iain Scott; Attenborough’s two episodes called The Facts (Climate Change and Extinction); and Attenborough’s Perfect Planet.

The first was made in 2007, and the second and third last year. In just 13 years some of the warning signs have come true.

Look at how many species are going extinct every year:

Redirect Notice

www.google.co.uk

Redirect Notice

www.google.co.uk

And it’s not just Climate Change that’s the problem, it’s plastics, it’s unsustainable population growth, it’s the destruction of wilderness and human habitation coming into contact with animals we shouldn’t be or it’s illegal hunting and trafficking of animals we shouldn’t be coming into contact with that are causing and will cause pandemics...
 
Two more round me dumped their cars - one due to epilepsy, other dumped his Octavia VRS for a work van (with his missus getting a Cinquecento). And I've finally mastered the recycling!

But I suppose it's not a lot compared to Cryptocurrency.

What a fucking disaster that is.

Should be banned until we can mine at 10x efficiency.
 
Only way to sort the planet is a cull of the majority of human beings, the first lockdown I was one of those allowed to experience a world without basically humans. Travelling to work was a joy, the environment was cleaner, at home birds returned to the garden and as we all saw pollution dropped dramatically. Dolphins in the cabals of Venice. Let’s fast forward to today and the great unwashed have been released, they are in the parks leaving shit everywhere, if you think this bunch of selfish pricks will do anything but help themselves you are sadly mistaken. Maybe COVID is a way of nature getting its own back and maybe the beginning of many more attempts to wipe us out.
If I’m lucky I’ve another 40/50 years on this planet I feel for my daughter who will have to deal with shit that has been caused by me and others of my generation. Let’s face it the planet won’t miss us when we are gone but we will miss it when it’s gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top