The joys of electric car ownership!

[John Brown]

Facts and interpretations are different things.

Phil,, are you what is commonly referred to as a climate change denier? Just curious. If you are, I have no interest in attempting to sway you.

 

[Jacob]

It has to make you laugh when one of the most vocal among us decrying the use of fossil fuels posts this

I don't burn fossil fuels - except gas for hot water, but not for much longer.
I don't "decry" the use if fossil fuels it's just that regrettably we are all going to have to stop using them.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Phil,, are you what is commonly referred to as a climate change denier? Just curious. If you are, I have no interest in attempting to sway you.

I won't go into what you're commonly referred to as, I'll probably get banned.

 

[John Brown]

I won't go into what you're commonly referred to as, I'll probably get banned.

Yes. Probably.

 

[NormanB]

All solar farms and I do mean ALL should be on warehouse roofs not valuable and needed farmland. And any planning application for warehousing should be refused unless as much roof space as possible is covered in solar panels. Fly across the country using Google maps and see how many warehouse type roofs there are and how many have solar panels!!

Good idea however the current grid cannot manage the input everywhere - DNOs are limiting on the installed capacity tied to the grid in some areas.

 

[NormanB]

I think we're going to have to look to China to help us out with this one….

Yes absolutely brilliant idea.

Like tying your energy economy to Russian fossil fuel.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Agent_zed]

Some of your remarks really do conveniently ignore some very pertinent facts. Biogas production in Denmark for example. A country with a population of 5 million or so, population density five times less than ours, and with an awful lot of pigs, the major source of the raw material. So for the Danes this is a good solution, but not readily transferable as a major source of supply in most countries.

Whilst you conveniently fail to look into alternatives. The UK has significantly more cattle than Denmark and produces 2x the amount of straw per year for example. Besides as I've said before it is all part of a bigger system. If we only manage to produce 5% of our needs from biogas then that is still a significant amount of energy that is not reliant on fossil fuels and is a circular waste stream.

Oil gas coal. Do you think we will be able to stop using these altogether in the next probably twenty years? I very much doubt it, although I would hope we can drastically lower that use. Whilst we have to continue with them please explain how it makes more sense, either environmentally or in any other way, to import them from far afield when we have them on our doorstep.

No, and I will admit to using fossil fuels, but we need to rapidly reduce this demand and provide alternatives. If current predictions on remaining oil/gas then it will only get more expensive. Imports can be more environmentally friendly on balance than fracking for example. Although overall we need invest in alternatives not investment in opening oil wells.

Fusion. What makes you do pessimistic about this? I think most people would agree it is the ultimate solution. As for doing it well take the Manhattan project as an example. And I mean as an example of the scientific progress made in a short space of time, not the creation of the bomb. This was achieved by gathering together the best scientists they could find, and providing the funds necessary to do it. This is what needs to be done with fusion, so far we really have been playing at it. I recall Brian Cox quoting statistics that showed that we spend more money on mobile phone ringtones than on research into fusion. So yes, I believe that if we can get some serious funding in place, and the right people, there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible in a reasonable timescale.

I'm not pessimistic as such, but I'm also not going to put all my hope into something that may never happen when there are loads of proven sustainable things we can do now.
Besides, what happens if it's some other country that work it out first and refuse to share the tech with anyone else? Would the UK just give away the tech to every country on earth?

Why not put more money into increasing solar panel efficiency? They only convert about 20% sunlight. What if you could increase that to 30%, 40%, 50%, that would be a huge amount of energy into the system. On top of that static panels only reach ~73% of there max output. If you could have smaller more efficient panels that could be mounted to follow the sun the gains would be enormous.

Trump. What makes you suggest that I would like him to be popular,

Never said you did, I just countered your prediction of his likely re-election.

Oh and I forgot palm oil. We In the developed countries have largely created the demand for the damn stuff, and so encouraged its production at enormous cost to the environment, bio diversity etc. We should drastically reduce our consumption, and ensure that what we do use is from responsible sources.

Same could be said about crude oil.

 

[TRITON]

Yes absolutely brilliant idea.

Like tying your energy economy to Russian fossil fuel.

What could possibly go wrong?

We buy 100% of our fuel from the international market, so we're at the mercy of whomever is selling at whatever price.

As to looking to a country like China. We have no money to invest in this tech. Sweet fanny Adams and it would cost hundreds of billions.

 

[Jacob]

Whilst you conveniently fail to look into alternatives. The UK has significantly more cattle than Denmark and produces 2x the amount of straw per year for example. Besides as I've said before it is all part of a bigger system. If we only manage to produce 5% of our needs from biogas then that is still a significant amount of energy that is not reliant on fossil fuels and is a circular waste stream.

Except that meat production is a major contributor to CO2 production. It's got to be severely reduced and methods revised. Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
This sounds severe but in fact could be one of the easiest changes we could make. An end to farming as we know it but only a few years would be needed for the change.

....
Besides, what happens if it's some other country that work it out first and refuse to share the tech with anyone else? Would the UK just give away the tech to every country on earth?

It has to be shared or there is no point in doing it at all. It's a global problem.

 

[Jacob]

Yes absolutely brilliant idea.

Like tying your energy economy to Russian fossil fuel.

What could possibly go wrong?

China is ahead of the game in sustainable energy technology by a long way but it would save their bacon too if it was used worldwide. It's a global problem - they need everybody to decarbonise.

 

[Lons]

Wood is not generally regarded as a fossil fuel, as far as I know.

I think you'll find the words posted were " You name it, I'll burn it "
You don't need to defend Jaccob, he's had a lifetime of experience.

 

[John Brown]

I think you'll find the words posted were " You name it, I'll burn it "
You don't need to defend Jaccob, he's had a lifetime of experience.

He made the remark in response to an opinion about biomass, which is not the same as fossil fuel, as far as I know.

I feel no need to defend Jacob, but neither do I feel the need to persistently attack him or take his words out of context.

 

[Spectric]

China is ahead of the game in sustainable energy technology by a long way but it would save their bacon too if it was used worldwide. It's a global problem - they need everybody to decarbonise.

There would be no point in not sharing the technology, their economy is global so you don't just watch your markets collapse. Same sort of synario for a dentist, they need to maintain your teeth so as to keep you as a customer, more money in real teeth than false because false teeth don't cause toothache.

I think burning wood is classed as carbon neutral because it is only adding what it has already taken wheras coal just releases CO2. Maybe you also need to be planting new trees as well.

 

[Jacob]

....

I think burning wood is classed as carbon neutral because it is only adding what it has already taken wheras coal just releases CO2. Maybe you also need to be planting new trees as well.

No trees are sacrificed by my woodburning. It's scrap, offcuts, sawdust, reclaimed etc. Did buy some when first got the current stove but it was expensive and not that dry.
I do reckon more could be burned or recycled however - there are huge skips full of scrap wood at the recycling centre and there's repairable furniture.

 

[Keith Cocker]

The past hasn't changed.

The past always changes. I’m a Historian- trust me!!

 

[worn thumbs]

China is ahead of the game in sustainable energy technology by a long way but it would save their bacon too if it was used worldwide. It's a global problem - they need everybody to decarbonise.

They may make lots of things that would help,but they need to get them into use in their own country and soon.The nation has produced more greenhouse gases in the last thirty years than the UK has since the industrial revolution,as some of you may have noticed if you clicked on the link I posted a while ago.Then they can sell to the next largest polluter,on the other side of the Pacific.It would have a far greater effect on the global climate than anything we can do.

As for Jacob burning anything he can lay his hands on,I do hope it complies with the advice set out here: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1901291307_Ready_to_Burn_Web.pdf

 

[Jameshow]

The past always changes. I’m a Historian- trust me!!

Your interpretation, the past cannot change!

 

[Agent_zed]

It has to be shared or there is no point in doing it at all. It's a global problem.

Do you really think if Russia, North Korea or even China worked out how to use fusion and get all the energy they need that they would willingly just hand over the technology? Others might work it out in the following years from leaked information or their own research but I sincerely doubt we would be handing the technology to them if we work it out first either.

 

[Fergie 307]

I went to a planning meeting when 6 were proposed near to my house, you could not imagine a worse collection of NIMBYs. Most people there liver further away than I do from the proposed site. If I had gone to the bottom of my garden and climbed a tree I would just have been able to see the top of the blades as they turned. I found out what type of turbine they were planning and went to Lincolnshire where some were installed, they were almost silent at 100 m. Reported that at the next meeting as one of the biggest fears had been noise but by that point it was all the traffic they were going to cause? These people need their electricity rationed.

We didn't get the turbines but now have a small solar farm - which I moan about as I think it should have gone on the roofs of the massive warehouses being built the other side of the road not on farm land..... You can't please anyone

Sorry rant over

Several massive new wharehoises near us and notva panel in sight, certainly seems a more sensible idea.

 

[Fergie 307]

Do you really think if Russia, North Korea or even China worked out how to use fusion and get all the energy they need that they would willingly just hand over the technology? Others might work it out in the following years from leaked information or their own research but I sincerely doubt we would be handing the technology to them if we work it out first either.

Ought to be an international project with all contributing financially and giving up their best scientists, for the very reason you state. China doing it is perfectly credible, and as you say I doubt they would just give us the answer to something that would be such a game changer.