Energy, the environment & climate change.

[Chippy_boy]

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.

I'm certainly neither of those! But appreciate the good humour nevertheless. Cheers mate.

 

[west didsblue]

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.

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.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

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.

I thought it might be. I've heard it from many sources but I'd never really bothered to check.

 

[inbetween]

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.

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.

 

[mancity1]

I thought it might be. I've heard it from many sources but I'd never really bothered to check.

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.

 

[west didsblue]

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.

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.

 

[mancity1]

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.

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.

 

[hilts]

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.

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.

 

[NeilYoungIsBack]

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.

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.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

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.

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'.