Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The green farming revolution means no more fertiliser. It's the solution, not a problem. "Regenerative Agriculture" is the future, with variations. Why Regenerative Agriculture? - Regeneration International
Energy Saving
- Thread starter The Sheriff
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
This is a really hazy memory and may be wrong but I think the two windmills info came from an Island community who had previously generated electricity from Diesel until installing a wind turbine. They then payed for their electricity at a price intended to pay back the loan or possibly grant and pay for two replacements within the projected life of the first unit. My main memory was a reporter leaning into the wind struggling to interview two of the locals saying what happens when it's not windy and getting a look of complete incomprehension.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The stainless sink in my last house had been there for 20 years or so. The buyers did over the kitchen and I reclaimed it and used it for another 20 years. Eventually it was redundant and I had to scrap it but it was still usable. I could have put it outside behind the shed but I already had a huge catering double drainer double sink which is still there, probably 50 years old. Useful for gardening, paint stripping, other things.
Which brings me to my point - we are going to need something like wartime "Utility" standards for products, with no more throwaway consumerism. Stuff costing twice as much but lasting 10 times as long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_furniture
I've read that with both turbines and solar panels, most of which are made in China mostly using coal power, will produce the same amount of power in their lifetime as their manufacture requires. Big turbines have a very large oil lubrication requirement changed annually. The blades supposedly can't be recycled so will be chopped up and landfill. Even if a big turbines moving parts could be swapped out when it's worn out I bet 100 to 1 a bigger shinier one will be available so old will be binned.
I don't dispute that the above may be cobblers, and that there are very definitely alternative "facts" out there. You do not have to look very far to find experts disputing the MSM experts, all with accredited science behind them. My facts are better than your facts is about what it boils down to, and things like the infamous hockey stick graph don't give much weight to the MSM articles promoting that kind of "science".
I don't dispute that the above may be cobblers, and that there are very definitely alternative "facts" out there. You do not have to look very far to find experts disputing the MSM experts, all with accredited science behind them. My facts are better than your facts is about what it boils down to, and things like the infamous hockey stick graph don't give much weight to the MSM articles promoting that kind of "science".
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Cost and efficiency of renewable tech is improving in leaps and bounds - the future looks good. Looks Chinese as well come to think.
They are now world leaders in sustainable technology and are winding back on coal. They needed it for the tech leap forwards. They are also the world leader in hydro electric generation Hydroelectricity in China - Wikipedia
It boils down to who is right, not just a choice between options. 99% of the science community is behind climate change science and as science has an astonishing track record so far, these are obviously the people to listen to.
I agree it isn't easy to know what to think - there are a lot of opinionated people out there, not all nutters but still wrong about things.
MSM has always been behind the curve and the main source of CC scepticism. They are catching up slowly - we are seeing stuff on the TV now which would have provoked riots only a few years ago. Even David Attenborough was holding fire until quite recently.
Last edited:
This is an intersting picture with nice colours. It is titled as an energy flow chart for the UK in 2020 so I don't know if the figure for petroleum for instance is only including that imported to produce energy rather than made into something else?
But, as shown in nice big blocky shapes, to replace the UK gas and petroleum portions with hydro, wind and solar (shown currently as I think 3.3%) means planting many, many more windmills.
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/1006380/Energy_flow_chart_2020.pdf
But, as shown in nice big blocky shapes, to replace the UK gas and petroleum portions with hydro, wind and solar (shown currently as I think 3.3%) means planting many, many more windmills.
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/1006380/Energy_flow_chart_2020.pdf
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Right! That looks interesting I'll have a look later!
Many more windmills and solar panels and insulation et etc but the big one will be change of behaviour e.g. the days of energy consuming personal transport are ending, get your bus pass now! Or roller skates?
Cost and efficiency of renewable tech is improving in leaps and bounds - the future looks good. Looks Chinese as well come to think.
They are now world leaders in sustainable technology and are winding back on coal. They needed it for the tech leap forwards. They are also the world leader in hydro electric generation Hydroelectricity in China - WikipediaIt boils down to who is right, not just a choice between options. 99% of the science community is behind climate change science and as science has an astonishing track record so far, these are obviously the people to listen to.
I agree it isn't easy to know what to think - there are a lot of opinionated people out there, not all nutters but still wrong about things
China winding back on coal?? Winding back on their rate of expansion maybe!
The thing is that truth is not a majority sport. 99% can be wrong, science requires that it only takes one to be right. Today I don't see how a layman can know which is right if both sides of any argument are proven experts, especially if one lot quite clearly have their career on the line and are spouting the "facts" that happily tie in to their employers theme. Neil Ferguson as a good example who should have been put in a very deep dark hole after BSE. What he comes out with is given way too much weight, is also talking mostly cobblers but someone who peddles such cobblers is at the forefront of the UK Govt persuasion of the masses, and he all by himself undermines the official 99% we're correct view. Fauci the same, a proven under oath liar (edited to add, according to Sen. Paul at least) but still the official spokespronoun.
Last edited:
Gabe Brown is well worth listening to. Creating soil with no dig, no weedkiller, no funghicide, combining continuous live root structure with cash crops and grazing giving more profit for less input. Also Dr Elaine Ingham on how to build soil health.
OoopsI hate to think what you do when the JW come round!
That was the way farming used to be done, it worked because enough food could be produced to support the population of the time but now we are so heavily overpopulated we rely on intensive farming. This is farming in overdrive, working under stress to meet required volumes whilst trying to be cost effective.
A lot of people are playing osterich with their heads in the sand and arse in the air pretending all is well and that some miracle in technology will come along and solve the issue overnight. Borris does have the advantage that a former prime minister wiped out the coal industry and that the UK is no longer an industrial giant with huge power demands so that gives him a head start unlike China where as an industrial power house they will have much bigger problems.
Valhalla
Established Member
Have you tried putting it in the airing cupboard overnight?
I would be interested in your reaction to the Gabe Brown vid I linked to above?
One of the Permaculture type books I read talked about when Paris was entirely self sufficient for food. I can't remember how long ago but 18thC maybe? As more people wanted to live in the city the land for growing was sold and used for housing, food production moved out to cheaper land further away. That was also when horses would be providing the fertiliser. But at a point when it was a bustling city it could operate with all it's food production within it. What if the authorities at the time allowed the city to grow with the same proportion of horticultural land to people? It could perhaps be like that now with inner city regeneration to arable as a sustainable proportion?
It's all ok when the threat of no solid fuel stove, £20K for a heat pump or even more for a new EV is just over the horizon rather than here today. What I can't see is where we will end up, or even where "they" think we're supposed to be heading for. If minimum (not minimal and according to your wallet) travel for us, food and everything is 100% the future then no-one can live rurally. Everyone will have to be in a city, foot traffic and pushbikes if you're lucky. The planet has thrived with much higher CO2 levels, what level of CO2 will be judged by others to be acceptable?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
**** Sapiens hasn't
For CO2 levels ask the science. They say 1.5 temp rise max. Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —
1 Some food production moving back to the city in very unlikely places
https://citymonitor.ai/fabric/how-future-farming-lies-our-inner-cities-3902http://innercityfarms.com/http://detroitagriculture.net/2 But masses of work can be done from the country on-line as we have discovered.
3 Work may have to come back to small towns and villages - used to be that every village in UK had a post office, a grocer, local craft workers working locally etc etc. Much local produce available locally. Only 50 years ago. Post office and village stores both disappeared here only 4 years ago.
It is like the captain of the Titanic, initially going all out to get to his destination as fast as possible and then came the oh shiete moment when they hit the iceberg, we are in a slightly better position in that we are still really going all out to get somewhere but the iceberg is in clear sight, to close to steer round but apply the brakes and at worst you will just bump into it. This is really nothing more than control system theory, the earlier you detect a deviation from setpoint and react the less energy will be needed to correct, allow it to overshoot and fail to react soon enough then you will need vast energy to correct.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The technology already exists to enable a zero carbon future, although some elements could clearly benefit from development. The issues to be overcome:
Zero carbon transition will take one or two decades, not one or two years. The community is global, not local/national. The UK, US, Western Europe etc have the infrastructure and wealth to adapt and mitigate (up to a point). Large parts of the world do not.
It's not looking good - we are on an optimistic critical path to a solution which ignores any (very likely) delays or foul ups. Were I a betting man I would be looking for odds of 3:1 in favour of a successful outcome!
- how to stimulate people to modify behaviours - rationing, legislation, force, taxation policies, market forces, etc. It may be a mix of strategies - but time is now of the essence making more extreme mandated measures more likely.
- global populations continue to expand and seriously stress any transition. Without action to stabilise/reduce populations, efforts towards zero carbon and preserving the environment will be compromised.
- applying significant resources to a zero carbon transition will deny funds to other activities. Short term needs and desires will need to be sacrificed for the long term goals.
Zero carbon transition will take one or two decades, not one or two years. The community is global, not local/national. The UK, US, Western Europe etc have the infrastructure and wealth to adapt and mitigate (up to a point). Large parts of the world do not.
It's not looking good - we are on an optimistic critical path to a solution which ignores any (very likely) delays or foul ups. Were I a betting man I would be looking for odds of 3:1 in favour of a successful outcome!
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
2 points.
1. You are right.
2. I did say "allegedly", which of course is shorthand for "I've read this somewhere on the internet but can't be bothered to check if it is sensible, because life is just too short". It also means no embarrassment when I point out that you are right.
Did I mention that you are right? The payback does appear to be less than a year, so you are right.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It would need to be USA, China, Europe and other first world countries needing to restrain their population growth as they have biggest CO2 footprint by far. The Chinese did lead the field on this with their one child policy but were berated by one and all, including their own people
.I think the general population are ahead on this and awaiting progress from the politicians.
Really? How, without making things worse? I think it's the other way around - we are more vulnerable to collapse of a very complex infrastructure and have little to fall back on.
Yojevol
Clocking on
The aspect that does not seem to be discussed is that we are probably past a tipping point and we're in a +ve feedback situation already. As we engineers know +ve feedback systems are notoriously difficult to control.
As temperatures continue to rise the icecaps melt causing less solar energy to reflected, thus driving up temperatures even faster. Also permafrost will melt releasing long held methane which a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Recently we've huge forest fires burning down trees thus reducing their ability to absorb CO2. All examples of +ve feedback.
Brian
As temperatures continue to rise the icecaps melt causing less solar energy to reflected, thus driving up temperatures even faster. Also permafrost will melt releasing long held methane which a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Recently we've huge forest fires burning down trees thus reducing their ability to absorb CO2. All examples of +ve feedback.
Brian
