Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: The data

[ QUOTE ]
I have just been told that SWMBO has osteonecrosis of the jaw, which adds to my not insignificant existing problems, so I don't give a FF for GW and will now dip out of this.

[/ QUOTE ]Terribly sorry to hear about that. I can't express this very clearly, but I do sincerely wish you both well in a what must be terrible situation. I'm sure everyone else on the forum feels the same.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Yes I agree my peers also tell me that they have concerns, I was actually thinking of the 3.6 million Sun readers & similar.

There really is no way that the figures/graphs/science data, for either position on MMGW is of the slightest interest to most peps.

So lets tackle the problem with a bit more spark - 'think outside the box' & get a consensus.
 
Re: Damned Lies and Statistics

To me so far, this thread is like navigating a yacht without a chart, tide tables and compass.
We know where we want to go, but not really were we started, so all site around the chart table discussing.

Brian
 
Re: Non Blind denial

I've been keeping out of this so far on the basis that (a) this should be in the Lounge IMHO - and I speak as one who's been told off for daring to briefly comment on food on a yottie forum! and (b) there's depressingly more heat than light on this particular topic.

However...

[ QUOTE ]
What nobody has explained is how we get to an 80% reduction in green house gases in 42 years?
Get rid of all transport, power stations & manufacturing etc.?



[/ QUOTE ]

In my view, one of the underlying reasons for denial / conspiricy theories is the idea that actually doing something about it is far too hard to be possible. It is certainly true that a number of major changes are required, but these are perfectly possible without returning us to the stone age. The biggest danger IMHO is that politicians are unable to grasp the bigger picture and unwilling to take radical decisions. But, returning to the practicalities if we wish to really tackle the issue rather than indulge in tokenism...

Step 1. All new build power stations should not be allowed to emit significant quantities of greenhouse gasses. So, nuclear and renewables (preferrably reliable tide rather than unreliable wind) are in, and coal, oil and gas burning are out. As it happens the UK's current major power stations, largely thanks to privatisation, are now quite old and rapidly approaching the end of their economic life, so this decision would have a quite rapid effect.

Step 2. Once electricity generation is well on the way to becoming substantially carbon free (perfectly do-able - the French are already there) there should be a presumption to use electricity rather than burning fossil fuels wherever this is practicable. So burning gas or oil to heat buildings is phased out gradually as boilers fail. Boiler life is in the range 10 to 20 years, so again, rapid results in a 40 year target window. Electrification of all but the very least used railways is an obvious measure, and a quick gain would be fitting current collection equipment to diesel locos (freight in particular is often diesel hauled between non-electrified sidings although much of the actual journey is made "under the wires".) New high speed electrified lines north of London would replace much domestic air traffic and also cause some switching of use from road vehicles.

Step 3 (If necessary.) Hydrogen, produced off-peak by zero carbon power stations could replace many of the residual requirements for fossil fuels, particularly road and sea transport, as could methane from anaerobic digesters processing organic wastes / crops. Air transport may or may not be able to be so adapted economically, but if not it would be left as the only major fossil fuel burner.

None of the above requires any significant techical innovation (other than the practicalities of large scale extraction of energy from tidal streams). It does require far more political will than our current and recent governments have shown themselves capable of, and also the undoing of many measures carried out at the time with the best of intent, e.g. Building Regulations which make it nearly impossible to build a house using electricity. This was justified by the existing power station fuel mix: clearly a radical change in that would logically require a radical change in dependent policies, but the government mind rarely works like this...
 
Re: Non Blind denial

What a refreshingly to the point post.

You'll win me round to the idea of a new generation of nuclear stations yet . . . I see a wind turbine collapsed up this way last week.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

DaveS

Could I add step 4.

Get serious about energy conservation. Incentivise business and consumers through tax breaks to do much more to insulate properties. No road tax on vehicles with CO2 emissions below x grams per mile. Find a way to get commercial premises to turn off lights when buildings are unoccupied. Make solar water heating (dead easy on many properties) the norm rather than the exception by seed-corning manufacturing and installation companies. And much more - all simple steps.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
But, returning to the practicalities if we wish to really tackle the issue rather than indulge in tokenism...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe there is an issue then the only way to tackle it is to get Russia, China and the US to stop dwarfing our puny efforts at environmental suicide.
If you don't get them on board you are merely self-flagellating in order to be able to say "It wasn't our fault. Look. Look. We did our best. It was them"

(points to the supernations)

If you don't get concensus you are just putting your hand up for a few decades of financial and physical discomfort until it becomes apparent that nothing can be done and it wasn't our fault anyway.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Ken,

I fully support energy conservation, but in the context of serious carbon reduction it's a bit of a side issue. A well insulated gas heated house will of course emit less carbon than a poorly insulated gas heated house. But with achievement of essentially carbon free electricity, an electrically heated house, regardless of its level of insulation, will always emit less than any gas heated house! Similar arguments apply to "energy saving" developments for car engines which however continue to burn oil. So if we're serious about reducing carbon emissions, IMHO it makes more sense, where it can sensibly be done, to opt for "eliminate" rather than "reduce".
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Of course a serious effort requires all players to get on board, but I see little merit in using that as a reason to hang back and play "after you, Claud".

In any case I don't think that any of my suggestions involve "a few decades of financial and physical discomfort" - quite the reverse. In particular, kicking our gas habit would free us from increasingly uncomfortable Russian pressure. As is gradually becoming more widely known, with North Sea gas in fast decline we're now at the far end of a very long pipeline...
 
Re: Non Blind denial

There is no such thing, Any electric generating station, will involve carbon generation, in building it, in running it, in eventually removing it, in producing its fuel, in processing, and transporting the fuel, etc etc etc

Not to mention other waste genereration that isn't carbon based
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Curiously enough, one of my current jobs involves monitoring a number of domestic air to water heat pumps in northern England. Depending on how things go this might ultimately result in subsidies - but from electricity customers via the EECS scheme rather than government, naturally!

I've had dealings with heat pumps off and on over the last 30 years, including their specification for the 1988 Glasgow Garden Festival (anyone outside Glasgow remember that?). In the right circumstances (swimming pools is a prime example) they can perform outstandingly, but for others there do tend to be drawbacks. They have assorted moving parts which tend to require repair and maintenance. Most problematic of all, for space heating, their output falls with temperature, just as the heat requirement rises. These issues have solutions, but they tend to complicate and make more expensive what sounds on the face of it delightfully simple.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Any electric generating station, will involve carbon generation, in building it, in running it, in eventually removing it, in producing its fuel, in processing, and transporting the fuel, etc etc etc


[/ QUOTE ]

This would seem to flatly contradict your previous post "It all depends on how the electricity is generated"!

More seriously, I actually used the term "essentially carbon free". There is obviously embodied energy from construction, transport, etc. in any form of generation (or anything else man made for that matter) and production of at least part of that energy is likely to involve carbon emission. For a successful generating plant this is, however, a tiny fraction of the energy produced by it in its lifetime, so it is quite reasonable to describe those generation technologies which produce no (or virtually no) CO2 as a result of the generating process as being "essentially carbon free". It would be IMHO irrational to damn them all as somehow equally polluting simply because e.g. the maintenance man drives up to the wind generator in an oil powered van!
 
Re: Non Blind denial

I don't see how my previous comments have been devalued at all

there have been some fascinating studies on overall CO2 usage on nuclear plants, which too late at night for me to look up now, but some say overall CO2 production over lifetime of plant is higher than many common estimates, and that as nuclear fuel usage increases, use of lower grade ores will increase carbon footprint.


Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for more nuclear powerstations, just trying to balance the discussion
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Bizarre article - he doesn't offer a shred of evidence in either direction, just says "I'm right".

The source, Canadian Free Press, looks a bit crackpot. Another article claims the International Red Cross is training Palestinian terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article isn't about GW per se; it's about the difficulties faced by scientists who dare to challenge the party line about AGW. You've lent credence to his argument with your disparaging remark about the CFP e-zine. Why is it the zealots feel the need to tear down the doubters? "He hasn't had any recent peer-reviewed submissions." "He's paid by big-oil.", "He eats meat.", "He's a practicing Pagan." etc, etc.
They actually have websites devoted to it: http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134
Don't see the sceptics resorting to personal attacks.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

I seem to recall from most of the reports and data that Cement production is a major contributor to CO2 release. So major Power Generation building programs would have a knock on effect of using more cement and hence producing CO2.
Time for a move to more wood based building, has the benefit of capturing Carbon more long term and allowing more trees to be planted to continue capturing Carbon.

(Not done the maths but I assume that a massive forestation effort would also help remove atmospheric carbon.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top