|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 6, 2023 18:27:32 GMT
I've started this thread as I think its a separate subject to whether EV cars are a good thing. I'll gather some facts and ideas when I get time today. How about wave power? The tides never stop unlike sunshine and wind. Yes, wave power has been somewhat neglected, last time I read about it they were saying the cost to return wasn't good. Tidal power seems good but silting and corrosion caused issues in early models. Still I don't think either have been totally neglected. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 6, 2023 18:29:43 GMT
I agree, if we halved the population global warming would fade away. I also accept we cannot tell the world what to do, but the problem with that is we share the atmosphere, so we can't build a wall to defend ourselves against it. This leaves only a (maybe futile) attempt to change the world by influence and that's the game we constantly play. Its a game open to easy criticism from those who can jeer at every failure. But unfortunately those jeering never offer an alternative just the criticism. Regarding world population we (the west) are having some success at raising standards of living which reduces population growth. We are also trying to mitigate the effects of the worlds population on the planet. For though you are right and cutting the population would solve the problems, so will cutting the effect on the planet of each member of the population. Hopefully we will arrive at a happy medium with a stable population and a stable planet. Because if we don't then we go to hell in the hand cart with the rest of them. This is not achievable by any means other than a worldwide fascist (authoritarian rather than democratic) state with control of all nuclear weapons. See you in hell then. But this thread is about switching to clean energy production, not population explosion. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 6, 2023 18:59:02 GMT
This is not achievable by any means other than a worldwide fascist (authoritarian rather than democratic) state with control of all nuclear weapons. See you in hell then. But this thread is about switching to clean energy production, not population explosion. No it is about meeting energy needs. We can do it quite easily, the problem is that the cultists think that would be bad for the planet. So if we do not meet it, through clean energy, which we will not, then the only way is to reduce our needs. That is exactly what is underway at the moment, all in the name of saving the planet. The price is organised so that the lower half of the middle classes will curtail their usage dramatically. If you increase the population to 11 billion, expected very soon into the 22nd century (three generations) will our energy needs decrease or increase? Once again I repeat the absolute idiocy of increasing our population through immigration if we are aiming to reduce our carbon footprint, and we are are we not? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 6, 2023 22:51:53 GMT
I've started this thread as I think its a separate subject to whether EV cars are a good thing. I'll gather some facts and ideas when I get time today. If we had some clever scientists we could develop better solar cells. The ones available at the moment are only 25% efficient. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 6, 2023 22:53:49 GMT
In the meantime the population of Africa is projected to more that triple during this century. And contrary to zany's panglossian worldview there is no hope of a global solution - China showed us the truth of that at the Copenhagen climate conference when it dug its heels in and refused to ameliorate its emissions. The best that the UK can hope for is a European-level solution involving in the short term a rapprochement with Russia, a Manhattan-Project scale effort to develop alternative sources and stringent population control (no more immigration). But I fear that its political class has no appetite for such things anymore. China decides what China does - no one else. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 7, 2023 7:36:29 GMT
China typically does what it feels like doing.
An interesting question is how much of our 'environmental policy' is shaped by China's willingness to pay for us to sabotage ourselves.
"Net Zero" and the removal of Ic manufacturing are so damaging and absurd, imho there have to be 'hidden factors' in the decision
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 7, 2023 7:44:15 GMT
I think it's become obvious that Net-Zero is part of this "non-lethal warfare" plot where malevolent countries persuade other countries to do stupid things that damage them economically or in other ways. It's far easier and cheaper than conventional warfare. So stupid countries, like the UK, voluntarily give up their energy security and rely on daft sources that plainly don't work. And when they find out that they don't work they have to import their energy (at high prices) from the countries that are conning them.
Trump called it dead right years ago. He also called the origin of the Covid outbreak years ago. While the BBC was refusing give a platform to anyone who stated the obvious fact that Covid came from the Wuhan lab where they were experimenting on gain of function, Trump just told the truth - and got vilified for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 7, 2023 8:55:38 GMT
See you in hell then. But this thread is about switching to clean energy production, not population explosion. No it is about meeting energy needs. We can do it quite easily, the problem is that the cultists think that would be bad for the planet. So if we do not meet it, through clean energy, which we will not, then the only way is to reduce our needs. That is exactly what is underway at the moment, all in the name of saving the planet. The price is organised so that the lower half of the middle classes will curtail their usage dramatically. If you increase the population to 11 billion, expected very soon into the 22nd century (three generations) will our energy needs decrease or increase? Once again I repeat the absolute idiocy of increasing our population through immigration if we are aiming to reduce our carbon footprint, and we are are we not? No it isn't! I created the effin thread and its called 'How will we meet power needs of the future without fossil fuels' If you don't think we need to then say so and don't try and turn this into another thread about them funny coloured people you want to blame for everything. Neither is this another thread bout whether AGW exists, there are plenty of those as well, go find one if you want to do another stuck record loop. This thread starts with the assumption that we do need to change and is to discuss the how's and wherefores of that. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 7, 2023 8:59:03 GMT
I've started this thread as I think its a separate subject to whether EV cars are a good thing. I'll gather some facts and ideas when I get time today. If we had some clever scientists we could develop better solar cells. The ones available at the moment are only 25% efficient. They used to be only 10% The Chinese have been concentrating on getting the production cost down, as there is plenty of space to put them. I think flexible cells are another big step as this much reduces installation costs. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 7, 2023 9:00:18 GMT
In the meantime the population of Africa is projected to more that triple during this century. And contrary to zany's panglossian worldview there is no hope of a global solution - China showed us the truth of that at the Copenhagen climate conference when it dug its heels in and refused to ameliorate its emissions. The best that the UK can hope for is a European-level solution involving in the short term a rapprochement with Russia, a Manhattan-Project scale effort to develop alternative sources and stringent population control (no more immigration). But I fear that its political class has no appetite for such things anymore. China decides what China does - no one else. Agreed, as someone in the know Baron, do you think the Chinese government recognises AGW? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 7, 2023 9:04:29 GMT
I think it's become obvious that Net-Zero is part of this "non-lethal warfare" plot where malevolent countries persuade other countries to do stupid things that damage them economically or in other ways. It's far easier and cheaper than conventional warfare. So stupid countries, like the UK, voluntarily give up their energy security and rely on daft sources that plainly don't work. And when they find out that they don't work they have to import their energy (at high prices) from the countries that are conning them. Trump called it dead right years ago. He also called the origin of the Covid outbreak years ago. While the BBC was refusing give a platform to anyone who stated the obvious fact that Covid came from the Wuhan lab where they were experimenting on gain of function, Trump just told the truth - and got vilified for it. What are you on. Please stop with the daft global conspiracy theory where every scientific institute on the planet has agreed to lie to their countries. Everyone from China to Australia, The Uk to Iceland all agreeing to fabricate figures. It knocks the Kennedy conspiracy into a cocked hat, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 7, 2023 9:20:03 GMT
Well we can't do it with wind turbines and solar panels. It's rapidly becoming apparent that wind turbines can't deliver cheap energy - they are no cheaper than fossil fuel energy and, of course, they're intermittent. We're also seeing that their claimed lifespan of 20 years is very optimistic - especially in the sea, which is a very inhospitable environment. They last more like 5 years apparently.
Solar panels are cheaper but they just don't deliver enough energy - and again they're intermittent. They seem fond of carpeting the fields in the West Country with these monstrosities but they're very unpopular with the locals and unfortunately they only manage to turn 20% of the SUn's energy into electricity. The rest is converted into heat - they get very hot indeed, which is not a great idea when we're trying cool the planet down apparently.
So what's left. Wave power maybe, but nobody's got it working yet on reasonable scale. Carbon capture? Maybe but the cost - both financially and in terms of the energy needed to do it - is very high. No one has got it working at scale yet.
Synthetic fuels? Possible, but it's very costly in terms of land usage and again you have to put a huge amount of energy to make the fuels (the energy that fossil fuels have already reaped from the Sun). Hydrogen? Possible but again it costs a lot to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Although maybe it's a good way of storing energy from renewables that would otherwise be discarded.
Basically, unless you have the geology to generate hydropower, it's a bit difficult at the moment. The bottom line is that we will need fossil fuels for many decades to come so we should restart our fossil fuels industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 7, 2023 9:25:07 GMT
I think it's become obvious that Net-Zero is part of this "non-lethal warfare" plot where malevolent countries persuade other countries to do stupid things that damage them economically or in other ways. It's far easier and cheaper than conventional warfare. So stupid countries, like the UK, voluntarily give up their energy security and rely on daft sources that plainly don't work. And when they find out that they don't work they have to import their energy (at high prices) from the countries that are conning them. Trump called it dead right years ago. He also called the origin of the Covid outbreak years ago. While the BBC was refusing give a platform to anyone who stated the obvious fact that Covid came from the Wuhan lab where they were experimenting on gain of function, Trump just told the truth - and got vilified for it. What are you on. Please stop with the daft global conspiracy theory where every scientific institute on the planet has agreed to lie to their countries. Everyone from China to Australia, The Uk to Iceland all agreeing to fabricate figures. It knocks the Kennedy conspiracy into a cocked hat, that's for sure. The Wuhan lab leak was called a "Conspiracy theory" until recently. Now it's pretty much accepted. It's take longer with "Climate change" but it will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 7, 2023 9:46:31 GMT
Well we can't do it with wind turbines and solar panels. It's rapidly becoming apparent that wind turbines can't deliver cheap energy - they are no cheaper than fossil fuel energy and, of course, they're intermittent. We're also seeing that their claimed lifespan of 20 years is very optimistic - especially in the sea, which is a very inhospitable environment. They last more like 5 years apparently. Solar panels are cheaper but they just don't deliver enough energy - and again they're intermittent. They seem fond of carpeting the fields in the West Country with these monstrosities but they're very unpopular with the locals and unfortunately they only manage to turn 20% of the SUn's energy into electricity. The rest is converted into heat - they get very hot indeed, which is not a great idea when we're trying cool the planet down apparently. So what's left. Wave power maybe, but nobody's got it working yet on reasonable scale. Carbon capture? Maybe but the cost - both financially and in terms of the energy needed to do it - is very high. No one has got it working at scale yet. Synthetic fuels? Possible, but it's very costly in terms of land usage and again you have to put a huge amount of energy to make the fuels (the energy that fossil fuels have already reaped from the Sun). Hydrogen? Possible but again it costs a lot to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Although maybe it's a good way of storing energy from renewables that would otherwise be discarded. Basically, unless you have the geology to generate hydropower, it's a bit difficult at the moment. The bottom line is that we will need fossil fuels for many decades to come so we should restart our fossil fuels industry. Wind powered generation cost per megawatt hour has fallen to only £38.00. Compared to the average of £49.00. How cheap does it need to be to make it cheap enough? Wind reliability is a problem, but not insurmountable and as we build more those calm days will lessen as the wind is always blowing somewhere. Solar is a good back up but the UK climate is not ideal for it. I think in the future we will trade energy with countries across Europe and north Africa. Yes we will still need gas back up, but the net zero is not about using no gas. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 7, 2023 9:48:42 GMT
I think it's become obvious that Net-Zero is part of this "non-lethal warfare" plot where malevolent countries persuade other countries to do stupid things that damage them economically or in other ways. It's far easier and cheaper than conventional warfare. So stupid countries, like the UK, voluntarily give up their energy security and rely on daft sources that plainly don't work. And when they find out that they don't work they have to import their energy (at high prices) from the countries that are conning them. Trump called it dead right years ago. He also called the origin of the Covid outbreak years ago. While the BBC was refusing give a platform to anyone who stated the obvious fact that Covid came from the Wuhan lab where they were experimenting on gain of function, Trump just told the truth - and got vilified for it. Let Trump tell it to the Americans suffering continuous unpredictable weather systems and the costs of that. |
|
