franksingleton
Well-Known Member
OK. I accept your figures. Do you accept that the increase in CO2 is the reason for the increase in global temperatures?
Net zero hits boating !
- Thread starter jrudge
- Start date
billskip
Well-Known Member
Fred Drift is one thing but you are directing this towards climate change education in general....
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
I am not. World private transportation of C02 is 3%. When you include transportation of goods then that number arrives to 8%.
Ship C02 emmissions is 12%.
I agree Deforestation is a big problem, probably the biggest problem in all this.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
Climate change was introduced into this thread many posts ago. I expressed surprise but realised that it was being 0discussed in the context of motor boats. Cheery produced some data about concentrations of CO2. I did not count the numbers of decimal places but am not querying the numbers. In order that we should be quite clear, I pointed out the relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. I am waiting with bated breath to see if anyone stoops so low as to get me banned for clarifying the significance of small amounts of greenhouse gases. Maybe wrongly, I get the impression that some posters still find the concept difficult.
KevinV
Well-Known Member
Which is farmed using tractors running on fossil-diesel. Add in the fact that the land is being intensively cultivated to death (or worse still, forests cleared to make way) and that food that could have been grown there has to be imported from afar and the whole thing is a CO2 negative joke. Bio-fuels are only CO2 positive if made from waste.
And no, that's not news, it's been known for nearly a decade: Biodiesel’s impact: emissions of an extra 12m cars on our roads,…
Last edited:
Refueler
Well-Known Member
For many years long before media caught on - being in the fuel game - I have said in groups / committees etc that I attend - that a) Biofuel cannot be made in enough volume to replace all fossil fuel... b) that revenue from growing Oil Seed will overcome the need to grow food ... c) want for more land to grow Oil Seed will cause massive de-forestation .....
That's only the visible factors !
kashurst
Well-Known Member
Have you got a source for your numbers. I can't find anything that agrees or is similar to them.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I have never thought that bio-fuels can be more than local, as and when use. Locally valuable. I start from the position that we will need fossil fuels into the foreseeable future but will have to move to net zero. Greta has suggested that, really, net minus should be the real aim. She is one of the few who has dared say so. She could well be correct.
The main green energy sources are wind and solar with tidal, wave and hydro making important contributions although, obviously, not universally available. As we will need fossil fuels into the future, we should be using that diminishing resources carefully and in increasingly diminishing amounts. Carbon capture is one way of continuing fossil fuels into the future. The technology will no doubt improve as the need to avoid global disaster sharpens minds. Reforestation is another approach that should be followed.
The main green energy sources are wind and solar with tidal, wave and hydro making important contributions although, obviously, not universally available. As we will need fossil fuels into the future, we should be using that diminishing resources carefully and in increasingly diminishing amounts. Carbon capture is one way of continuing fossil fuels into the future. The technology will no doubt improve as the need to avoid global disaster sharpens minds. Reforestation is another approach that should be followed.
kashurst
Well-Known Member
Humanity uses about 15 TerraWatt Hours of energy every day. About 80% of that comes from fossil fuels
The earth receives about 17 TerraWatt Hours of energy from the sun everyday.
There is plenty of alternatives if we apply ourselves, cut out wasteful processes to make energy - like refining and distributing oil fuels etc.
If push comes to shove - humanity will solve the problems but it won't be pretty. Better to manage it gracefully as technology permits.
The earth receives about 17 TerraWatt Hours of energy from the sun everyday.
There is plenty of alternatives if we apply ourselves, cut out wasteful processes to make energy - like refining and distributing oil fuels etc.
If push comes to shove - humanity will solve the problems but it won't be pretty. Better to manage it gracefully as technology permits.
billskip
Well-Known Member
At last somebody is thinking....
How to collect it?
How to distribute it?
Solving the problem by way of convincing everyone there is a problem will never work.
Solving the problem collectively as a world is.
So there lies another problem..
How to get a collectively world agreement.
Greg2
Well-Known Member
And that is probably what presents the greatest threat to us all. Some key world leaders are not where they are because they are intelligent, empathetic or collaborative in nature and when notable figures create inaccurate narratives about climate change many are all too keen to take it at face value, not least because it conveniently means that they can continue their lives without making any changes.
For my part, whilst I agree that motor boating is not the problem I also agree that public perception is an issue and when combined with politicians and the temptation to take low hanging fruit it may be that, at some point, our boat becomes a stationary houseboat in the absence of an affordable alternative means of propulsion.
.
billskip
Well-Known Member
Where does the problem start?
No good sending the blame up stairs
when even a forum like this has to be tightly controlled because of infighting.
kashurst
Well-Known Member
I am far from the first person to notice that the earth has plenty of free energy. This is essentially the basis of Net Zero. Unfortunately there are a lot of vested interests trying to stop us using it.
Collecting and distributing it is mostly easy now. Turn it into electricity and electrify every machine/process as efficiently as we can. One by one step by step. Every time we do that, the next machine or process will be a little bit more efficient. Electrifying one machine, invariably means we can then learn enough to electrify another.
There is also a lot of it's all too difficult, it won't work, it's somebody else's problem too. It isn't, it does and are you sure about that?
Pretending there isn't a series of problems coming our way, won't make them go away. Anyone who did A level physics and played with a spectrometer should readily understand the problem.
Without a world government then the only way we will change over enough stuff is through local and regional governments and people actively taking part if they can.
Some governments see the real long term benefits and the strategic energy advantages they will achieve and they are moving pretty fast now. Others would rather keep burning fossil fuels because it is established, easy and they make money from it. One avenue creates long term cheap energy, the other gets more expensive every day. Not hard to work out which will win in the long run.
Sooner or later it will all be undeniable and then there will be a rush. Then a whole new set of people will make lots of money and good luck to them. Will it be the countries who cleave to fossil fuels or those countries that looked at the sun?
billskip
Well-Known Member
We need less of the running and learn to walk...
First it will be extremely difficult to agree the best design to collect all reliable energy, for example we know the sun will shine every day somewhere, we know the tide will rise, fall and flow.
We may have the technology and ability to produce what is needed, but we don't have an agreed system.
What we don't have is a single world organisation
with a willingness to invest money in possibly more than a generation time
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
With vested interests who have lied to us in the past and who seem to have control of politicians in some cases and undue influencein others. To some extent, it is a re-run of the smoking controversy some years ago. The industry supported phoney research. The Heritsge Foundation was one right wing think tank producing or sponsoring smoking “research.” They are still trying to gloss over climate change now, see Climate Change: The Science Doesn’t Support the Heated Rhetoric.
Refueler
Well-Known Member
Fields on edge of villages here in Latvia are being put over to huge Solar Collection ..... so its happening .... along with Wind Turbines - but I have info from 'private chats' that Wind is now not in favour. The replacement / disposal of blades / downtime penalties etc have broken the initial rush to have turbines. Solar is now the 'buzzword' here.
I have an array (max allowed for private house) that is effective for 11.4KWh collection ... actual spec is 13.4 subject to that 2.0 loss.
Today with a reasonable sunny day - angle of panels is a compromise of winter / summer so not perfect ... my figures are at this moment (system has app on my phone)
Producing : 11.659KWh
Storage batterys of 7KWh are full charged
House / barn / workshop are consuming 2.779KWh
Exporting to Town grid : 8.88KWh
The export I receive payback on my monthly bill. In fact it can bring it to zero in a really good month ... but usually covers about 50% of my monthly bill ..
I did look at wind turbine down by the river - but having spoken to some who did that ... I would not have results like my solar. The town banned private turbines anyway !
billskip
Well-Known Member
You're leading with your chin again Frank.
My interest is in supplying energy,with boats in mind for electrical power source,along with using renewable for most of the needs of the world.
The more electricity we can produce with the minimum of serviceable moving parts required must be advantageous.
kashurst
Well-Known Member
Seems to me we are walking. The Asians are running.
There is no need to agree the best design, better to let the market decide that. There are loads of clever people all over the world, they all read the same physics and engineering books. If it works use it. Then with that knowledge and experience someone else will do better etc etc.
We have know how to distribute electricity since Michael Faraday created the transformer. We can link international electricity power grids with DC links removing some of the voltage and frquency issues. We don't need some international body to supervise this.
I have worked in a number of industries and worked on design/development of a fair few products. If you waited until someone came up with the best widget, you would never actually get anywhere. I look back now and can see the first generation products and look at the latest generation of essentially the same thing and the difference in say 15 years is dramatic. But if the first generation hadn't been designed and put into use, we would never have learnt the extra knowledge gained from user experience and being able to later apply new, emerging technologies. The first of anything always reveals things the engineers and designers didn't realise.
The last set of products I was responsible for was very unique. The original specification fitted on one page. 10 years later that specification was over forty pages plus links to a whole suite of international standards it had to comply with. But the first page was still pretty much the same. Had we not put that product on the market we never would have learnt the other 40 odd pages of "stuff" to be considered.
My former boss used to say you have to be selling something, whilst you try and make something better. The same applies with new energy devices. Build them, use them, see what works etc then do it again. The most powerful force for product innovation is commercial competition. A committee will never outperform or have the imagination of competing businesses.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
Maybe. I was responding to your question here.
That was a reply to -
You had said
Now you say that your interest is in supplying motor boats! I am not clairvoyant.
I do not see how my last was doing other than respond to your posts above.
I do not remember and have not looked to see who first brought climate change into this thread. Not me for sure.
Back to your #172, it starts with the petrochemical industry and its desire for quick bucks. If they invested more in wind, solar, carbon capture etc, they would have an everlasting source of power and keep fossil fuels available for longer for those times when they arereally needed. Instead, they deliberately set out to mislead as the Heritage foundation makes clear with their gross misrepresentation of the latest IPCC report.
billskip
Well-Known Member
The thread is about boats net zero...its in the title....one (or at least silly me) thought that meant going all electric, therefore the discussion about where this electric is going to come from.
Just because someone else brought the subject up doesn't make it wise to latch on and start writing things that you then worry about being reported or banned.(FYI I have never reported anyone and certainly not you, and I wouldn't. )
If someone's keyboard develops tourette's
you wouldn't modified yours, would you?