|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Sept 20, 2024 23:52:03 GMT
As the Earth warms the equatorial heat may move North causing the Arctic cold to be displaced South and envelope Europe and North America (an Arctic Vortex event). Currently this happens perhaps once a decade but could become a regular event. Europe may be subjected to regular periods of intense heat abruptly followed by the exact opposite. Whilst the heat is in the Arctic a storm could cause a break up of the ice resulting in it being carried out into the Atlantic, leaving large areas of the open Arctic Ocean to absorb the sun's heat and melt the permafrost on the shallow sea bed ... this will release large amounts of Methane and further warm the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 21, 2024 6:31:01 GMT
As the Earth warms the equatorial heat may move North causing the Arctic cold to be displaced South and envelope Europe and North America (an Arctic Vortex event). Currently this happens perhaps once a decade but could become a regular event. Europe may be subjected to regular periods of intense heat abruptly followed by the exact opposite. Whilst the heat is in the Arctic a storm could cause a break up of the ice resulting in it being carried out into the Atlantic, leaving large areas of the open Arctic Ocean to absorb the sun's heat and melt the permafrost on the shallow sea bed ... this will release large amounts of Methane and further warm the planet. May, could, may, could. All things are possible as the Earth moves through a cycle of warming. The thing is if we desperately seek net zero ( a poorly defined outcome that does not cover all things) will it make one iota of difference to what may or could happen? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 22, 2024 21:30:21 GMT
May could Probably will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 22, 2024 21:43:40 GMT
Whatever happens there is nothing we can do about it - so better to concentrate on the issues we change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 22, 2024 21:49:50 GMT
As the Earth warms the equatorial heat may move North causing the Arctic cold to be displaced South and envelope Europe and North America (an Arctic Vortex event). Currently this happens perhaps once a decade but could become a regular event. Europe may be subjected to regular periods of intense heat abruptly followed by the exact opposite. Whilst the heat is in the Arctic a storm could cause a break up of the ice resulting in it being carried out into the Atlantic, leaving large areas of the open Arctic Ocean to absorb the sun's heat and melt the permafrost on the shallow sea bed ... this will release large amounts of Methane and further warm the planet. So we need a source to produce energy very quickly when required . I suggest oil and gas |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 22, 2024 22:38:59 GMT
As the Earth warms the equatorial heat may move North causing the Arctic cold to be displaced South and envelope Europe and North America (an Arctic Vortex event). Currently this happens perhaps once a decade but could become a regular event. Europe may be subjected to regular periods of intense heat abruptly followed by the exact opposite. Whilst the heat is in the Arctic a storm could cause a break up of the ice resulting in it being carried out into the Atlantic, leaving large areas of the open Arctic Ocean to absorb the sun's heat and melt the permafrost on the shallow sea bed ... this will release large amounts of Methane and further warm the planet. So we need a source to produce energy very quickly when required . I suggest oil and gas It's not worth it. Oil and gas are getting more expensive as supplies dry up. Green energy is getting rapidly cheaper. Both wind and solar are going down in price, but solar is going down at a faster rate so it is crossing over wind, the previous cheapest. Storage is dropping in price and heat pumps are improving. The new ones can operate at an efficiency of 500%, so even as leccy is 3x the price, you are still heating cheaper. I don't understand why you would want to go backwards in the evolution of technology. Perhaps it is a British thing. Like pubs with wooden benches to sit on. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 22, 2024 22:51:47 GMT
David Bellamy was frozen out of the bbc for having an opinion they didn’t like.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 22, 2024 22:53:38 GMT
So we need a source to produce energy very quickly when required . I suggest oil and gas It's not worth it. Oil and gas are getting more expensive as supplies dry up. Green energy is getting rapidly cheaper. Both wind and solar are going down in price, but solar is going down at a faster rate so it is crossing over wind, the previous cheapest. Storage is dropping in price and heat pumps are improving. The new ones can operate at an efficiency of 500%, so even as leccy is 3x the price, you are still heating cheaper. I don't understand why you would want to go backwards in the evolution of technology. Perhaps it is a British thing. Like pubs with wooden benches to sit on. Maybe I didn’t explain myself properly. I meant as back up . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 22, 2024 23:24:33 GMT
It's not worth it. Oil and gas are getting more expensive as supplies dry up. Green energy is getting rapidly cheaper. Both wind and solar are going down in price, but solar is going down at a faster rate so it is crossing over wind, the previous cheapest. Storage is dropping in price and heat pumps are improving. The new ones can operate at an efficiency of 500%, so even as leccy is 3x the price, you are still heating cheaper. I don't understand why you would want to go backwards in the evolution of technology. Perhaps it is a British thing. Like pubs with wooden benches to sit on. Maybe I didn’t explain myself properly. I meant as back up . You average the energy out. Octopus have a huge solar farm they are building on the west coast of Africa. The more you are able to average it out, the less storage you need. Wind and solar are complimentary, because in storms the wind blows and the sun does not shine and vice versa. You want to use as little oil, gas and nuclear as possible for reasons of economy. a problem though with nuclear is it has to be on all the time. You can't just fire up a nuclear plant when you need it or to would crack it up. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 23, 2024 6:16:48 GMT
So we need a source to produce energy very quickly when required . I suggest oil and gas It's not worth it. Oil and gas are getting more expensive as supplies dry up. Green energy is getting rapidly cheaper. Both wind and solar are going down in price, but solar is going down at a faster rate so it is crossing over wind, the previous cheapest. Storage is dropping in price and heat pumps are improving. The new ones can operate at an efficiency of 500%, so even as leccy is 3x the price, you are still heating cheaper. I don't understand why you would want to go backwards in the evolution of technology. Perhaps it is a British thing. Like pubs with wooden benches to sit on. None of this is true BvL. Supplies of oil and gas are not drying up - it's just that Ed Miliband has cancelled any plans to drill for oil and fracking is banned. Green energy isn't getting cheaper. The last contracts issued by the govt for wind energy were roughly double the price of the last contracts - so it's no cheaper than conventional energy. Storage is not getting cheaper and it's so expensive it's a non-starter anyway. Solar energy is getting cheaper, but that's all you got right. It's like nuclear all over again. Remember how we were told by the politicians that nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't need to be metered.  Unfortunately the truth is that nuclear is VERY expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 23, 2024 7:58:39 GMT
It's not worth it. Oil and gas are getting more expensive as supplies dry up. Green energy is getting rapidly cheaper. Both wind and solar are going down in price, but solar is going down at a faster rate so it is crossing over wind, the previous cheapest. Storage is dropping in price and heat pumps are improving. The new ones can operate at an efficiency of 500%, so even as leccy is 3x the price, you are still heating cheaper. I don't understand why you would want to go backwards in the evolution of technology. Perhaps it is a British thing. Like pubs with wooden benches to sit on. None of this is true BvL. Supplies of oil and gas are not drying up - it's just that Ed Miliband has cancelled any plans to drill for oil and fracking is banned. Green energy isn't getting cheaper. The last contracts issued by the govt for wind energy were roughly double the price of the last contracts - so it's no cheaper than conventional energy. Storage is not getting cheaper and it's so expensive it's a non-starter anyway. Solar energy is getting cheaper, but that's all you got right. It's like nuclear all over again. Remember how we were told by the politicians that nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't need to be metered. Unfortunately the truth is that nuclear is VERY expensive. You are just out of touch with the prices of the technology. Even so there is still opportunity for some bastards to rip us off. The Brits don't build these things. It is the Norwegians. The governments we elect can't add up. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 23, 2024 8:19:13 GMT
'May' and 'could' require some degree of evidence, 'probably' requires a bit more in the way of evidence, 'will' requires conclusive proof that is unable to be refuted in any way and the hypothesis where 'will' is an outcome should have been thoroughly tested in the scientific process through vigorous Q & A. in an unrestricted fashion and shown to stand up to all. So far the 'evidence' is a bit sketchy and as for the hypothesis standing up it stands up well becasue the Q & A process is restricted to those who agree with it, the rest, who wish to quiz the hypothesis, being shuffled out of the way as troublemakers, deniers, sell outs and bitter old academics of unrelated subjects. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 23, 2024 8:25:40 GMT
It's not worth it. Oil and gas are getting more expensive as supplies dry up. Green energy is getting rapidly cheaper. Both wind and solar are going down in price, but solar is going down at a faster rate so it is crossing over wind, the previous cheapest. Storage is dropping in price and heat pumps are improving. The new ones can operate at an efficiency of 500%, so even as leccy is 3x the price, you are still heating cheaper. I don't understand why you would want to go backwards in the evolution of technology. Perhaps it is a British thing. Like pubs with wooden benches to sit on. None of this is true BvL. Supplies of oil and gas are not drying up - it's just that Ed Miliband has cancelled any plans to drill for oil and fracking is banned. Green energy isn't getting cheaper. The last contracts issued by the govt for wind energy were roughly double the price of the last contracts - so it's no cheaper than conventional energy. Storage is not getting cheaper and it's so expensive it's a non-starter anyway. Solar energy is getting cheaper, but that's all you got right. It's like nuclear all over again. Remember how we were told by the politicians that nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't need to be metered. Unfortunately the truth is that nuclear is VERY expensive.Decommisioning alone of nuke stations rule out any savings if there are any that Nukes have made... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 23, 2024 10:40:48 GMT
Maybe I didn’t explain myself properly. I meant as back up . You average the energy out. Octopus have a huge solar farm they are building on the west coast of Africa. The more you are able to average it out, the less storage you need. Wind and solar are complimentary, because in storms the wind blows and the sun does not shine and vice versa. You want to use as little oil, gas and nuclear as possible for reasons of economy. a problem though with nuclear is it has to be on all the time. You can't just fire up a nuclear plant when you need it or to would crack it up. You don’t need to. Keep oil , gas and nuclear energy ,keep it to the minimum and fire it up when needed . Im guessing the huge solar farm in Africa is a Chinese venture . I wouldn’t trust that for two reasons ..Africa and China . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 23, 2024 10:50:12 GMT
You average the energy out. Octopus have a huge solar farm they are building on the west coast of Africa. The more you are able to average it out, the less storage you need. Wind and solar are complimentary, because in storms the wind blows and the sun does not shine and vice versa. You want to use as little oil, gas and nuclear as possible for reasons of economy. a problem though with nuclear is it has to be on all the time. You can't just fire up a nuclear plant when you need it or to would crack it up. You don’t need to. Keep oil , gas and nuclear energy ,keep it to the minimum and fire it up when needed . Im guessing the huge solar farm in Africa is a Chinese venture . I wouldn’t trust that for two reasons ..Africa and China . Not convinced that outsourcing energy supplies to unstable regimes in Africa is going to do much for energy security. |
|
Unfortunately the truth is that nuclear is VERY expensive.