By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by Allendale Jan 24th

Coal being phased out

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Martin Kyte25/02/2020 11:02:58
avatar
1809 forum posts
33 photos

Getting rid of the bit coin miners would be a start.

Current estimates are that Bitcoin is using around seven gigawatts of electricity, equal to 0.21% of the world's supply. That is as much power as would be generated by seven Dungeness nuclear power plants at once.(3 Jul 2019)

regards Martin

Rod Renshaw25/02/2020 11:35:07
88 forum posts

At last! - some sense in the last 3 or 4 posts.

When younger I was told that it was not considered polite to discuss politics or religion at the dinner table as this would cause arguments that would not lead anywhere - perhaps we should add climate change to the list.

I personally am convinced it's happening, it does not take a degree in physics to read a thermometer and weather stations and geographers around the world agree the world is warming up. If it's not human activity which is causing this rapid change then I see no other plausible alternative explanation and I agree with Martin's last post.

I am concerned that vested interests and a desire to continue living our usual lives may be acting to delay any effective remedial action until everyone can be convinced, and then it may be too late as some effects of warming, such as loss of albedo caused by ice cap melting may not be easy to reverse.

Rod

Bill Davies 225/02/2020 11:42:41
185 forum posts
10 photos

Well, Hopper, I don't claim we were there first, but the Dinorwig pumped storage power station opened in North Wales in 1984:

Dinorwig

21% of the UK's renewable energy is from hydroelectric (appropriate for such a wet part of the world), which is 4.2% of total total electrical generation.

But I was impressed by all the rooftop water heaters that I saw in WA in 2004.

Bill

Rod Renshaw25/02/2020 11:52:34
88 forum posts

Hi again

My reference above to "Martin's last post" was to his Goodnight nurse post, not the Bitcoin one. , he must have been typing again as I was typing.

Rod

Hopper25/02/2020 11:52:44
avatar
4423 forum posts
94 photos

Very good Bill. Liquid sunshine power!

Yes I forgot about the solar hotwater heaters that are just about standard equipment here these days. Saves a fortune on power or gas bills. Both of which have gone through the roof since our various governments in their wisdom privatised them. Don't fall for that one in the UK if you haven't already. The free market and competition have not, in our sad experience, led to lower prices, but to monopolies, duopolies and price gouging. Surprise surprise!

Bill Davies 225/02/2020 12:34:56
185 forum posts
10 photos

I fully agree, Hopper. I think it was Thatcher (and Reagan) that kicked off the privatisation thing. The UK suffers with near-monoplies dominating various services, plus the inability of these separate units working together. Our railways are a prime example. Our public sector is by no means perfect, and significants cuts has caused much harm, but private sector firms hide behind secrecy (commercial confidence) and use their wealth to sway governments from providing for the greater good. But this another rabbit hole for us to chase down.

not done it yet25/02/2020 13:15:31
4513 forum posts
16 photos

It is a shame that Dinorwig is mostly powered by fossil fuels for most of the time. Dinorwig was not installed to save energy - it was just to reduce the primary generation during peak periods. It simply used cheap base load power during the night and then ‘regenerated’ less power at peak usage. Renewables have come along (much) later.[

Martin Kyte25/02/2020 13:50:45
avatar
1809 forum posts
33 photos
Posted by Derek Lane on 25/02/2020 09:36:14:

Someone with more knowledge than myself may know the answer to this question.

If the weather is down to us humans how long does it take for the "pollution" to take effect in changing the weather, if this weather that we are having now was caused by all the smoke and smog of the victorian era then with all that has been done so far must contribute to reducing the weather?

I'll have a go at a partial answer at least with the caviat that this is my understanding only and I am not a climate scientist. Broadly speaking :-

Prior to large scale 'biology' on the planet global temperatures were determined by solar irradience, albedo (ration of radiation absorbed to reflected) and the insulating properties of the atmosphere which varies according to composition. This was a dynamic system which oscillated wildly with positive and negative feedback loops.

With the advent of large scale biology additional feedback loops arose that had the effect of stabilising the climate.

Vulcanism (generating dust in the atmosphere), geological subduction (recycling of carbonates again through vulcanism) and variations on solar output and mean orbital radius shifted the equilibrium from time to time.

As with any regulating system biology (mostly plants) can only cope with a certain degree of disturbance. The human emissions of CO2 for much of the last 200 years was within the level that the biosphere along with oceanic absorption could cope with. In recent decades atmospheric CO2 has pushed the regulating mechanisms beyond capacity and the result has been a rapid rise (in geological terms) of global temperatures.

To go back to the original question (with all that has been done so far must contribute to reducing the weather?):-

What has been done so far is to reduce the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere with the ambition of halting net additional CO2 by 2050 or before. This has already 'baked in a probable rise in temperature of 3 to 4 degees by 2100 at which point, hopefully we get to a new equilibrium. We are already at around +1.5 degree's. In order to reverse the rises our only lever is to draw down CO2 and there are currently no large scale methodologies of doing that although people are trying. So with what has been done so far we hopefully will succeed in slowing the rate at which things are getting worse and with luck end up in a situation which is survivable

Global temperatures with time

regards Martin

Bill Davies 225/02/2020 14:09:55
185 forum posts
10 photos

Martin, your link to the global temperatures over time is very revealing. I have not any compelling 'natural' explanations for the rapid rise after relative stability for the last 12,000 years since the last ice age; orientation of Earth's axis, sunspots, etc.

Thanks, Bill

Edited By Bill Davies 2 on 25/02/2020 14:10:28

J Hancock25/02/2020 15:38:45
391 forum posts

Here we are, trying to understand just how this new 'fossil free' economy is going to work when the government

have the answer already.

Perhaps we should ask them to give us their answer ( with exact figures ) to this forum ?

Now that would be interesting.

Zebethyal25/02/2020 15:53:18
194 forum posts
Posted by Bill Davies 2 on 25/02/2020 14:09:55:

Martin, your link to the global temperatures over time is very revealing. I have not any compelling 'natural' explanations for the rapid rise after relative stability for the last 12,000 years since the last ice age; orientation of Earth's axis, sunspots, etc.

Thanks, Bill

Edited By Bill Davies 2 on 25/02/2020 14:10:28

How about this as an off the wall thought:

What about global population growth? that has exploded in the last 200 years from 2 billion to a projected 10.9 billion in 2100. before 1700 it was below 600 million.

if you watched the Matrix, it quoted an average human body producing around 25,000 BTUs of heat, all those billions of extra bodies are pumping out insane levels of extra heat and CO2 (breathing and farting).

Source for population numbers: Our World in Data

Neil Wyatt25/02/2020 17:03:40
avatar
Moderator
17742 forum posts
698 photos
77 articles
Posted by Phil Whitley on 24/02/2020 13:34:57:

Chaps, 0.8 to 1.2 deg change in temperature since 1900 is hardly rapId, please give some evidence of RAPID change from an independant source, not the IPCC.

The IPCC doesn't generate evidence, it reviews evidence generated by scientists across the world.

Fair enough though, rapid is probably not the right word, although if that change is sustained for a few more centuries then it would be fair. What we are seeing is accelerated climate change i.e.faster than normal, but not as fast as some of the catastrophic changes in the past.

An example is the Antarctic Cold Reversal which saw a 3 degree cooling and 20 metre sea level rise over 200-500 years.

Rapid or abrupt climate change is what we would see if a major ice sheet collapsed, the north Atlantic conveyor halted or there was a massive release of methane from clathyrates.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 25/02/2020 17:05:48

Bill Davies 225/02/2020 20:05:19
185 forum posts
10 photos

Zebethyal, 65000 BTUs, that's a lot of energy. But I'm not familiar with the comment from the Matrix. However, it's a quantity of energy and not a rate of doing work. Assuming it is used up over a day, that's about 800 watts, over a horsepower, continuously, so no-one could keep that up for long! You'd have to eat quite a few steaks, so more bovine farting.

You have some nice projects, by the way.

Bill

Phil Whitley25/02/2020 20:13:18
avatar
1153 forum posts
145 photos

You are right Neil, We do only get filtered science from the IPCC. but ignoring the IPCC for a moment, it was much warmer than today during the Medieval warm period, and much colder during the little ice age, which only ended around 1860, we don't really know what normal is, with I ching, and weather/climate, the only certainty is change!

I am saying no more on this subject, as it seemed to bring out the worst in some people!

Phil

Bill Davies 225/02/2020 21:18:18
185 forum posts
10 photos

I hope, given these various points of view, that we won't lose your input to the forum, Phil, you have provided much useful information over time. Thanks for that.

Bill

Paul Kemp25/02/2020 23:31:59
437 forum posts
18 photos
Posted by Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:05:22:

I dont have an opinion on it. Its not a matter of opinion. Its science. I dont claim to have gleaned enough scientific knowledge from google to know more about it than 97 percet of the 10,000-plus scientists who specialise in the field. That would be plain stupid of me, a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect at work.

I might as well go and tell the nuclear physicists how to run a power station or particle collider or tell the cardiac surgeons how to do a triple bypass or tell Einstein his theory of relativity etc is wrong because you cant bend light or see gravity.

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:06:18

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:33:17

There is a really good example (Einstien) who in his day was in the 3%. Trouble is he was subsequently shown to be right. So those that chose to follow and support the 97% were hoodwinked! Exactly why I would prefer to weigh up the balance of the evidence and form my own opinion even if I don't have the expertise to follow the detailed complexities. In my experience those that refuse to answer questions but evade or deflect or has often been the case on this difficult subject become aggressive or belittling are following the crowd or are politicians.

Paul.

Hopper25/02/2020 23:40:20
avatar
4423 forum posts
94 photos
Posted by Paul Kemp on 25/02/2020 23:31:59:
 

Exactly why I would prefer to weigh up the balance of the evidence and form my own opinion even if I don't have the expertise to follow the detailed complexities.

That right there would be the difference between you and Einstein. laugh

And most of the dissenting 3 per cent of scientists. The study by Peterson et al that I linked to above in relation to the pie chart also found that there was a strong correlation between the level of specialist expertise in climate science and being in the 97 per cent. Those with the lowest level of specialist climate science expertise, eg geologists who had submitted papers on climatological matters, tended to correlate most strongly with the 3 per cent of dissenters. Those with the highest levels of specialist expertise in climate science tended overwhelmingly to be in the 97 per cent

Conclusion: Most of the dissenting 3 per cent were like you, but at a higher level, and did not have the "expertise to follow the detailed complexities".

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 26/02/2020 00:01:09

Hopper26/02/2020 00:06:50
avatar
4423 forum posts
94 photos
Posted by Phil Whitley on 25/02/2020 20:13:18:

We do only get filtered science from the IPCC. ...

Well whatdya expect? It's widely known the IPCC is furthering their own agenda of creating a one-world government though climate alarmism.

The Israelis and the Palestinians, the Iranians and the Yanks, the Serbs and the Croatians, the Zulu and the Xhosa, the Indians and the Pakistanis, the French and the toursists, they are all going to lay down their arms and live together under one government, united by their alarm over climate change.

Robin Graham26/02/2020 02:38:52
692 forum posts
161 photos
Posted by Paul Kemp on 25/02/2020 23:31:59:
Posted by Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:05:22:

I dont have an opinion on it. Its not a matter of opinion. Its science. I dont claim to have gleaned enough scientific knowledge from google to know more about it than 97 percet of the 10,000-plus scientists who specialise in the field. That would be plain stupid of me, a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect at work.

I might as well go and tell the nuclear physicists how to run a power station or particle collider or tell the cardiac surgeons how to do a triple bypass or tell Einstein his theory of relativity etc is wrong because you cant bend light or see gravity.

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:06:18

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:33:17

There is a really good example (Einstien) who in his day was in the 3%. Trouble is he was subsequently shown to be right. So those that chose to follow and support the 97% were hoodwinked! Exactly why I would prefer to weigh up the balance of the evidence and form my own opinion even if I don't have the expertise to follow the detailed complexities. In my experience those that refuse to answer questions but evade or deflect or has often been the case on this difficult subject become aggressive or belittling are following the crowd or are politicians.

Paul.

Einstein was in a minority for sure - rather less than 3%. I remember reading a book, or maybe it was a paper, by Arthur Eddington published in the 1910's in which he said he'd been told that there were only three people on the planet who understood relativity. He wondered who the third person was. But by the early 1920's the theories of special and general relativity were generally accepted. Same sort of thing with the quantum theory - though I read somewhere that Plank was so upset by his discovery that he spent time trying to prove himself wrong. No one else worried so much - scientists, by and large, know when they're onto a Good Thing.

That Good Thing isn't usually a financial gravy train. The idea that scientists jump on the climate change bandwagon to get government funding because it's the sexy 'now' thing crops up quite often, but I'm not convinced that people who espouse that view have had any real experience of how science funding works. In my own experience it's harder to win government grants than to get funding from industry. I have no doubt that if anyone were able to put together a convincing research proposal which promised sound evidence that anthropogenic climate change was insignificant they'd be made for life. Shell, Exxon, Ford &c have deep pockets. Trouble is, it can't be done.

Robin

Edited By Robin Graham on 26/02/2020 02:51:07

Hopper26/02/2020 07:05:37
avatar
4423 forum posts
94 photos

Posted by Robin Graham on 26/02/2020 02:38:52:

... In my own experience it's harder to win government grants than to get funding from industry. I have no doubt that if anyone were able to put together a convincing research proposal which promised sound evidence that anthropogenic climate change was insignificant they'd be made for life. Shell, Exxon, Ford &c have deep pockets. Trouble is, it can't be done.

No it can't indeed.

But that is where about 90 percent of that dissenting 3 percent of so-called climate scientists get their funding -- from the fossil fuel industries via their bogus faux-science outfits such as the Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute.

Sadly too many of the public read reports of their faux science and give it equal weight as the other 97 per cent of bonafide science. Somehow 97 = 3 is a valid equation in their minds.

Scientific American ran a good article explaining in layperson's terms a scientific study that found over half a billion dollars a year of money is funnelled into 140 such bogus science/PR outfits, previously from the fossil fuel industry but now untraceable.   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/   It includes a link to the original study. It confirms the many previous studies coming to similar conclusions.

Edited By Hopper on 26/02/2020 07:29:06

Edited By Hopper on 26/02/2020 07:29:30

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

Support Our Partners
Warco
ChesterUK
Eccentric July 5 2018
Allendale Electronics
emcomachinetools
cowells
Eccentric Engineering
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "Wanted" Ads
Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.

Click THIS LINK for full contact details.

For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.

Digital Back Issues

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest