Mariner69
New member
This is correct. The best hint is to look at a containership with loads of containers on board and then check the draught and see how light she is.
Do we like windfarms or not?
- Thread starter Burnham Bob
- Start date
This is correct. The best hint is to look at a containership with loads of containers on board and then check the draught and see how light she is.
Lon nan Gruagach
Active member
I have just seen a vessel on marinetraffic, designation was floating storage/production https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:714563/mmsi:538005508/imo:9654012/vessel
ETROBRAS_66
sailorman
Well-known member
Anchored off well hds to store oil before trans shipping
Daydream believer
Well-known member
But you have not really answered the question - Why leave it to someone else to use . Why should we not use it??
In years to come the world will have changed enormously & coal may not even be required then, so the chance to use it will have been wasted & we will have been lumbered with unnecessary expense. If they then want silly windmills they can have them
Bru
Well-known member
There is no answer you will accept, with the best will in the world, because either you care about the world we will leave to future generations or you don't.
NUTMEG
New member
Sixpence
Active member
I wasn't going to get involved in this one, but sorry Bru, that argument is the same as the advert that used to run showing people drowning, the whole world drowning, and aimed at children as emotional blackmail for the kids to persuade the parents on a course of action deemed to be the correct course only by those who believe the theory of MMGW. The advert was banned, and the whole emotional blackmail thing should be banned too, if you want to continue using it then I'm afraid you lose all credibility. Argue your point using facts please, not your current line which is still a theory. Before electricity people still survived, before oil they survived, who is to say another form of energy isn't going to be either discovered or invented some time in the future which will replace these ?
Lon nan Gruagach
Active member
Thats just as bad. Before electricity people hadnt built up a massive global socio economic society. Also, it may be that we do have the ability to cause a doomsday mass extinction. Why not take a bit more care of the place?
And as for a yet to be discovered solution, some people prefer to learn to fly before jumping (yeah, I know its a bit of a stretch but....)
Bru
Well-known member
I said way back, leave "MMGW" out of it. Forget "climate change", "carbon neutral" and all those emotive terms that are open to so much heated debate and argument
Everything I've said is simple fact
Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal etc) are a finite resource, they will run out. Fact
Oil and oil derivatives (including oil synthesised from coal etc) are the source of vital ingredients for the plastics and chemical industries. Fact
When, not if, when, the oil &c runs out it will have a drastic effect on those industries. Fact
Those resources will not run out in our lifetimes but in the lifetime of our descendants. Fact
We have the technology today to cease burning fossil fuel resources for power generation. Fact
None of this will matter a damn to anyone who isn't concerned about the future after they're dead and buried. Fact
It is also fair to say that it is more expensive to generate power from renewable resources. That too is a fact
And it is also fair to say that we can only defer the day when fossil fuel resources will be exhausted. That is also a fact
However, we cannot predict the future and it seems to me that the longer we give future generations to prepare for that eventual outcome the better
If you don't agree with that, go back 4 lines!
Let me give you a scenario.
You are the skipper on leg 1 of a (say) 10 leg round the world race. You are allowed to sail or motor as you please but you only have enough fuel on board for three legs of the race if you motor continuously. You do not know which of the ports of call can supply more fuel, or how much each port can supply or at what price.
You can motor the whole of leg 1 and win that leg. You then leave the ship. It's up to skipper 2 to refuel, if he can, (and pay for it) or carry on with two thirds of the fuel.
If you don't care about the outcome of the race, only about the result of leg 1, it is in your interest to motor the whole way. You win the race and you spend nothing on fuel
If Port 1 has fuel, Skipper 2 has to decide whether to pay out and top up the tanks or carry on with what he's got. He then has the same choices as Skipper 1
If Skipper 2 has the same one leg (equating to one lifetime) attitude as Skipper 1, he will not refuel and he will motor leg 2.
Skipper 3 now has one third of a tank of fuel, just enough to get him to Port 3. What does he do? If he takes the same stance as his predecessors, he doesn't refuel and he empties the tanks to win leg 3
Port 3 doesn't have any fuel
Step back straight into the 19th century. From now on, you're reduced to sail only regardless
Alternatively. Skipper 1 can sail as much as possible to conserve fuel for his successors. So can Skipper 2 and so on. Each skipper uses as little fuel as practicably possible during his leg.
By the time the race gets to leg 7, an alternative source of fuel has been discovered
Of course, the alternative might be discovered before the end of leg 3 or it might never be discovered at all. Skipper 1 cannot predict that, he can only predict that if he motors he will use one third of the available fuel with no certainty of when his successors will be able to refuel
If Skipper 1 cares about the result of the race, even though he will not be around for 90% of it, he will conserve as much fuel as he can. If not, he'll motor.
The same applies to our use of fossil fuels. Logically, for the long term good of modern human society, it makes sense to minimise by any means realistically possible, our rate of usage of fossil fuels to defer the day when the resource runs out as long as possible. This maximises the opportunities for our successors to develop viable alternative sources of the vital ingredients for the chemical and plastics industry (imagine, if you will, a world without plastic. Welcome to the 19th century again!)
Equally, logically, for the short term benefit of this generation, there is no downside to using fossil fuels as fast as we like
So the choice is between pandering to our own short term best interests or leaving the best legacy we possibly can for future generations
(It's the sort of thing addressed by game theory)
There's all sorts of similar analogies - why replant harvested trees for example when the plantation will not be mature and ready to be harvested for several generations?
And here is the sting in the tail ... With the technology we have available right now, properly applied, we can actually save money now and conserve the available supply of fossil fuels!
If you don't believe that, consider that the whole life cost of a ground source heat pump installation can be recovered in under 30 years (a lot under if it's incorporated in a new build).
Even with the tariff cuts, solar PV offers a profit on the investment over a 20 year life
So provided you have the capital to invest initially, it would actually be profitable to install solar PV and ground source heat pump technology in your home within a single generation. And you'd have the smug pleasure of knowing you'd done your bit for future generations whilst lining your pocket
Of course, there are issues. Initial capital cost is the biggest problem. The total subsidy for green energy estimated for the period 2015 to 2020 (taking into account the government cuts) equates to about £333 per UK household or about 2% of the cost per household of installing solar PV and a ground source heatpump. Even adding in the construction cost of half a dozen nuclear power stations would only (roughly) double that. So one of the key problems is funding the initial investment
However, the other side of that coin is that including solar PV and ground source heat pumps in new builds is significantly cheaper than retrofitting them and the economies of scale and reduction in costs due to increased take up would cut the costs
Clearly, it is not financially feasible or even for that matter practical to convert the entire country to micro-generation in a generation (sorry, that's clumsy but you know what I mean). But that's not,, in my not so humble opinion, justification for not making a start
Anyway, I don't care. I'm gonna sod off and go sailing for as much of my life as remains to me! I shall do my bit by motoring as little as possible of course - mainly because every gallon of diesel I don't burn equals two pints of beer I can drink
Sixpence
Active member
Bru;5601498[COLOR=#333333 said:
Sorry Bru, but that's as far as I got, lounge type of argument so I'm out
Bru
Well-known member
Sorry Bru, but that's as far as I got, lounge type of argument so I'm out
Spoilsport! You're no fun anymore
I do hope it's not a lounge type argument though, mine's a pint!
Tomahawk
Well-known member
Spoilsport! You're no fun anymore
I do hope it's not the lounge type argument though, mine's a pint!
You are looking in the wong place...,
Talking of pints???
NUTMEG
New member
Sorry mate. I think, if you do your research, you will find that anthropogenic climate change is accepted and is not a vague theory as you suggest. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence confirms the 'theory' and I guess as it can not be tested in a laboratory, like evolution, it is destined to remain a 'theory' but it is happening and to keep denying it is just silly.
Not wishing to turn this into a mmgw Lounge style slanging match I will now duck out of contributing further to this thread, but urge all those that are genuinely interested in this topic to 'do the research' before posting flat-earth style nonsense.
Steve
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Well i am happy for them to burn coal or gas in the power station or build a nuclear station at Bradwell.
If somebody is going to use all the coal up before the next world war ( or worse still- not at all)then it may as well be me.
I will not be producing CO2- it is already there & has been since the world was formed
Global warming is not due to CO2 it is due to water in the atmosphere holding the heat in - Simply see how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than a cloudless night. Start funding scientists to prove there is NO global warming instead of there IS & they will follow the funding & hey presto - problem solved
& if the sea level rises another foot in the next 100 years then you can just stick 12 inches on your sea wall- job done
But:- I will NOT put rubbish & chemicals in the sea, I will Not dump my fridge in a layby & I will not buy another B..y diesel van. But -if it is in the rules -I will use my motor to win the race
If somebody is going to use all the coal up before the next world war ( or worse still- not at all)then it may as well be me.
I will not be producing CO2- it is already there & has been since the world was formed
Global warming is not due to CO2 it is due to water in the atmosphere holding the heat in - Simply see how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than a cloudless night. Start funding scientists to prove there is NO global warming instead of there IS & they will follow the funding & hey presto - problem solved
& if the sea level rises another foot in the next 100 years then you can just stick 12 inches on your sea wall- job done
But:- I will NOT put rubbish & chemicals in the sea, I will Not dump my fridge in a layby & I will not buy another B..y diesel van. But -if it is in the rules -I will use my motor to win the race