Non-renewable energy

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Rolls is currently developing mini-reactors for electricity generation. They could be an option in the near future.

EDF have very recently stated that Hinkley B will close a little earlier than expected (the innards are cracking up).

This may well be to pressure the government into rushing a decision to buy further large PWRs from them before Rolls rolls out their mini reactors, which may be a better investment….

It will all come out in the wash. Watch this space.

[Ex contributorParticipant @mgnbuk]

she has so far dug her heels in over a wind turbine in the side garden, that may happen in the future

Your wife has probably got the right idea – I looked at domestic wind generators and also discussed them with my brother (who works with commercial scale energy efficiency & alternative energy projects). He pointed out that the generation claims of small wind generators were made at unfeasably high wind speeds & that in reality they would not pay for themselves. Add in the noise when they are operating and that you would probably require planning permission to install one (which is unlikely to be granted in a residential area) & they are a bit of a non-starter.

IIRC he pointed me to a website that gave details of the average wind speeds in your area (though I can't recall where the site is) – for my area the average windspeed was way below the point that the wind generator I was looking at would get to anything like it's rated output.

Wouldn't your bore hole be better used to drive a ground source heat pump ?

Nigel B

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 27/11/2020 11:49:44:

Why do the computer modellers assume that a temperature change will be universally disastrous?

Andrew

The computer modellers don't make any such assumptions.

They just make predictions of various scenarios.

It's the ecologists, agriculturalists, water engineers and meteorologists who then make assessments of the impacts of various models.

Very few models are 'universally disastrous', but on the whole the losers outnumber the winners. Chiefly this is because 'losers' lose very quickly but it may take much longer for 'winners' to benefit. For example, say there's a crop that has a critical rainfall requirement – you could lose it in a few years, but it could take decades or longer to establish it somewhere else, especially if somewhere else is already providing another crop.

The main impacts of high-confidence warming on the scale of about a century are huge shifts in what it is practical to grow where and rising sea levels; both of which are likely to have big impacts on both economies and populations, regardless of other issues like biodiversity.

Neil

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Last I heard sellafield was 100 billion and counting, and that was just for a wash and brush up

Strange how it's dropped out of the news…

Edited By Ady1 on 27/11/2020 17:10:47

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by mgnbuk on 27/11/2020 13:19:48:

Fossil fuels, especially oil, are running out.

You keep posting that Dave, but the oil companies seem to believe otherwise ? Are BP mistaken when they stated last year that proven reserves were almost 50% greater than in 1999, despite having had 20 years production ? And as the price rises, more known reserves become economic to extract. No excuse not to try and economise on use, but I doubt oil (and gas) will be removed from the mix for a long time.

…

Nigel B.

Wikipedia's Oil Reserve table is a little of of date (2016) but it paints a picture.

One way of reading the it might seem to support the idea that there nothing to worry about. The first 5 countries listed all have reserves of more than 100 years. Venuezula stands out for two reasons : it has 362 years of production to go, and it's the only country in the world to identify a major new source since 1980. (All the others have been small.)

There table only becomes worrying when looked at closely. Firstly, the figures show how many years of oil are left at the current rate of production, and that's rising because more people want more energy. Worse, each countries rate of production will rise further because of the large number of oil producing countries further down the table who have already run out, or will do within the next few decades.

For example, Russia is currently the world's largest producer, and they run out in about 21 years, The USA is third largest producer and they have 10 years left. The fifth largest producer of oil is China, and they have 17 years left. There are 15 oil producing countries with less than 30 years production left. Note that the USA and China both have energy greedy economies and will have to buy more foreign oil as their local stocks deplete. They will be buying in competition with the rest of the world, including you and me.

So over the next 30 years rising demand will be chasing falling production. Bottom line, at 2016 oil consumption rates, the world has about 60 years to go.

It's necessary to take action now because the cost of oil will rise rapidly long before the 60 year point, and because major changes are needed to replace it. Coal isn't quite so bad, about 300 years in reserve at the present rate of consumption, but coal won't last anything like that long if called on as a direct replacement for oil.

The consequences of plain old supply and demand are nothing to do with tree hugging or a Green Agenda. We need another source of energy and systems to manage it.

Green is a separate problem. Burning is almost certainly causing Global Warming, which is likely to displace hundreds of millions of people as dry areas become drier, wet areas become wetter, and everybody experiences extreme weather. Record breaking rainfall in the UK, record breaking drought in Australia, record breaking hurricanes and tornados in the US, unusually severe monsoons, disappearing glaciers and icecaps, oceans warming : spotted a pattern yet? Bad weather is bearable, but the risk to mankind is disrupted food production across the whole planet and mass migration.

Europeans may not care if Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable, and no doubt mankind can manage with half the Netherlands underwater, but a serious flood in London is unpleasantly close to home. It might happen thus:

• The UK is dipping slightly to the east, causing sea-levels to rise slightly on that side of the country
• Melting of the polar icecaps is also causing sea-levels to rise noticeably
• Warming of world's oceans due to greenhouse gases is causing more storms and they are bigger.
• A major storm surge in the North Sea (water lifted by low pressure), coupled with a Spring Tide, and a high wind already has the potential to overtop London's defences. It could happen now and the risk will continue to rise until global warming stops.

Although I agree coal and oil will be in the mix for some time, all the red lights are flashing! Worth putting effort in to fix it rather than pretending all is well.

Dave

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

I don't think we can stop it

10,000 years ago I was under a mile of solid ice

Reducing pollution is sensible, but the rest of it is King Canute dogma IMO

[norman valentineParticipant @normanvalentine78682]

Fossil fuels are on there way out, nuclear fuels will run out. With our increasing population wind and solar will have to cover the whole planet to produce enough power to satisfy everyone. the only answer is for everybody to use substantially less power. Are you prepared to give up your car or central heating or air conditioning to save the planet?

[An OtherParticipant @another21905]

Some interesting figures, and for sure something will have to change, but just to put it in perspective:

Where we live, almost everyone uses wood to heat their houses and for water – I'm not talking about 'our village' – I'm referring to the entire country. Most of the wood is from ancient oak and ash forest, which cover large areas of the country, but are being cut at a tremendous rate by illegal loggers. Much of it is taken out of the country, in particular to Austria and Hungary.

The wood is not even burnt in efficient stoves, (if such things exist) – many people only have simple home-built brick and ceramic stoves. I have no idea how much pollution and carbon dioxide this produces – our government does not publish any figures.

Many villages don't have piped drinking water (ours is one) – we are lucky and have a borehole for water, but many people have a hole to collect surface water – not a well into the water table, but a simple hole collecting rainwater or surface water.

Nuclear power would be a dream, but the electricity mostly comes from coal burning power stations.

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Nigel I take on board what you say about wind generators, we live in a coastal area so we have a lot of wind, probably not the right sort though. In respect of my borehole for water, our village used to rely on wells for its water until mains became available, so I know the relevant water table is reasonably close to ground level. The water would definitely be of use in servicing my ponds and also for watering plants during the summer, one of my other interests is stationary engines so not difficult to couple one to a pump when needed. We live in the south east corner of the country, the driest area regards rainfall and subsequently astronomical water bills so you can see my reasons, in respect of a ground source heat pump worth exploring.
Dave W

[Cyril BonnettParticipant @cyrilbonnett24790]

Biggest danger to life on this planet, all life, is human population growth, India is coming close to having a population the size of China's and both need to be fed.

China is now the biggest buyer of American corn and has been allowed to up the amount it is buying this year which will have a knock on effect on world food prices.

Have you noticed how small wagon wheels have become.

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Strange that NDIY chooses one of the least windy days of this year to share these figures! If you go to https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ and look at the graphs comparing wind output with other forms of energy, you will see that wind outstripped nuclear for most of the last year, and on certain days was supplying more than 35% of the grid load, and on several days it was supplying the largest percentage, even outstripping CCGT, which is a very clean fossil fuel, and almost 50% efficient, as opposed to nuclears 33%. Wind is very quick to install compared to nuclear, which is probably the slowest, and most expensive. Coal is hardly ever used nowodays although Drax gets susidies for burning biomass, which is actually wood pellets imported from America…..?

The reason fewer and fewer people accept the reality of climate change (TM) formerly global warming, may be because of the number of lies told by the promoters of this lucrative idea.

As any of you who remember the 1970s may remember, there was scientific concensus then too. All the scientists were in agreement, the planet was heading for another ice age, and we were all going to have to get used to living on a much colder planet. This belief continued till an American scientist, Jim Hanson, adressed the senate and told them that the planet was actually warming, the ice caps were going to dissapear, all low lying land would be swamped by rising sea levels, the lower east side of New york would be under water, and all this was going to happen by the year 2000. There is only one reason that scientists address the senate, and that is to obtain funding for research. Funding was granted, and lots of scientists started doing research that would ensure the continuation of the funding.

So what has happened? Virtually nothing, no ice has dissapeared beyond known cyclical variation, the polar bears, supposedly going to be made extinct by global warming, have increased in numbers from an estimate of 17000 to over 26000. sea level rise has not been convincingly shown to have happened anywhere, indeed sea level in norway is falling, as the land is rising due to tectonic plate activity. All the Glaciers which are supposed to be receeding have historically receeded further than they have today, mainly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Neither pole is anywhere near ice free, indeed ice levels are around normal, and the bits breaking off at the edges are icebergs, which sank the Titanic long before global warming. The reason ice flows into the sea, and down glaciers is pressure, millions of tons of pressure caused by snow falling and turning into ice at the head of this glacier, and inland in the case of polar ice. If the ice is not breaking off at the edges it is a clear indication that there is no snow falling inland, if however it is breaking off, in large amounts, then heavy snow is turning to ice and squeezing down to force ice into the sea at the edges of the land, where tidal action and salt water take it toll. Incidentally the Arctic ice is floating sea ice, it is already displacing more water than it contains by virtue of waters unique property of expanding when it freezes, if it ALL melted, it would not affect sea level at all, it may even fall a little!

Has anyone considered what happens when the planet warms a paltry few degrees? The first thing is that evaporation from the seas increases, and we get more rain, and for the UK this is certainly happening, although how much of this can be attributed to climate change, and how much is caused by the apparent shift westward in the low pressure areas that usually form up over northern Europe is anybodies guess. More rain means more dissolved CO2 falling on the planet, and more plant growth, which absorbs CO2 from the air. CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT, it is plant food. If the CO2 level in the atmosphere falls below 250ppm, plant life will start to die off, then we are really in trouble! Strange then that the people who are advocating a plant based diet are also promoting removing plant food from the atmosphere?

Acidification of the seas? Forget it, Sea life has been living by sequestrating CO2 from the water and turning it into calcium carbonate for probably billions of years, and billions of tons of their shells and skeletons make up the sea bed, any change in acidity causes an infintessimally small amount of this alkaline buffer to go back into solution, and equilibrium is restored.

So what do scientists agree on? well if one was cynical, one could say that their continued agreement ensures their continued funding, and it is said that you can get funding for any research project if you tag "with respect to the effects of climate change" on to the end of your projects title. What scientists were asked, and what they agree on, is very simple, Has the planet got warmer since the end of the "little ice age" in about 1850? and of course they all agree on that, because it has got warmer!

It is impossible to computer model the climate of the planet, and expect the results to have any connection to reality. At the last count the "climate scientists" were polling and combining the results from 13 different climate models, and the fact that their predictions have all failed completely to show any correlation with reality prove this.

Imagine enough spinning tops to cover the entire planet, some spinning clockwise, some anticlockwise, and all in intimate contact with each other at their peripheries, predicting which way they will move and what effects they will cause is a gross simplification of weather forecasting. The climate is much more complex and much less predictable.

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

In the seventies after a night out in Sheffield, we used to drive up to Wolley edge services, and sit watching the Twin steel towns of Sheffield and Rotheram, it was like looking into Dantes inferno, and when you consider that it went on 24 hours a day, and probably had done on some scale for about 300 years, one can only imagine what the carbon footprint was, then add all the other steelworks in the UK, and the coking plants that used to provide the fuel for the steelworks, and the coal fired power stations that provided all the electricity and the steam trains that carried the coke and ore in, and the steel out, and then consider that all these industries, and many other industries that begat a forest of mill chimnies all over the north, and burnt cheap coal, are all long gone! One would have thought that given that CO2 is transient in the atmosphere, all that CO2 should have caused massive global warming, and yet in the seventies, scientists were warning of cooling? Me thinks "they protesteth too much". You are sitting in front of the most powerful research tool the planet has ever seen, if you don't believe any of the above, do some research, the rabbit hole isn't that deep, and remember scientists have mortgages, and kids at private schools!

Why does Georg Soros fund an organisation that was funding extinction rebellion, and paying its organisers £400 a week? I don't know, but it seems strange that a multi billionaire who could easily afford to fund scientific research is instead funding a protest movement that tried to convince Londoners that global warming was real by parading through the streets in blood covered polar bear suits. Something smells, and it is not rotting polar bear carcasses.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing, because it has always changed. In the medieval warm period ( the one that the UNI of East Anglia tried to get rid of, and caused climategate(qv), people have such short memories) Grapes grew and wine was made in large quantities in northern england. In the little ice age, Frost fairs were held on the frozen over river Thames.

I shall start to worry when the climate STOPS changing!

Phil,

clad from head to foot in woven glassfibre!

 

Edited By Phil Whitley on 27/11/2020 20:46:51

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Phil,

I only picked out the ‘now’ figure of pollution because the OP had already chosen exactly that way to start his thread(he is clearly one of the luddite-type? Not so strange at all. Two can play that game?

Indeed, I am not particularly pro-nuclear. Are you aware that some nuclear generation was turned off, at the request of the national grid, for most of the summer months? Why? Because the grid needed to keep the faster-acting gas turbines running, just in case of a power outage like the previous year.

Have you noticed that wind generation has been curtailed, beyond around 10GW, during the last windy spell? Those curtailed wind turbines might have been making an extra couple of GW (or more) for long periods during that spell.

All these things screw up the longer-term statistics to some extent. I would never say we cannot (at present) cope without some fossil burning. You also conveniently forget that most of the UK steel production was transferred to China. Natural gas was encouraged only because installations were fast and cheap (particularly OCGT), to reduce the pollution we were making by burning coal. Burning methane produces carbon dioxide and water, not just carbon dioxide, as coal does.

Gas burning stopped most of the acid rain, too, as well as particulates and other pollutants from coal plants (heavy metals such as mercury, radio-isotopes, etc).

My view is that apart from the atmospheric pollution, the human population on this planet is (like Bazyle(?)said) is beyond what the planet can naturally sustain.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

We don't have to rely on modelling. The data shows that global heating is happening. Atmospheric, land and ocean temperatures are trending upwards demonstrably.

Here in Australia its wreaking havoc already, with longterm trends of record heat waves triggering widespread catastrophic bushfires and killing the Great Barrier Reef progressively. Heat stress deaths are rising too and marginal agricultural land is becoming unviable.

No modelling needed.

[colin wilkinsonParticipant @colinwilkinson75381]

Sorry Hopper, when Australia sells China over 3 Million tons of coal to China in October alone, ( was over12 million tons inJune) I am afraid I cannot have any sympathy. Stop adding to the problem.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Your sympathies or otherwise dont change the facts. No relevance at all. The data stands. No modelling needed because negative impact of global heating is already happening.

Edited By Hopper on 28/11/2020 05:40:05

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by Hopper on 28/11/2020 05:36:01:

Your sympathies or otherwise dont change the facts. No relevance at all. The data stands. No modelling needed because negative impact of global heating is already happening.

Edited By Hopper on 28/11/2020 05:40:05

Agreed. I think Mr wilkinson must think that climate change is only affecting Australia, for being naughty? Sure, exported coal is not good, but will decrease.

China is taking great strides, in progress towards to a lower carbon footprint. It will take time, but they are busy (at installing low carbon energy) with far greater installation of low-carbon generation than in any other country in the planet.

The western economies have moved their ‘dirty’ industries to China to give the impression of being lower carbon than they were. Labour was cheaper, too. But remember, it is western society with a throw-away attitude that is driving imports. Cheapness, not longevity, being the priority apparently.

[Simon CollierParticipant @simoncollier74340]

I believe the following to be true although I can't provide references without going to more trouble than I care to:

reliable, standardised temperature records for the last hundred years are available for only very few places, such as the UK and Eastern US, there are scant records for most of the planet, so how do we know what global temperatures have been doing; senior climate scientists whose research doesn't support the prevailing dogma have been refused publication and hounded out of jobs; computer models of chaotic systems are exquisitely sensitive to imput variables; those who decide what variables to imput are scientists in whose interests it is to support the prevailing narrative. The most rabid groups screaming for "action on climate change", demanding that we listen to the science, and who likely eschewed maths, physics and chemistry at school, will rapidly retreat from the much simpler science of genetics, into magical thinking, and will abuse and vilify you, if you suggest that XX = female and XY = male, or that someone with blond hair and blue eyes isn't " indigenous".

I tend to believe that human augmented warming is real, but I worry about the forces at work. Ultimately, the planet has only a single problem: vastly too many humans. You won't get politicians or ecologists going anywhere near that one.

[PeroParticipant @pero]

Simon you have just mentioned the unmentionable elephant in the room – well nearly 8 billion of them to be nearer the mark!

However, I have seen interviews with noted climate scientists who have proclaimed, with a straight face, that humans do not contribute to global warming it is only their activities that cause this. They then go on to condemn farm animals as shameless contributors to green house gas production. Could these be possibly the rantings of religious vegans?

Apart from the breathing, belching and other unmentionables expelled by humans, the loss of habitat, destruction of soil and watercourses, lakes and marshes are all a result of the gross overpopulation of all of the continents and most of the islands on the planet. That includes Australia which, although it has an extremely low population density, we have still managed to irreversibly damage most of the more benign parts and a large area of the parts that are not quite so benign.

Since Australia has a low birth rate population growth is largely determined by the immigration rate but while we have a housing driven economy in which predominantly migrants build houses for other migrants using imported building materials and then fill them with imported appliances and government, industry and the unions think this is a good thing it is unlikely that things will change in the short term.

There endeth today's sermon ( well tomorrow's actually – this is just my first draft ).

Pero

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

reliable, standardised temperature records for the last hundred years are available for only very few places, such as the UK and Eastern US, there are scant records for most of the planet, so how do we know what global temperatures have been doing.

I spent quite a time helping to transcribe Metrological data from Navy Warships from all over the world for a citizen science project on climate change. High quality data exists for much of the planet from sources such as this for the time span you talk of. Your statement seems to be erronious and I see you don't cite a source. The last ship I did was based in South Africa in the decades befor the first world war.

regards Martin

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Phil's post contains bloopers! For example:

• As any of you who remember the 1970s may remember, there was scientific concensus then too. All the scientists were in agreement, the planet was heading for another ice age, and we were all going to have to get used to living on a much colder planet… only one reason scientists address the senate, and that is to obtain funding for research. Funding was granted, and lots of scientists started doing research that would ensure the continuation of the funding. This misunderstands science. Science collects evidence, tests it against a hypothesis, and if evidence match predictions hypothesis is promoted to Theory. Science gets to the truth in steps, as early ideas stand or fall. 1970's evidence based on studies of the effect of Thermonuclear War suggested global cooling was more likely than heating due to large quantities of dust and smoke in the upper atmosphere – nuclear winter. The significance of green-house gases wasn't understood. 1970's ideas being wrong is irrelevant: different time, people & situation. It's the evidence now that matters. Claiming scientists report global warming only in order to get funding is dodgy. Are 'they' really paying science to mislead the public for purposes unknown? Surely leaders would be happy if global warming was fake.
• CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT, it is plant food. True CO² is plant food. False it isn't a pollutant. Put a plastic bag over your head and see how long you last. Not all plants thrive in high CO², and many other lifeforms die. Many substances are necessary to life in small quantities only. Nitric Acid made by lightning is a fertiliser. Water isn't normally bad for people, but…
• Has anyone considered what happens when the planet warms a paltry few degrees? Yes, because solar energy drives weather. Phil claims a few degrees are 'paltry' but its the amount of heat that matters, not temperature. The seas are about 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometres of water. Raising sea temperature by 1°C requires an enormous amount of heat: 4.184kJ per kilogram or 5794840000000000000MJ, equivalent to the heat released by exploding 1,385,000,000,000,000 one megaton Hydrogen bombs. Sea heat is a problem because it does work as it cools by moving air and seawater on a huge scale. The resulting weather isn't spread evenly, effects are concentrated wherever the consequence of doing work ends up. The accumulation of weather adds up to climate change, which varies by location. 1 degree is a lot of energy
• no doubt that the climate is changing, because it has always changed. Yes, but the flaw is assuming that previous events were acceptable, and so man-made climate change will be OK. Not so, many civilisations failed due to persistent bad weather wrecking their agriculture. The last ice age made the British Isles uninhabitable. Lasted 100,000 years and only ended 12000 years ago. Whatever causes climate change, it's bad. Self inflicted change is stupid.
• In the seventies after a night out in Sheffield, we used to drive up to Wolley edge services, and sit watching the Twin steel towns of Sheffield and Rotheram, it was like looking into Dantes inferno, and when you consider that it went on 24 hours a day, and probably had done on some scale for about 300 years, one can only imagine what the carbon footprint was… No need to imagine it. The amount of coal extracted in the UK is well known. Apart from accounts kept by buyers and sellers, geologists can get within 20% rather easily. At the time it was believed that the oceans and vegetation would absorb CO² as Phil suggests. Not totally wrong, but CO² produced by early industry is still in the air, and current activity is adding more faster than the Victorians. Although much diluted CO² has a disproportionate greenhouse effect.

When looking at evidence it's useful to weight it. Iffy:

• Vested interests
• Personal experience
• Anecdote, politics, propaganda and opinion
• Narrow range of time and/or circumstance
• Small samples
• Conspiracy theories
• Extremists
• Websites
• Logic errors: "A cat is a mammal; dogs are mammals; therefore dogs are cats."

Better:

• Published science, with open data, methods & conclusions
• Independent reports from reputable organisations who identify sources
• Statistical analysis of large datasets
• Multiple reputable reports coming to the same general conclusion.
• Reviewed material
• Numbers not words

Best: understandings reached by application of Scientific Method – repeatable experiments failed to show anything wrong. Although global warming isn't nailed down to that extent there is no scientific evidence proving the hypothesis is wrong.

Low-quality opinion and 'facts' can be published free on the internet even if the author is a swivel-eyed loon#, while authoritative information has to be paid for. Most of us believe cheap websites, pub blather, & Daily Wail rollocks rather than pay money for a difficult to understand Scientific Report.

Dave

# Even me.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

As any of you who remember the 1970s may remember, there was scientific concensus then too. All the scientists were in agreement, the planet was heading for another ice age, and we were all going to have to get used to living on a much colder planet.

I do remember the 1970s, and there was no such consensus. In fact there was a debate about whether warming or cooling would happen with a significant bias towards warming by the 80s. This reflected that we had much less data 50 years ago and the amount of warming was small enough not to be a clear signal. We now have data that goes back vastly further and in more detail and with greater confidence.

I think the most valuable asset in the face of so much data and contradictory opinions is an open mind. It pays to look at the data (like the diagram below). The most useful site I have found as a repository of links to meaningful data and modelling is skepticalscience.com/

I must avoid proselytising, but it strikes me that the sort of intelligent, enquiring people who populate this forum are largely the sort of 'informed laymen'* able to look at the evidence and contribute constructively to conversations in the communities you live in. Not seeking to ridicule or belittle, but helping our friends and neighbours understand we do have choices, what those choices are and what their consequences might be.

Therefore, I'm happy to allow this debate to get a little more vigorous than usual, as long as it remains respectful and avoid the party political. For example please don't blame individuals for actions by nations that you don't agree with or making unnecessary digs at people's beliefs or lifestyles.

Neil

*you are mostly men.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

The argument will always be skewed by vested interests, and by personal prejudices, so the truth is going to VERY hard to find..

The climate of the earth has cycled for thousands of years..

As human beings, we have spent centuries burning fossil fuels

From the first living being, we and our way way back forebears have been exhaling CO2 , and methane, etc into the atmosphere. Not to mention volcanic eruptions and wildfires, possibly exacerbated by mankind.

Thankfully, plant life has been removing and using some of the CO2.

However more and more mammals exhaling CO2 and reducing the area of plant life, must increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, are likely to result in warming to add to, or deduct from, natural climate cycles.

In my mind, generating electricity by using (Predictable ) tidal power, and wave power (Always there in some amplitude ) deserve much more research and implementation. But possibly the implementation will cause an increase in pollution before we start to obtain the benefits. (A bit like a capital investment gaining interest )

This thread is contributing to global warming, by the heat that it is obviously generating among all the contributors, and by the useage of electricity needed to maintain it. Mea Culpa!

Howard

[ChrisHParticipant @chrish]

It has been stated the major problem is too many people on the planet. Agreed. However, as the ever increasing world population grows at an ever increasing rate so will the demand on fuel, food and water for those people, and therefore conflict will follow as those people will require ever more fuel, food and water from every diminishing sources to survive. So the argument would follow that world population requires to be drastically reduced and stay reduced.

However, be careful in what you wish for.

In the past the big reducers to population (but on a far too localised scale to apply to the world at large) have been disease and war, think back to events like the Black Death, the Plague of London, the Spanish Flu and the two World Wars – each did their share of reducing the population in big numbers. But, the way the population is going we are going to need a much more evil "Covid", far more world widespread and deadly than the current rona, and/or WW3. The present Covid came out of no-where, whats to say another bigger and more evil one could be coming down the track. And there are enough risky and/or over-ambitious nations in the world with very nasty weapons to suggest WW3 may be a possibility some time in the not too distant future. Not nice thoughts.

Place your bets on what will happen next.

Happy days!

Chris

I'm going back to my pint and happier thoughts!!

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

I opened this thread simply stating an inconvenient fact which few understand , politicians especially,that no matter if we install three times more wind turbines , they produce near to no electricity in times of static high pressure over the UK.

So, an equivalent GW back-up of non-renewable power has to be available in that situation.

WE know that, THEY do not.

In 1968 I was lucky enough to visit Mao's China , twice, for a few days.

The streets of Shanghai were full of bicycle rickshaws, cars were rare.

But what I saw was a nation with a common goal and, guess what, a 'population control' policy.

Q E D.

In 1969 , a book was produced by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council with the title

Resources and Man.

On every subject, the future median predictions up to the year 2000 are chillingly accurate.

And it says, " only Japan, Hungary and Bulgaria have a birth-rate to sustain a stable population".

Our policies have only moved the pollution to China, instead of removing it at source, here.

But then we all know that.

[Author]

Posts