|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 13, 2022 18:33:04 GMT
That is the opinion of a chap called Professor Gautam Kalghatgi, (The spelling is correct btw). I listened to him being interviewed earlier, he said electric cars are unsustainable and will be our next environmental disaster. He went on; we are currently 80% reliant on fossil fuels, to reach net-zero we would have to close down much of our industry and build 90 new nuclear power stations which would be unlikely by the end of the century let alone 2035. He said, mining lithium is destroying once pristine environments and that lithium mining is dirty and toxic, and we haven't even scratched the surface on the amount we will need to reach net-zero. He said small petrol engine cars can be environmentally friendly, unfortunately a lot of R&D has been scrapped due to net-zero. I don't have a link to prof Gautam, I listened to him on Talk TV however I did find this on lithium mining: The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction - www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impactAlso on the same programme, a chap phoned in who worked in the offshore wind industry. He said wind power is an absolute con (His words) He said the blades are supposed to have a 25 year life span, yet he is replacing blades after as little as five years due to the leading edge becoming pitted and corroded from grains of sand, they cant be repaired and are sent to landfill. He said the (electricity) cables also have to be replaced at regular intervals and the maintenance costs are sky high. Allow me to remind you what goes into one wind turbine: 335 tons of steel 4.7 tons of copper 1,200 tons of concrete (cement and aggregates) [~600 yards] 3 tons of aluminium 2 tons of rare earth elements aluminium zinc molybdenum And wind power is sold to us as the environmentally friendly answer? We must be right mugs to believe this nonsense. Output for output, how different is that to the materials used in systems for generation of electricity by coal, oil, gas or nuclear power…? |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 13, 2022 18:33:35 GMT
Quote from the above link:So in summary, there is no empirical evidence that there is an “existential threat”. The world is a far better place in almost all countries not affected by war, compared to the past. Of course, there will be some consequences of increasing temperature because of increasing greenhouse gases but as economies grow, they will be better able to cope with these changes and for growth, you need affordable energy.
The targets to decarbonize any economy by 2025 or 2030 are unachievable, in my opinion. It is dishonest or naïve to believe that it will be possible to achieve such targets in democratic societies. If such rapid changes are forced, there will be terrible economic and environmental consequences.Gautam Kalghatgi FREng FSAE FIMechE FCI FISEES.That's not political. It's common sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2022 18:42:11 GMT
That is the opinion of a chap called Professor Gautam Kalghatgi, (The spelling is correct btw). I listened to him being interviewed earlier, he said electric cars are unsustainable and will be our next environmental disaster. He went on; we are currently 80% reliant on fossil fuels, to reach net-zero we would have to close down much of our industry and build 90 new nuclear power stations which would be unlikely by the end of the century let alone 2035. He said, mining lithium is destroying once pristine environments and that lithium mining is dirty and toxic, and we haven't even scratched the surface on the amount we will need to reach net-zero. He said small petrol engine cars can be environmentally friendly, unfortunately a lot of R&D has been scrapped due to net-zero. I don't have a link to prof Gautam, I listened to him on Talk TV however I did find this on lithium mining: The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction - www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impactAlso on the same programme, a chap phoned in who worked in the offshore wind industry. He said wind power is an absolute con (His words) He said the blades are supposed to have a 25 year life span, yet he is replacing blades after as little as five years due to the leading edge becoming pitted and corroded from grains of sand, they cant be repaired and are sent to landfill. He said the (electricity) cables also have to be replaced at regular intervals and the maintenance costs are sky high. Allow me to remind you what goes into one wind turbine: 335 tons of steel 4.7 tons of copper 1,200 tons of concrete (cement and aggregates) [~600 yards] 3 tons of aluminium 2 tons of rare earth elements aluminium zinc molybdenum And wind power is sold to us as the environmentally friendly answer? We must be right mugs to believe this nonsense. Output for output, how different is that to the materials used in systems for generation of electricity by coal, oil, gas or nuclear power…? I have no idea, but it's usually the case depending on how much time you have that google has the answer. In fact, that would be difficult to estimate. Is reliability a factor? I would have thought so, although I doubt environmentalists would agree. Wind turbines are between 30% and 50% efficient. Coal fired power stations were 75% efficient and had a much longer life span. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 13, 2022 19:21:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2022 20:01:52 GMT
I posted all this on the old forum, more than once, and with the loss of that forum went the links and info I spent hours searching for. Tbh Pat, I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for the relevant info again.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 13, 2022 20:08:37 GMT
I posted all this on the old forum, more than once, and with the loss of that forum went the links and info I spent hours searching for. Tbh Pat, I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for the relevant info again. Did you work in a power plant or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2022 20:17:38 GMT
I posted all this on the old forum, more than once, and with the loss of that forum went the links and info I spent hours searching for. Tbh Pat, I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for the relevant info again. Did you work in a power plant or something? LOL, possibly. Although I'm not sure why you think it's relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 13, 2022 20:44:06 GMT
We are an island surrounded by sea and therefore Hydrogen we should be using it and it can be green and cheaper than Ukraine racketed fuel price.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 13, 2022 21:12:08 GMT
We are an island surrounded by sea and therefore Hydrogen we should be using it and it can be green and cheaper than Ukraine racketed fuel price. Since it takes around 50kWh of electricity to produce 1Kg of hydrogen, it's use case seems to be somewhat limited. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2022 21:22:07 GMT
We are an island surrounded by sea and therefore Hydrogen we should be using it and it can be green and cheaper than Ukraine racketed fuel price. I don't know anything about hydrogen. Didn't Zeppelins use hydrogen? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2022 21:34:27 GMT
I posted all this on the old forum, more than once, and with the loss of that forum went the links and info I spent hours searching for. Tbh Pat, I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for the relevant info again. Did you work in a power plant or something? A vision of beauty. Regardless of weather conditions, for 46 years she generated reliable power 24/7 to 500,000 businesses and homes.  |
|
roots
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by roots on Nov 13, 2022 22:07:40 GMT
I say let all of those who agree with net zero get on with it. They can choose to not use any form of energy that goes against that aim.
Can we have a show of hands?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2022 22:10:47 GMT
I say let all of those who agree with net zero get on with it. They can choose to not use any form of energy that goes against that aim. Can we have a show of hands? I say, NO to net-zero. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 13, 2022 22:17:07 GMT
In regards to your opening post Red, you can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear.
We have been over the reasons why we need to address climate change. The discussion follows a well worn path before you capitulate and resort to insults. I suggest we save ourselves the effort this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2022 22:20:04 GMT
In regards to your opening post Red, you can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear. We have been over the reasons why we need to address climate change. The discussion follows a well worn path before you capitulate and resort to insults. I suggest we save ourselves the effort this time. Dappy, out of sheer curiosity, what on earth was the point of that ^? |
|
