Off Topic Climate change/ pollution

[DMD]

The sheep farmers are still moaning, some have had to wait two years to get paid, one paid 200 quid for the shearing and got 116 for the wool, plenty are talking of burning it or chucking it on the muck heap. From a farming forum, I have no knowledge of sheep farming.

As I understand it, the trick is not to plant them too close together.

 

[Frank Fingers]

The sheep farmers are still moaning, some have had to wait two years to get paid, one paid 200 quid for the shearing and got 116 for the wool, plenty are talking of burning it or chucking it on the muck heap. From a farming forum, I have no knowledge of sheep farming.

So, they have sheared the sheep, and rather than receive make an £84 loss, they make a stand and lose £200. Sound logic.

The best option is not to shear the sheep at a charge at all just have a really awesome barbeque, charging a tenner a head.

 

[balkan tiger]

So, they have sheared the sheep, and rather than receive make an £84 loss, they make a stand and lose £200. Sound logic.

The best option is not to shear the sheep at a charge at all just have a really awesome barbeque, charging a tenner a head.

Chuck a sheep on the barbie with it's coat on, you may be onto something.

 

[PLT]

There are some so called renewables that are not really green, especially eco fuels. The only one that’s truly green is electricity generated from the Earths elements, wind, sun, wave etc. but we have the capability to switch over to that pretty easily. They are not cheap to set up, but once in production, they are very cheap to run compared to using fossil fuels. They absolutely are a credible option right now.

Any good business manager would say “don’t just come with a problem, bring a solution too”. So here are some examples of renewables that could be sorted right now, but we hardly harness:
- Solar panels on roofs of houses and cars. I’m not sure about the viability of the latter, but it seems bloody obvious and I don’t understand why it isn’t used. Even if it adds 3-4 k onto the cost of a car, it would pay for itself pretty quickly. Every house roof should have one. I know there are questions about recycling solar panels, but that’s just small parts of the over all mechanism and some investment would sort this pretty quickly. Any waste would be a drop in the ocean compared to the plastics we throw away all the time.
- Wind turbines in place of electricity pylons. Cannot argue about the aesthetics.
- Hydroelectric dams. These can be used as giant batteries in the event that stagnant weather restricts the power generated from other sources.
- Tidal and wave power. We have one of the best potentials in the world for both. Tidal is especially reliable!
- Insulation. We throw away masses of British wool that could be used.

There are some downsides to each of the above - they usually cause temp damage to the environment during production, but their net benefit far outweighs any downsides.

I think you're spot on with this and your other posts on the subject. We absolutely could make big progress on this issue at little meaningful cost to civilians but we choose not to. Sadly, this reality isn't talked about enough as the issue gets constantly politicised and polarised until everybody loses, except for the fossil fuel companies.

 

[What? A full dog?]

We don’t throw away British wool, it’s doubled in price in the last couple of years and we’re a major exporter again (around 60% of it goes to China).

Fair enough, just done some research and it seems dumping wool was a covid thing due to lack of available markets. Anyway, the point is that it’s brilliant for insulation and we should be using it more, which would drive up the price, help farmers, reduce energy demand etc etc. yet another win win situation that we’re not taking advantage of.

 

[What? A full dog?]

I think you're spot on with this and your other posts on the subject. We absolutely could make big progress on this issue at little meaningful cost to civilians but we choose not to. Sadly, this reality isn't talked about enough as the issue gets constantly politicised and polarised until everybody loses, except for the fossil fuel companies.

Agreed. Let’s face it, there’s always going to be huge amounts of misinformation on either side of the debate. The problem is that the misinformation causes people to reject any environmentalist stance and actually campaign to carry on using fossil fuels when the business case (not the climate change case) is telling us otherwise.

 

[What? A full dog?]

There are massive downsides relating to cost, the environment, reliability and availability with all of those options you mention, and a switch over is proving very difficult as the infrastructure is inadequate for what we currently have, never mind what it would need to be if all of that switched. They also require a meaningful storage capacity, which doesn't currently exist, so they need a reliable back up supply, which is currently achieved using traditional methods operating below optimum which increases the running costs and emissions.

Yes there are problems with switching over, but these are partly caused by legislation limiting planning, E.g. on shore wind turbines, which are vetoed if there is a single objection. Business will not invest without guarantees from government that will make their investment worthwhile. We also disincentivise homeowners from solar panel instillation by failing to guarantee a minimum price for selling electricity back to the grid. We previously had this, but it was removed (I wonder why? Pressure from the energy companies perhaps?) This ripped the heart out of growing demand.

Storage capacity can be vastly improved with investment into hydroelectricity and tidal.

We can do what’s needed to switch over, but it needs a problem solving business focussed approach, not an ideological approach, and I’m not confident we will get that with the way the debate is being led, especially in the media.

But I am really glad that this debate is being had on football websites and across social media, it’s better than no attention at all. And on here, it’s been a pretty constructive debate in the main, which ever angle people are approaching it.

 

[Charon]

There are some so called renewables that are not really green, especially eco fuels. The only one that’s truly green is electricity generated from the Earths elements, wind, sun, wave etc. but we have the capability to switch over to that pretty easily. They are not cheap to set up, but once in production, they are very cheap to run compared to using fossil fuels. They absolutely are a credible option right now.

Any good business manager would say “don’t just come with a problem, bring a solution too”. So here are some examples of renewables that could be sorted right now, but we hardly harness:
- Solar panels on roofs of houses and cars. I’m not sure about the viability of the latter, but it seems bloody obvious and I don’t understand why it isn’t used. Even if it adds 3-4 k onto the cost of a car, it would pay for itself pretty quickly. Every house roof should have one. I know there are questions about recycling solar panels, but that’s just small parts of the over all mechanism and some investment would sort this pretty quickly. Any waste would be a drop in the ocean compared to the plastics we throw away all the time.
- Wind turbines in place of electricity pylons. Cannot argue about the aesthetics.
- Hydroelectric dams. These can be used as giant batteries in the event that stagnant weather restricts the power generated from other sources.
- Tidal and wave power. We have one of the best potentials in the world for both. Tidal is especially reliable!
- Insulation. We throw away masses of British wool that could be used.

There are some downsides to each of the above - they usually cause temp damage to the environment during production, but their net benefit far outweighs any downsides.

just some thoughts - wave power around the UK hasn't even been developed yet because there aren't any cities close to where there are large tides - if there is no wind or its blowing too hard - no power and needs back up - as for solar panels on cars - it takes 10 years for the cost of a panel to get your money back on a house - so non starter - and as for hydro electric - where are all these huge valleys you're going to flood - realistically Wales and Scotland where they are already - the country has already captured the best sites - plus what are you talking about replacing pylons with wind generators - the pylons are our grid and National Grid has to maintain frequency - how on earth can the do that if you replace them with a 'power station' especially when the wind stops - the job of National Grid is to match consumption with production - its a fine balancing exercise - you cant just pile all the power into the Grid, if it's not being used it has to come off line - I think someone has been pulling the wool over your eyes

 

[John Ex Aberdeen now E.R.]

That line gets mentioned a lot, but it shouldn't matter where it comes from. Borders are meaningless to climate matters. We just need to clean up our act across the board. One big step to doing that is to stop thinking of it as a big hardship; it really doesn't need to be.

I agree over time we should reduce carbon emissions but IMO we cannot just suddenly switch off oil and gas as these protesters and governments are saying we have to do, and rely on wind or solar energy and the like, as it just won't cover our needs. Yes, overtime reduce it, but it has to be a gradual thing.

These protesters should go and sit on the street in Beijing if they want to make an impact, though I wouldn't fancy their chances of ever seeing the light of day again.

 

[DMD]

Yes there are problems with switching over, but these are partly caused by legislation limiting planning, E.g. on shore wind turbines, which are vetoed if there is a single objection. Business will not invest without guarantees from government that will make their investment worthwhile. We also disincentivise homeowners from solar panel instillation by failing to guarantee a minimum price for selling electricity back to the grid. We previously had this, but it was removed (I wonder why? Pressure from the energy companies perhaps?) This ripped the heart out of growing demand.

Storage capacity can be vastly improved with investment into hydroelectricity and tidal.

We can do what’s needed to switch over, but it needs a problem solving business focussed approach, not an ideological approach, and I’m not confident we will get that with the way the debate is being led, especially in the media.

But I am really glad that this debate is being had on football websites and across social media, it’s better than no attention at all. And on here, it’s been a pretty constructive debate in the main, which ever angle people are approaching it.

I'm not going through it point by point, as you seem to have simply dismissed my previous comments, but a lot of what you put is actually misinformation.

 

[tigerscanada]

Wot we need is more scrubbers. ...
oh yes, and fewer hockey sticks !

 

[originallambrettaman]

just some thoughts - wave power around the UK hasn't even been developed yet because there aren't any cities close to where there are large tides

I've just been reading up on tidal, the UK is ideally suited, it has the potential to generate 50% of all tidal power that could be harnessed in Europe. One of the key sites is the Mersey, which is most definitely close to cities (we're actually on a fairly small island, so distance from cities isn't actually an issue here, it's in the US where it makes it unviable). It seems it's only the thing holding it back, is the initial £8b build cost.

One thing that did confuse me, is that all seven of the proposed sites are on the west coast, anyone know what's wrong with our tides?

 

[Plum]

I've just been reading up on tidal, the UK is ideally suited, it has the potential to generate 50% of all tidal power that could be harnessed in Europe. One of the key sites is the Mersey, which is most definitely close to cities (we're actually on a fairly small island, so distance from cities isn't actually an issue here, it's in the US where it makes it unviable). It seems it's only the thing holding it back, is the initial £8b build cost.

One thing that did confuse me, is that all seven of the proposed sites are on the west coast, anyone know what's wrong with our tides?

Forget north/south this is the old east/west divide...
Seriously though I've seen the east coast from the air and it seems to be choc-a-bloc with wind turbines. I wonder if the fact they've chosen the east for that implies something about the suitability of tides?

 

[Ernie Shackleton]

I've just been reading up on tidal, the UK is ideally suited, it has the potential to generate 50% of all tidal power that could be harnessed in Europe. One of the key sites is the Mersey, which is most definitely close to cities (we're actually on a fairly small island, so distance from cities isn't actually an issue here, it's in the US where it makes it unviable). It seems it's only the thing holding it back, is the initial £8b build cost.

One thing that did confuse me, is that all seven of the proposed sites are on the west coast, anyone know what's wrong with our tides?

The key factor is waves not tides.

The tide is the ebb and flow of seawater, which is highly predictable as the main causal force is the Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth.

Wave power is derived from the distance the water flows and the strength of the wind. Waves hitting the west of the country have crossed the expanse of the Atlantic Ocean pushed on by the prevailing south westerly winds. On the east side of the country whilst a northerly wind can be exceptionally strong they are usually more moderate (hence the suitability for wind farms) and the distance water travels across the North Sea is significantly less than on the western side.

 

[petersaxton]

I've just been reading up on tidal, the UK is ideally suited, it has the potential to generate 50% of all tidal power that could be harnessed in Europe. One of the key sites is the Mersey, which is most definitely close to cities (we're actually on a fairly small island, so distance from cities isn't actually an issue here, it's in the US where it makes it unviable). It seems it's only the thing holding it back, is the initial £8b build cost.

One thing that did confuse me, is that all seven of the proposed sites are on the west coast, anyone know what's wrong with our tides?

Maybe one has mixed semidiurnal tides and the other has semidiurnal tides?
I dont know enough to understand why that would affect anything

 

[originallambrettaman]

The key factor is waves not tides.

The tide is the ebb and flow of seawater, which is highly predictable as the main causal force is the Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth.

Wave power is derived from the distance the water flows and the strength of the wind. Waves hitting the west of the country have crossed the expanse of the Atlantic Ocean pushed on by the prevailing south westerly winds. On the east side of the country whilst a northerly wind can be exceptionally strong they are usually more moderate (hence the suitability for wind farms) and the distance water travels across the North Sea is significantly less than on the western side.

Cheers Ernie, I knew someone on here would have the answer.

 

[PLT]

I agree over time we should reduce carbon emissions but IMO we cannot just suddenly switch off oil and gas as these protesters and governments are saying we have to do, and rely on wind or solar energy and the like, as it just won't cover our needs. Yes, overtime reduce it, but it has to be a gradual thing.

These protesters should go and sit on the street in Beijing if they want to make an impact, though I wouldn't fancy their chances of ever seeing the light of day again.

The entire point is that whilst we already are doing it very gradually, it's too slow, and it's being artificially held back because of the influence of fossil fuel companies.

One of Just Stop Oil's key slogans is "no new oil and gas". So they're not even asking for a sudden stop to all fossil fuels. They're asking for us not to choose to now, in 2023, to invest in further fossil fuel projects. That seems absolutely reasonable to me and I find it thoroughly depressing that it even needs to be said.

 

[petersaxton]

The entire point is that whilst we already are doing it very gradually, it's too slow, and it's being artificially held back because of the influence of fossil fuel companies.

One of Just Stop Oil's key slogans is "no new oil and gas". So they're not even asking for a sudden stop to all fossil fuels. They're asking for us not to choose to now, in 2023, to invest in further fossil fuel projects. That seems absolutely reasonable to me and I find it thoroughly depressing that it even needs to be said.

It doesnt need to be said
Maybe they should be saying "no more electric cars", "no more mobile phones". Let them make the batteries from wind power.

 

[Off The Line]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66289489

Evidence that the recent heat-wave has been caused by humans.

 

[Howdentiger2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66289489

Evidence that the recent heat-wave has been caused by humans.

Typical BBC article, No real evidence in the article bar saying a computer simulation was ran and it also says not all extreme weather events can immediately be linked directly to climate change because natural weather patterns can also play a part.

Articles like this don't really help at all on either side of the argument imo and it's just typical BBC page filling to suit their agenda.