Greta Thunberg

[Ban-jani]

Half of our *electicity* can at times be provided by renewables, but not reliably and sustainably so, and also that doesn't account for the still vast amounts of fossil fuels being burnt on transport and for heating. We are nowhere near 50% of energy needs being met by renewables.

Our total electricity generation was 86.9 Terawatt hours in Q1 2019 of which some 31.1 came from renewables.

However, our total gas demand was 283 TWh - some of which went into the 86.9 above, but only a small part of it. Most of our gas consumption goes on heating.

To get anywhere near zero carbon, at a guess we'd need something like 10 to 15x the current renewables capacity. What percentage of cars still rely on petrol or diesel for most or all of their miles?

It wasn’t an accurate comment and more of an overview but you’ve proven my point that we drastically need to do more and quickly.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Half of our *electicity* can at times be provided by renewables, but not reliably and sustainably so, and also that doesn't account for the still vast amounts of fossil fuels being burnt on transport and for heating. We are nowhere near 50% of energy needs being met by renewables.

Our total electricity generation was 86.9 Terawatt hours in Q1 2019 of which some 31.1 came from renewables.

However, our total gas demand was 283 TWh - some of which went into the 86.9 above, but only a small part of it. Most of our gas consumption goes on heating.

To get anywhere near zero carbon, at a guess we'd need something like 10 to 15x the current renewables capacity. What percentage of cars still rely on petrol or diesel for most or all of their miles?

The biggest mistake the green lobby have made is their complete opposition to nuclear. Fukushima was an absolutely disaster in terms of public opinion (and an actual disaster, obviously) but nuclear is still one of the best ways of reducing carbon output while maintaining the levels of reliable energy needed.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

There are efforts underway. Certainly here in the UAE, which has one of - if not the - biggest solar farms in the world. I'm sure Qatar is working towards something similar.

The major problem with solar in this region is that the sand particles that inevitably fill the air cause extensive damage to solar panels, making them extremely inefficient. Science will find an answer to this problem eventually but it will take a while yet til solar use becomes widespread.

Tarmac the desert and put the solar panels on that.

 

[Zuriblue]

Greta is not about the environment. She's about aiding and abetting left wing Neo-Marxists and their bid to dominate the western political order.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Tarmac the desert and put the solar panels on that.

They're slowly getting there with that approach.

 

[Ban-jani]

And here he was trying to convince us he just cared about her the other day.

 

[FlemishDuck]

The biggest mistake the green lobby have made is their complete opposition to nuclear.

Did they really? i thought it as rather an argument of the nuclear lobby to receive more subsidies, i guess they are a bit jealous as to how much oil gets funded.

I'm green, i'm not against nuclear, it's going to be usefull but neither the sollution to all problems. Pitty Nuclear doesn't evolve so conspiciously as say solar technoligy, obviously having fusion tech would even be more usefull for nuclear.

Anyway, Greta is simply a symbol of a noble cause. In a way she's just a kid, but does represent "the interrested party". She is also the product of a deliberate strategy on the left wing, an uderstadable one at that imho. It's a bit of a Trojan horse, you can attack Greta as to attack the green movement and such is done but the left knows that they will only gain on someone being so foolish to go harsh on a kid.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Because it's held at night??

Hahaahahaha.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The biggest mistake the green lobby have made is their complete opposition to nuclear. Fukushima was an absolutely disaster in terms of public opinion (and an actual disaster, obviously) but nuclear is still one of the best ways of reducing carbon output while maintaining the levels of reliable energy needed.

It's probably the only way tbh. I am not sure zero carbon will ever be possible without nuclear.

 

[inbetween]

No it hasn’t but then again it’s nowhere near enough.

I don’t like hippies but half clean energy isn’t going to cut it.

Achieving half reliance for a major developed nation like ours is a massive achievement.

The unfortunate reality of the problem is even if 100% of power generation is carbon free then we will still only reduce the UK carbon output by 25%.

CO2 and warming are also not the only concern when it comes to the environment. What about waste pollution, destruction of green spaces due to population change etc etc etc, you just cannot win.

Hydroelectric as an example is a sustainable power generation method which has known harsh effects on the environment.

We would probably do more for the environment over the next 5 years if we just culled a few million people.