Petrol Stations

[woodieallen]

It's not a "deficit" in the argument it is well known and acknowledged - except by those who having been keeping up!
An enormous problem but not insoluble in theory at least - 200 years ago we all lived close to net zero.

Agreed. Simple solution. Get rid of 90% of the world's population, cars, planes, health care....and that is just scratching the surface.

 

[Jacob]

Agreed. Simple solution. Get rid of 90% of the world's population, cars, planes, health care....and that is just scratching the surface.

No. You start with the cause and look at: 1. how to live without fossil fuels 2. how to sequester CO2 - probably mainly by reforestation and other plant answers - peat development etc.
All the stuff about alternative transport is irrelevant IMHO it's just about saving the motor industry, not the planet.

 

[woodieallen]

Malign propaganda and does not happen in the real world.

Jacob, where can I buy these rose-tinted spectacles, please? Idiocracy was bang on where we're heading/have got to.

 

[woodieallen]

No. You start with the cause and look at: 1. how to live without fossil fuels 2. how to sequester CO2 - probably mainly by reforestation and other plant answers - peat development etc.

A Reality Check suggests otherwise. You yourself have said that its 'Too little, too late' with which I agree

 

[Jacob]

A Reality Check suggests otherwise.

What is your answer to the CC problem?

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, where can I buy these rose-tinted spectacles, please? Idiocracy was bang on where we're heading/have got to.

Just a simple well known fact - inherited characteristics tend towards the norm.

 

[woodieallen]

What is your answer to the CC problem?

This Reality Check perhaps ?
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/clim...anting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/

 

[woodieallen]

Just a simple well known fact - inherited characteristics tend towards the norm.

Evidence please. No evidence = invalid 'fact'. Go on, Google it for me and show the evidence ?

 

[Jacob]

Evidence please. No evidence = invalid 'fact'. Go on, Google it for me and show the evidence ?

Basic "O" level biology under the topic of evolution, natural selection, Darwin, etc. Start with Mendel and sweet peas perhaps?
You obviously know nothing about very basic science.

 

[Jacob]

This Reality Check perhaps ?
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/clim...anting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/

What is your answer to the CC problem?

 

[woodieallen]

I keep breaking my rule and not even try and have a rational discussion with you, Jacob. It is a futile exercise. I’m out of this thread.

 

[Jacob]

I keep breaking my rule and not even try and have a rational discussion with you, Jacob. It is a futile exercise. I’m out of this thread.

Just waving your arms about and shouting doesn't amount to rational discussion.
Have another go - what do you think should be done about climate change?

 

[Dave Moore]

Years ago (I think it was Horizon) on the Beeb in pre colour tv days showed what happens if you rear end a petrol based engine compared to that of a hydrogen one. The petrol tank if it ruptured could spew contents all over the vehicle. Which it did on more than a few occasions - the most infamous being a Ford compact which had the fuel tank ideally placed (as designed) to rupture if car was rear ended. The driver of one received massive burns; Ford was sued and he received massive damages - and Ford was forced to redesign and protect the fuel tank arrangement.

The hydrogen "tank" in the test/demo was in the trunk/boot. The veihicle was deliberately hit/rear ended so as to rupture it. Slow motion video showed the gas burning up and away from the car entirley; nothing spewed over the vehicle at all. There was almost negligable burning of the car and what there was - scortch marks... - confined to actual trunk/boot damaged area. The actual passenger compartment was completely undamaged.

Hydrogen burns from the bottom of the gas cloud upwards, as the gas rises naturally being lighter than air.

Hindenburg disaster cleraly showed that too.

There are safe and well tested storage systems which can be used in vehicles. It's the cost of producing the gas and implementing readily available filling statitions that prevents it from replacing gasoline/petrol; plus behind the scenes pressures from the big oil barons who see it as threat to their monopoly and profits...

I believe there are concerns with using hydrogen in domestic situations due to the higher risk of explosion. Regs at the moment allow a certain percentage of leakage when they do the drop test but I have read of concerns with any leakage at all with hydrogen. As it’s new technology there are no regs yet so they are using the current gas safe regs and probably going to be a need for much more training if used in domestic or commercial situations.
Regards,
Dave

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Just waving your arms about and shouting doesn't amount to rational discussion.
Have another go - what do you think should be done about climate change?

I'll have a go. The question is a pragmatic "what can be done about it", not a debate over whether it is happening.

It is us, homo-sapiens, who have created the probability of rapid damaging climate change through profligate use of finite resources and over population. Climate science is still evolving with material uncertainty over impacts, timescales., and the incidence of tipping points.

Climate has changed materially in the past through natural events -both rapidly, and sometimes predictable slower cycles. The proposition we can engineer a stable long term climate based on that which prevailed pre-industrial revolution is implausible (bonkers).

Limiting emission of greenhouse gases requires sacrifices . Enforcing the democratically unattainable is the action of an authoritarian state - left or right. Using climate change as the justification makes it no more convincing when so many are in denial.

Actions limiting demonstrable risks or providing fairly immediate benefits are easier to "sell". That actions proposed also contribute to minimising climate change is a win-win - eg:

• fossil fuels are finite - the only issue is when the price driven by market forces will make energy unaffordable to most. Alternatives need to be developed.
• damage to the environment through deforestation, mining, soil erosion, waste disposal etc are visibly obvious
• insulating houses and more efficient transport demonstrably reduce costs to individuals without materially impacting their material quality of life
• reuse, recycle are obvious ways to limit environmental degradation

Climate change can become an obsession beyond question or compromise. Behaviours are closely aligned to religion fanaticism. However worthy, this will not change attitudes, and can even inflame or harden alternative views.

Selling the benefits of changing that which more immediately improves well being or fixes obvious problems is easier. It becomes something the wider community can generally embrace.

There are those with short, possibly more selfish horizons - 5-50 years. Personally I would like to do that which will enable my grandchildren to enjoy a happy, stable, secure life - my horizon is 80-100 years.

Thereafter depends on uncertainties over which I have zero control. Humanity may thrive or be decimated through hunger, disease, flooding etc. I would not knowingly make such an outcome materially more likely, but would entertain little sacrifice to minimise the risks.

 

[Jacob]

I'll have a go. The question is a pragmatic "what can be done about it", not a debate over whether it is happening.

It is us, homo-sapiens, who have created the probability of rapid damaging climate change through profligate use of finite resources and over population. Climate science is still evolving with material uncertainty over impacts, timescales., and the incidence of tipping points.

There's a very high degree of certainty and CC is happening as forecast. One thing they tend to get wrong is timescales and alarm is expressed about how fast things are happening. I think they backed off, under sceptical pressure, from fear of being too alarmist, to not being alarmist enough.

Climate has changed materially in the past through natural events -both rapidly, and sometimes predictable slower cycles. The proposition we can engineer a stable long term climate based on that which prevailed pre-industrial revolution is implausible (bonkers).

Not at all bonkers. A counter argument is that homo sapiens actually caused the unusually stable 11000 year holocene era just ending (?). In any case it is clear that the technology of the last 200 years is the cause of CC, so we know what we must do.

Limiting emission of greenhouse gases requires sacrifices . Enforcing the democratically unattainable is the action of an authoritarian state - left or right. Using climate change as the justification makes it no more convincing when so many are in denial.

Either we enforce it to our own satisfaction or CC will enforce it in ways we will not like.

Actions limiting demonstrable risks or providing fairly immediate benefits are easier to "sell". That actions proposed also contribute to minimising climate change is a win-win - eg:

• fossil fuels are finite - the only issue is when the price driven by market forces will make energy unaffordable to most. Alternatives need to be developed.
• damage to the environment through deforestation, mining, soil erosion, waste disposal etc are visibly obvious
• insulating houses and more efficient transport demonstrably reduce costs to individuals without materially impacting their material quality of life
• reuse, recycle are obvious ways to limit environmental degradation

Climate change can become an obsession beyond question or compromise. Behaviours are closely aligned to religion fanaticism. However worthy, this will not change attitudes, and can even inflame or harden alternative views.

CC needs to become an obsession. It's the greatest threat to life as we know it. And attitudes are changing as the truth emerges.

Selling the benefits of changing that which more immediately improves well being or fixes obvious problems is easier. It becomes something the wider community can generally embrace.

There are those with short, possibly more selfish horizons - 5-50 years.

But it is happening now in many areas of the globe and no sign of it easing off. It may seem trivial that we in UK have had the warmest May, the wettest February, heaviest floods etc etc on record but in other regions this is catastrophic. And it is evolving, not diminishing.

Personally I would like to do that which will enable my grandchildren to enjoy a happy, stable, secure life - my horizon is 80-100 years.

Action needed now, we should be on something like a war footing.
This is not the product of a small group of over-agitated protestors - it is the current opinion of the world's scientists who have been studying the topic for a very long time:
https://www.unep.org/facts-about-climate-emergency
"Every year we fail to act, the level of difficulty and cost to reduce emissions goes up."

 

[Fergie 307]

I believe there are concerns with using hydrogen in domestic situations due to the higher risk of explosion. Regs at the moment allow a certain percentage of leakage when they do the drop test but I have read of concerns with any leakage at all with hydrogen. As it’s new technology there are no regs yet so they are using the current gas safe regs and probably going to be a need for much more training if used in domestic or commercial situations.
Regards,
Dave

Isn't there a trial scheme already planned, using hydrogen to directly fuel existing gas boilers. From what I remember they were going to pump it through existing pipework as a gas. Presumably some modification required to the boiler. I think it was in Wales possibly ?

 

[mcostello]

I am from across the pond and several times a year We here in this country have a house leveled when someone does not know how to keep propane hooked up. Is it the same over there? It is not usually the gas companies fault, people tinker that should not. Would hydrogen add to the problem?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There's a very high degree of certainty and CC is happening as forecast. One thing they tend to get wrong is timescales and alarm is expressed about how fast things are happening. I think they backed off, under sceptical pressure, from fear of being too alarmist, to not being alarmist enough.

Not at all bonkers. A counter argument is that homo sapiens actually caused the unusually stable 11000 year holocene era just ending (?). In any case it is clear that the technology of the last 200 years is the cause of CC, so we know what we must do.

Either we enforce it to our own satisfaction or CC will enforce it in ways we will not like.

CC needs to become an obsession. It's the greatest threat to life as we know it. And attitudes are changing as the truth emerges.

But it is happening now in many areas of the globe and no sign of it easing off. It may seem trivial that we in UK have had the warmest May, the wettest February, heaviest floods etc etc on record but in other regions this is catastrophic. And it is evolving, not diminishing.

Action needed now, we should be on something like a war footing.
This is not the product of a small group of over-agitated protestors - it is the current opinion of the world's scientists who have been studying the topic for a very long time:
https://www.unep.org/facts-about-climate-emergency
"Every year we fail to act, the level of difficulty and cost to reduce emissions goes up."

I agree with most you have said, However the challenge is effective change not the science.

Much public opinion is unconvinced by the science, or in denial. Changes will involve either material cost or substantial constraints upon that which currently gives pleasure.

Deploying resources to insulate houses better, increase green energy capacity, etc will reduce resources available for current needs. Some may be able to sacrifice the relatively discretionary, for others already stretched it will be very difficult.

Other changes impact directly on perceptions of the desirable - change diets to reduce food miles, constrain aviation, ban or seriously limit private car ownership ,etc. How demand for these things is reduced is another matter - rationing, taxation, etc.

There are two options:

• a government which enforces change and (or subdues) protests. This is effectively replaces democracy with a dictatorial police state. IMHO a non starter risking social disruption or revolution, denial of personal hard won rights, and extensive non-compliance.
• educate and inform to changes mindsets and implement that which is generally supported

A ridiculous analogy - a canal boat with a displacement hull has a maximum speed determined by the length along the waterline. Once at this speed, adding power only creates more noise and fuel consumption with little extra progress.

It is the achievable that counts, striving for the implausible using unacceptable policies is as likely to end in failure, as improve progress.

 

[niall Y]

Things will move at a pace that is workable, however slow this proves. It will be governed by the rate at which people are prepared to accept change. And, no amount of forcing the issue will be other than counterproductive.

The 20th Century happened because of oil, and no one is going to surrender that progress lightly - if at all. Politicians are in for a rough ride trying to persuade us to embark upon a "bonfire of the vanities" 21st Century style. And there will be the inevitable backlash when things get difficult.

 

[Scruples]

Evidence please. No evidence = invalid 'fact'. Go on, Google it for me and show the evidence ?

That would depend on what you call the 'norm'. Amd what part of the world's 'norm'?