Wild fires in BC Canada.

[Jameshow]

I cannot understand your reasoning - you openly admit that we are abusing the planet, then go on to advise more of the same. How do you think your god would feel about that? I suspect he would be disappointed that his experiment in granting us free will has failed so dismally...

What's the difference from using oil compared to miles and miles of Canadian forest to power dax. The only difference is one is dead and the other is alive!
Infact wood pellet us a very inefficient fuel source due to the fuel needed to dry it and the cost of transportation. It's only green because that's what Dax wants you to believe!

 

[danst96]

You believe we should continue to abuse God given resources?

No, that's not what I meant. I agree the resources are there to be used but I don't agree with how all of them are used.

 

[Cobbs]

What's the difference from using oil compared to miles and miles of Canadian forest to power dax. The only difference is one is dead and the other is alive!
Infact wood pellet us a very inefficient fuel source due to the fuel needed to dry it and the cost of transportation. It's only green because that's what Dax wants you to believe!

When did I say I supported Dax (or pelleted wood fuel for that matter)? I don't and never have, but now you mention it, it does make a lot more sense to use locally sourced wood for some heating, because although when it burns it emits CO2, while that wood grows, it sucks CO2 out of the air, so is carbon neutral, unlike fossil fuels. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I have little doubt that climate impacts are largely man made and potentially severe. However, insisting that we stop using fossil fuels with almost immediate effect and transition to an alternative which may involve renewables and lifestyle changes is a fantasy (removed from reality).

The UK government is responsible for the well being of 70m - ill thought through, abrupt legislative and forced change will be highly disruptive of living standards and social stability. The cost of the "revolution" may be higher than succumbing to climate change.

The UK may have some international influence, but has control only over its own affairs. It needs to do that which is in its own best interest assuming climate change is happening at a speed which without action would seriously compromise continued stable existence.

That any efforts may be nugatory due to the inaction of other nations is not justification for UK inaction. Two things are required:

• properly managed transition to net zero noting this requires not only changes to energy generation, but significant investment in housing, infrastructures, social change etc.
• in implementing the strategy recognise that it must also function as a contingency plan in the event that other nations fail to act with impacts on agriculture, sea level, water resources etc

I am also of the view that politics has corrupted changes which should be pursued - eg: planning approval for onshore wind farms, more stringent building regulations, increasing the tax burden on energy consumption .......

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... but now you mention it, it does make a lot more sense to use locally sourced wood for some heating ...

good luck with that.


During 2022, Drax power station in Yorkshire burned 6.4 million tonnes of pellets made from around 12.86 million tonnes of freshly cut ('green') wood. This was the equivalent of 115% of the UK's entire wood production, to meet just 0.95% of the country's recent final energy demand.

 

[Jacob]

I have little doubt that climate impacts are largely man made and potentially severe. However, insisting that we stop using fossil fuels with almost immediate effect and transition to an alternative which may involve renewables and lifestyle changes is a fantasy (removed from reality).

The deadline is 2030, if we are lucky. 7 years, in real terms pretty close to "almost immediately"

........... The cost of the "revolution" may be higher than succumbing to climate change.

Very unlikely. Climate change threatens complete change of life on this planet as we know it

The UK may have some international influence, but has control only over its own affairs. It needs to do that which is in its own best interest assuming climate change is happening at a speed which without action would seriously compromise continued stable existence.

That any efforts may be nugatory due to the inaction of other nations is not justification for UK inaction. Two things are required:

• properly managed transition to net zero noting this requires not only changes to energy generation, but significant investment in housing, infrastructures, social change etc.
• in implementing the strategy recognise that it must also function as a contingency plan in the event that other nations fail to act with impacts on agriculture, sea level, water resources etc

I am also of the view that politics has corrupted changes which should be pursued - eg: planning approval for onshore wind farms, more stringent building regulations, increasing the tax burden on energy consumption .......

Agree.
It's an emergency we should operating on something like a war time footing - the threat is greater than any war.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The deadline is 2030, if we are lucky.

Don't forget the world was going to end by now according to Greater Thunderbird in 2018.

 

[Jacob]

Don't forget the world was going to end by now according to Greater Thunderbird in 2018.

You been reading the Daily Mail again! She didn't say that anyway.

 

[Cobbs]

good luck with that.


During 2022, Drax power station in Yorkshire burned 6.4 million tonnes of pellets made from around 12.86 million tonnes of freshly cut ('green') wood. This was the equivalent of 115% of the UK's entire wood production, to meet just 0.95% of the country's recent final energy demand.

Sorry Phil, but where did I say that I was supporting Drax? I've always thought it was a bloody silly idea - we should be concentrating on solar, wind, geothermal et al for power production, all of which are well within our grasp and only lack the political will to make a go of it. When I say "local", I mean local to you or I for your or my heating needs. I'm lucky enough to a have a couple of acres and the wood we get from the hedges around that land goes a long way to keeping us warm in the winter, when it's combined with good insulation. Most of it is less than a couple of inches thick but we can take a crop off those hedges at a constant rate, meaning we have hedges at different stages of growth, providing diverse habitats for wildlife as well as giving us heating.
I realise this is beyond the reach of most people, but as I said in the post you're referring to, it can provide some heating, CO2 neutral and should be scaled up on a national level. Remember, it's only in the last century or so that coppicing on a large scale has gone out of fashion in this country.

 

[Jacob]

Sorry Phil, but where did I say that I was supporting Drax? I've always thought it was a bloody silly idea - we should be concentrating on solar, wind, geothermal et al for power production, all of which are well within our grasp and only lack the political will to make a go of it. When I say "local", I mean local to you or I for your or my heating needs. I'm lucky enough to a have a couple of acres and the wood we get from the hedges around that land goes a long way to keeping us warm in the winter, when it's combined with good insulation. Most of it is less than a couple of inches thick but we can take a crop off those hedges at a constant rate, meaning we have hedges at different stages of growth, providing diverse habitats for wildlife as well as giving us heating.
I realise this is beyond the reach of most people, but as I said in the post you're referring to, it can provide some heating, CO2 neutral and should be scaled up on a national level. Remember, it's only in the last century or so that coppicing on a large scale has gone out of fashion in this country.

Drax was just privatised industry free-market bull-shiit green washing.
I burn all my scrap wood including sawdust. Saves a fortune, and carbon neutral!
Very practical too as it heats the house really quickly and saves having to dispose of the stuff.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Sorry Phil, but where did I say that I was supporting Drax? I've always thought it was a bloody silly idea - we should be concentrating on solar, wind, geothermal et al for power production, all of which are well within our grasp and only lack the political will to make a go of it. When I say "local", I mean local to you or I for your or my heating needs. I'm lucky enough to a have a couple of acres and the wood we get from the hedges around that land goes a long way to keeping us warm in the winter, when it's combined with good insulation. Most of it is less than a couple of inches thick but we can take a crop off those hedges at a constant rate, meaning we have hedges at different stages of growth, providing diverse habitats for wildlife as well as giving us heating.
I realise this is beyond the reach of most people, but as I said in the post you're referring to, it can provide some heating, CO2 neutral and should be scaled up on a national level. Remember, it's only in the last century or so that coppicing on a large scale has gone out of fashion in this country.

You didn't.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You been reading the Daily Mail again! She didn't say that anyway.

No, but she was happy to lead people to believe it until she was caught out and deleted the tweet.

 

[Jacob]

No, but she was happy to lead people to believe it until she was caught out and deleted the tweet.

Not true but totally irrelevant. In any case the prediction she misquoted was concerning arctic ice and is proving to be correct.
Viral Posts Distort Greta Thunberg Tweet Warning About Climate Change - FactCheck.org

 

[paulrbarnard]

All cannot be used without oil to make those firms of power generation!

How many barrels of oil in a wind turbine blade - lots!
How much coke in the smelting of steel for the turbine pillar or the reinforced concrete for a hydro scheme.

Just stop oil doesn't add up!

So use it intelligently to create a sustainable future or keep pissing the planets resources away?

 

[Jameshow]

Don't forget the world was going to end by now according to Greater Thunderbird in 2018.

Don't forget 2000 and the IT issues.

I'll buy you a pint Phil 1/1/2031 if we are still here!

 

[John Brown]

Don't forget 2000 and the IT issues.

I'll buy you a pint Phil 1/1/2031 if we are still here!

So the Y2K problem turned out to be a bit of a damp squib? I think that's because a lot of people took it seriously, and worked to avert disaster.

 

[niemeyjt]

What is needed is what we have here in CH - burning locally produced waste instead of consigning it to landfill - win-win - and using the heat and power generated.

AES can advise, but I think there are two incinerators in Basel and I noticed they are burying similar pipes around here so I guess we have one as well.

 

[Jacob]

So the Y2K problem turned out to be a bit of a damp squib? I think that's because a lot of people took it seriously, and worked to avert disaster.

...and it was utterly trivial compared to climate change. Just a tiny techie blip.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Y2K and climate change are fundamentally different.

The former had the capacity to disable critical and integrated systems on the "stroke of midnight" - banking, communications, energy supplies, water, sewage etc. Food and fuel supplies would have become stressed within days, civil unrest possibly increasing to social meltdown within weeks.

That there was no catastrophe does not mean the threat was imagined - at least to some extent the attention paid to Y2K would have reduced catastrophic risk.

The latter is slow burn with no quick fix. "Net zero" is more about protecting future generations not the current one, half of whom will have passed on, up or down by 2075. The strategy needs to be coherent, capable of delivery, and "owned" - not a scattergun of initiatives.

As a democracy populations need to broadly buy in to the mitigate and adapt strategy - if not it will not happen. The UK should count itself fairly fortunate compared to many internationally - currently a temperate climate, developed infrastructures, relatively wealthyand capable of adaptation.

 

[Jacob]

Y2K and climate change are fundamentally different.

The former had the capacity to disable critical and integrated systems on the "stroke of midnight" - banking, communications, energy supplies, water, sewage etc. Food and fuel supplies would have become stressed within days, civil unrest possibly increasing to social meltdown within weeks.

Wouldn't take much on the way of climate change affecting infrastructure to have the similar effects.

That there was no catastrophe does not mean the threat was imagined - at least to some extent the attention paid to Y2K would have reduced catastrophic risk.

The latter is slow burn with no quick fix. "Net zero" is more about protecting future generations not the current one, half of whom will have passed on, up or down by 2075. The strategy needs to be coherent, capable of delivery, and "owned" - not a scattergun of initiatives.

A scattergun of initiatives is better than no initiatives at all, not least because it sets an example and puts systems to the test.

As a democracy populations need to broadly buy in to the mitigate and adapt strategy - if not it will not happen.

Hmm. Are they mitigating and adapting well to the current global rounds of flood, fire, drought? I think not.

The UK should count itself fairly fortunate compared to many internationally - currently a temperate climate,

Can change very quickly if gulf stream changes, which is bound to happen sooner or later as it is driven by energy exchange and ice caps. Some say sooner is probable. But we are more likely to be hit by break down of food supplies/imports

developed infrastructures, relatively wealthyand capable of adaptation.

What by opening more coal mines and oil fields? Very little sign of adaptation so far.