COP26

[mancity1]

Nobody wants to see Johnson in a lavishly decorated flat in a stained vest with several empty red wine bottles in shot waffling his usual bollocks ( probably whilst scratching his own )

You think all those co2 eaters coming playing holier than thou would prefer to see it person?

Boris probably has lots of zoon shares in his current wife's name to boot.

I guess some just want to a test run on what its like to get on a plane again wearing a mask.

Boris just loves the attention no 26 will be just like the previous 25 , lots of c02 and not much else.

Can't even get the most powerful leader on the planet to attend probably the only one that should albeit he will take anything agreed to with a grain of salt.

 

[inbetween]

or, you know, China and India could just stop using fossil fuels and we'd be fine.

This logic is incorrect because whilst it is correct that China in particular contributes much more than anyone else, their population size means that doing so is quite justified. India's output is no different, the fact is that 4 Indians in India will only contribute as much CO2 as 1 person does in the UK so they actually are contributing far less.

The only way they could reduce this is to literally cut peoples electricity off or kill off people unless they went 100% renewable. However we in the UK aren't even 50% renewable yet on a population of 65 million so how will India achieve that for 1.3 billion people?

The true heart of the problem isn't in energy usage but rather in production. The big driver in that is our dependence on oil which is why the oil producing states produce more CO2 per capita than any other country. However, why do countries produce oil at all? It isn't because they're nice, it's for money and that's exactly why our club owner and Newcastle's new one are driving around in Rolls Royce's made of gold.

Decoupling energy resources from profit is crucial, just look at the current panic buying occurring around petrol, that is all a product of profiteering from a supply problem. The oil price is currently around the same price that it was 20 years ago yet petrol is set to hit the highest price it has ever been.

So why are people panic buying petrol at all? The reason is because they have no choice and they cannot get anywhere without it, that's why it's so expensive because companies are profiting off the lack of supply. The transportation problem is also something that only governments can tackle and the fact is they aren't. To sum it up, how does it make sense that it costs me £30 to park a car with a family of 4 in Manchester for the weekend or £23 per person to travel on the train? Why would anyone get the train in this situation?

The likes of the Royals commentating and having these fancy shows is all gas-lighting and front. If they wanted to do something then they could and it could all start by looking first at home but of course they won't do that will they? Kate Middleton turned up in a dress that could buy someone a train season ticket for the year.

 

[west didsblue]

Fossil fuels are going to continue to be important for transportation until one of two things happens.

Battery technology needs to evolve such that the energy density in a battery gets into the same order of magnitude as petrol or diesel. Currently with Lithium Ion batteries energy density is about 1% of petrol or diesel. It doesn't need to get to 100% because EVs are much more efficient. But it does need to get to around 20% which is a few step changes away from where we are. Without this EVs will continue to be much heavier, more expensive to produce and with much shorter range. Ok for people who just drive round town and can leave it on charge overnight every night but inconvenient for anyone that regularly uses a car for longer journeys. There's no shortage of universities doing research on this but we're years away from a practical solution.

The other alternative is the use of hydrogen which actually has a higher energy density than fossil fuels but the current manufacturing process for the volumes required is energy intensive and the infrastructure for distribution is almost non existent. We're even further away from it being a viable alternative to petrol and diesel but i the long term I think it is more likely to offer the prospect of providing the range and ease of ownership than battery powered cars. There's no doubt that there's a lot of technical problems to solve before it becomes viable but they seem to be problems that are more solvable than increasing battery energy density to the levels required to make it just as easy to own and run as a petrol car.

 

[mancity1]

This logic is incorrect because whilst it is correct that China in particular contributes much more than anyone else, their population size means that doing so is quite justified. India's output is no different, the fact is that 4 Indians in India will only contribute as much CO2 as 1 person does in the UK so they actually are contributing far less.

The only way they could reduce this is to literally cut peoples electricity off or kill off people unless they went 100% renewable. However we in the UK aren't even 50% renewable yet on a population of 65 million so how will India achieve that for 1.3 billion people?

The true heart of the problem isn't in energy usage but rather in production. The big driver in that is our dependence on oil which is why the oil producing states produce more CO2 per capita than any other country. However, why do countries produce oil at all? It isn't because they're nice, it's for money and that's exactly why our club owner and Newcastle's new one are driving around in Rolls Royce's made of gold.

Decoupling energy resources from profit is crucial, just look at the current panic buying occurring around petrol, that is all a product of profiteering from a supply problem. The oil price is currently around the same price that it was 20 years ago yet petrol is set to hit the highest price it has ever been.

So why are people panic buying petrol at all? The reason is because they have no choice and they cannot get anywhere without it, that's why it's so expensive because companies are profiting off the lack of supply. The transportation problem is also something that only governments can tackle and the fact is they aren't. To sum it up, how does it make sense that it costs me £30 to park a car with a family of 4 in Manchester for the weekend or £23 per person to travel on the train? Why would anyone get the train in this situation?

The likes of the Royals commentating and having these fancy shows is all gas-lighting and front. If they wanted to do something then they could and it could all start by looking first at home but of course they won't do that will they? Kate Middleton turned up in a dress that could buy someone a train season ticket for the year.

Good post.

its easy for Boris and Joe to bully countries like Australia and say get to net zero by 2050 that are resource rich and rely on resources to feed the 25 million and enjoy a standard of living that would be significantly reduced if we went 100 per cent renewable to quickly a feat by the way will never happen in the vast majority of industrialised countries in the world.

We produce on our land mass less than 1.2 per cent of global emissions but play and will continue to play a large part in getting countries like India and China out of poverty.

The rich are always virtue signally because they are not impacted nearly as much and want to keep their position of power at least in an economic sense by following the money trail.

the world owes Britain a huge favour , without the Industrial Revolution our lives would be much shorter and poorer than they are today in the developed world.

Billions would kill for the ability to post on the forum (LOL) and enjoy the world we enjoy.

BTW the more co2 in atmosphere the greener the planet becomes so its not all doom and gloom.

The EU and the UK are scrambling for dispatchable energy like Nuclear again and the US will send their CO2 emissions through the roof in the next few years as they come out of covid.

Cheap reliable energy will become king once again and currently at least that means fossil fuels just to keep the lights on if nothing else.

Lets transfer to cleaner energy sources in a measured way but we need to get fair dinkum as we say and do it without killing the hand that feeds us.

Climate change is real it needs addressing but not to ensure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer once again which thanks to covid has ensured exactly that.

 

[mancity1]

Fossil fuels are going to continue to be important for transportation until one of two things happens.

Battery technology needs to evolve such that the energy density in a battery gets into the same order of magnitude as petrol or diesel. Currently with Lithium Ion batteries energy density is about 1% of petrol or diesel. It doesn't need to get to 100% because EVs are much more efficient. But it does need to get to around 20% which is a few step changes away from where we are. Without this EVs will continue to be much heavier, more expensive to produce and with much shorter range. Ok for people who just drive round town and can leave it on charge overnight every night but inconvenient for anyone that regularly uses a car for longer journeys. There's no shortage of universities doing research on this but we're years away from a practical solution.

The other alternative is the use of hydrogen which actually has a higher energy density than fossil fuels but the current manufacturing process for the volumes required is energy intensive and the infrastructure for distribution is almost non existent. We're even further away from it being a viable alternative to petrol and diesel but i the long term I think it is more likely to offer the prospect of providing the range and ease of ownership than battery powered cars. There's no doubt that there's a lot of technical problems to solve before it becomes viable but they seem to be problems that are more solvable than increasing battery energy density to the levels required to make it just as easy to own and run as a petrol car.

Excellent post.

For the majority of the developing world which still includes the likes of China and India fossil fuels will still be dominant force and there is plenty of it left for them to power their expanding manufacturing , agriculture and horticulture and transport industries which produce much of the CH4 and Co2 that end up in the sky.

Technological development will assist but net zero co2 is pretty much an ideology and in any case nuclear will have to be a significant part of the mix if our reliance on fossil fuels is to lessen over time which it should.

 

[west didsblue]

Excellent post.

For the majority of the developing world which still includes the likes of China and India fossil fuels will still be dominant force and there is plenty of it left for them to power their expanding manufacturing , agriculture and horticulture and transport industries which produce much of the CH4 and Co2 that end up in the sky.

Technological development will assist but net zero co2 is pretty much an ideology and in any case nuclear will have to be a significant part of the mix if our reliance on fossil fuels is to lessen over time which it should.

Fossil fuels will be a factor for a long time for personal transportation. For everything else where size, weight, energy density and complexity are not as critical there is no reason why zero carbon solutions couldn't be brought in. France are 75% nuclear and a further 15% renewable for electricity generation which is what the world should be aspiring to in the relatively short term. All public transport should be electric or hydrogen which just leaves fossil fuels mainly used by cars until the technology is there to provide a cost effective alternative with similar range and refuelling performance.

 

[mancity1]

Fossil fuels will be a factor for a long time for personal transportation. For everything else where size, weight, energy density and complexity are not as critical there is no reason why zero carbon solutions couldn't be brought in. France are 75% nuclear and a further 15% renewable for electricity generation which is what the world should be aspiring to in the relatively short term. All public transport should be electric or hydrogen which just leaves fossil fuels mainly used by cars until the technology is there to provide a cost effective alternative with similar range and refuelling performance.

I don't know why the UK and the USA have not strengthened Nuclear.

You are right about France they are well placed as the world transitions toward cleaner energy.

here in oz nuclear energy can't even be debated in parliament mind boggling.

the industry is a lot safer in terms of stable reliable energy when it comes to nuclear and it still has a major role to play in cancer research and treatment.

the UK still appears to be heavily reliant on other countries for their energy needs as the recent shortfall and spike in prices due to a stumble in supply chains ( hopefully very temporary ) suggests.

Despite spieling a new green deal and a supposedly quick transition away from fossil fuels the US are all over the place with energy production and supply.

Renewable in the form of wind , wave , biomass ( if you can call that renewable ) and solar are only part of the longer term solution.

Hydrogen and hydro in particular only have a place where the terrain is appropriate and dams need to built near by but if hydrogen can become commercial it will play a role as well.

I still think fossil fuels will be required for heating for a number of decades to come.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't know why the UK and the USA have not strengthened Nuclear.

For us, politics mostly, IMO.

It's incredibly expensive, and the govts don't want it on the books, The Chinese and French are (or at least were) building the only one of 8 announced in 2008-10 that's actually being built.

Also, there is a need to overcome NIMBYism (not in my backyard) - people are still indoctrinated with all the Sellafield leaks and Chernobyl spectre from decades ago. Want to lose a bunch of parliamentary seats? Put a nuclear power station nearby!

You're right though - it seems essential to invest in it and make it standard practice.

Interestingly, after Fukushima, Germany mothballed/shutdown its nuclear power programme. That's over ten years now, I think, and I haven't heard of any plans to restart it.

 

[inbetween]

Fossil fuels will be a factor for a long time for personal transportation. For everything else where size, weight, energy density and complexity are not as critical there is no reason why zero carbon solutions couldn't be brought in. France are 75% nuclear and a further 15% renewable for electricity generation which is what the world should be aspiring to in the relatively short term. All public transport should be electric or hydrogen which just leaves fossil fuels mainly used by cars until the technology is there to provide a cost effective alternative with similar range and refuelling performance.

We have to ask though what is the point in all public transport becoming electric or non-fossil fuelled if no-one can afford to use it? The technological change is going to massively increase prices and people can't afford it as it is. The end result is going to be that no-one will use it where they can avoid doing so, just like now.

Look at London, you can't drive a diesel car into London without being charged. However, in many cases the congestion charge is cheaper so for example now driving from Manchester into central London in a big dirty diesel will be far cheaper than the £200+ it will cost on the train.

The only thing I feel is happening at the moment is they're squeezing our pockets where they can because the technology just isn't there. The government won't invest billions in subsidising free electrified transport for example which will cause millions to abandon their cars. They'd instead rather tax your car so that you're forced into paying a little less (or the same!) for the crappy system that we already have.

In the end it all comes down to one thing and that's money. We'll always choose to burn and pollute our planet until there's nothing left whilst it remains the cheaper and easier option.

 

[mancity1]

For us, politics mostly, IMO.

It's incredibly expensive, and the govts don't want it on the books, The Chinese and French are (or at least were) building the only one of 8 announced in 2008-10 that's actually being built.

Also, there is a need to overcome NIMBYism (not in my backyard) - people are still indoctrinated with all the Sellafield leaks and Chernobyl spectre from decades ago. Want to lose a bunch of parliamentary seats? Put a nuclear power station nearby!

You're right though - it seems essential to invest in it and make it standard practice.

Interestingly, after Fukushima, Germany mothballed/shutdown its nuclear power programme. That's over ten years now, I think, and I haven't heard of any plans to restart it.

Yes location is always a major issue for any party not brave enough to do what is in the best interests of the country in the long run.

Expensive for sure but so is the transition to renewable energy and its clearly not as reliable particularly when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine so to speak.