I am not sure if anyone caught the program on BBC4 last night but it was basically the sceptics point of view. They raised some very interesting points and seem to have a growing following.
I know this subject is a can of worms and anyone on here is only really offering an opinion, based on information they have read as i dont believe we have any climatologists on board. They made some good points:
People rant about current weather - apparently the weather is nothing to do with the climate.
They do not deny, how could they, that co2 levels are rising.
Co2 levels millions of years ago were at 30 - 40%,a lot higher than now, without us around and we were in an ice age.
Their main question is, it cannot be proved co2 is the main contributing factor to a rise in average temperature, its just they cannot find any other reason, which doesnt mean there isnt one.
The forecast is based on a computer model, worked out by the worlds largest computer and as we know, a computer is only as good as the program its been given.
I am not looking to debate the issue, just some thoughts as to what we think as average Joe\'s, i am sure some will be green and believe and some wont! Bit whats your reasons for believing or not?
It is a can of worms....but the burning question to me is so what? What harm is global warming ACTUALLY going to have?
The slight melting of the ice caps isn\'t going to have the effect that some people feel.
The Earth goes through cyclic changes and I\'m sure the stuff we do is minor in comparison. It is just a tax opportunity in my eyes...and something for the uneducated Greens to whinge about!
One of my friends works for the forestry commission and was given the job of looking into climate changes with the park he looks after. Having researched the facts, he now campaigns for the opposing side! There is so much hypothetical theory behind it. And no real evidence to back it all up!
I think it is laughable that they started of calling it global warming, then climate change, now it\'s all about carbon emissions.
Can we as humans cause a serious effect on a planet in the 200 years that our technology has advance from candles to electric? When the dinosaurs were around for millions of years releasing monstrous farts which are dangerous gas releases??
It\'s funny how carbon emissions were not on the news so much when that volcanoe erupted!! Which released more more carbon in the time it was active than we can in a year.
If the climate is changing then why is the weather getting worse in this country?
I believe our weather is massively influenced by the jet stream, and that has shifted over the past couple of years...hence the flood issues in Australia, and the snow we\'ve had for the last couple of years.
Cows produce more methane from burping than farting! Kangaroos are better for the planet, if that is your worry, than cows :) Far more carbon friendly.
As said...get a reason for taxing and get some greens to back it....and you\'re onto a winner!
These taxes should be used to put right the problems they cause.
So road tax....goes towards roads.
Council tax....goes towards the council
Climate tax....goes where?
(the first is a little dodgy too!)
Yes I agree it\'s just another way to rape is on tax. It makes memlaugh though that they have changed the road tax classification on cars based on emissions, but yet electric cars are tax free?! WTF surely they are more damaging to the road because batteries are heavy, very heavy, and you have to have a lot of them to make a car go any kind of distance. So they will wear the roads more?
I\'m too sure about replacing cows with kangaroos, better to look at and actually do something but they are huge and very dangerous. And I don\'t know what kangaroo milk tastes like but I definately don\'t want to taste it.
Have these carbon emission scientists ever measured the distance we are to the sun? Maybe due to gravitational pull we have moved a little bit closer to the sun causing a slight change in climate/temperature/carbon emissions/people talking rubbish/giving us an excuse to moan about something else.???
I would say there is more of a relationship between the number of sunspots year on year. We are at a current low at the moment, and historic patterns have shown that fewer sunspots can contribute towards colder spells. Rivers that would normally run during the winter months, are iced over for prolonged periods.
There is also a relationship between the number of sunspots and Rx7s currently on the road! ;-)
I\'ve sat on the fence with this for a number of years! And I don\'t see any reason to change.
A lot of the arguments for the existence of man-made climate change appear to start with the assumption that it is infact happening. Without that leading assumption I doubt much of the research would get anywhere fast. And the arguments against (as pointed out by the OP) tend to focus more on disproving the arguments for.
The big problem we face is that there is now an entire industry in this country revolving around the idea that reducing carbon emissions is needed, should climate change be disproved that industry is no longer required. Granted the energy (and therefore monetary) savings would still exist, but the initial cost of a lot of this technology is still too high to encourage it\'s take up.
I don\'t doubt that climatologists have a passion for finding out what is or isn\'t happening to the planet based on our existence, but at a political level, the focus appears to have shifted due to the tax and economical benefits brought by the need to reduce carbon emissions.
I tend to agree with Atomic, climate change, global warming, carbon emissions etc is a very convenient tool to use for increased taxes and explain those taxes away to it, although as he points out, we have little or no info on where these extra taxes are spent!
Also as od says, it is now an industry, reliant on the assumption that "it" exists for that very industry to continue, so think it is very unlikely that we cause it will ever be disproved. Maybe the whole situation has been founded on the fact it cant be disproved as to be credible. I doubt some of the scientists figures can be contradicted, but that doesnt mean there is without doubt, 100%, the association between co2 and warming, maybe there is another contributing factor, science evolves all the time, so it wouldnt surprise me in 10 years time, scientists turn round and say, oh, it wasnt co2 at all increasing the temp, it was "x". Science has been know to make mistakes before.
However i think the biggest thing for me is the arrogance of man to think we caused it and we can change it. If said people really thing we can control the atmosphere of a whole planet, why arent we changing the atmosphere on the moon and making it a 2nd earth, a bit far fetched i know, but on lateral thinking, so is changing the climate patterns of the one we live on now!
Not a case of being far-fetched...but if we think we can adapt the atmosphere, why cant we prevent the weather patterns across the world.
The main thin in "carbon emissions" that are glossed over by journo\'s who don\'t ever understand science is that we have been digging up carbon ( in oil/coal/gas/peat) locked in the earth and burning it thus creating an unnatural imbalance demonstrated by the increase in CO2.
NO time in the past has any activity introduced such a huge amount in such a short time -- all driven by "man".
Second point I always smile about is the "name" causing confusion and argument.
"warming" etc etc. The average temp is rising, that means some areas may well have weather patters which for their area is colder ! YES, these have all existed and occurred before. But this time we are accelerating the process so the natural balances that have "protected" our atmosphere for billions of years cant/wont cope.
The science behind the projections are sound ... just that there are dozens of projections on the evidence collected and SOME are saying the opposite end results.
So no wonder journo\'s only seek headlines and not reasoned discourse on the topic. Hell the scientists can\'t even be objective about it all.
THAN add on top those with political agendas and the car owner is doomed :(
re what we can do, then not unreasonably suggesting we slow done the impact WE ADD to the planet by our actions can only be a good thing. Problem I have is some suggest it\'s a definitee certainty, it\'s not, only a probability and worse that a solution exists that is a definit certainty, it cant be, only a probability.
BUT, do I want all of the population of China and India consuming hydrocarbons and producing CO2 and other worse oxides at the same per capita rate as the US ? hell no ! Not even at our rate.
For me that\'s where the challenge is for us. If we don\'t do something to limit our consumption can we reasonably ask/expect others ? Personally I think our fuel costs already do that in the UK and the push by the ecologists to wind power is just a waste of time and money ( but WILL make some politicians and big businessees VERY successful )
Good point on the "adapt" the suggestion is we reduce the damage we cause which is WAY different from suggesting we are adapting it per se and we know we can\'t prevent major weather patterns :(
The think that annoys me is the lack of knowledge, or open mindedness about the new technologies...the guy who installed our Solar Water Panels (which have been excellent) suggested we have Solar Photo Voltaic Installed, as there are high payback from energy companies....so they help in terms of investment....BUT they are less than 20% efficient...so as with the Wind Turbines, until the technology improves, they are making the situation WORSE!!!
Of course, it\'s ok for The Inconvenient Truth man to win awards while sitting in his huge house with the colossal heating and electric bill!
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740012re what we can do, then not unreasonably suggesting we slow done the impact WE ADD to the planet by our actions can only be a good thing. Problem I have is some suggest it\'s a definitee certainty, it\'s not, only a probability and worse that a solution exists that is a definit certainty, it cant be, only a probability.
I have read this paragraph three times, its still does not makes sense, sounds like mumbo jumbo, sounds like what typical scientist would say to baffle normal people, proves a point eh lol :rollin
Ive always taken the attitude that theres a limited amount of fuel to burn, its all going to be get burnt. Therefore total CO2 emmisions due to fossil fuels is not going to change however quickly we burn it. Is this correct or am I very wrong?
I guess theres an argument against burning it quickly?
The rate at which we have burnt fossil fuels along with the amount of rainforest we have cut down has created problems with the Carbon Cycle. If we want to alter things we ought to make changes. More than anything I think these changes will be driven by the increasing price of oil.
If we invested in something like covering 10% of the Sahara Desert in Solar panels, and in methods of storing the energy collected, we\'d have enough to meet global energy demands, if I could sell this idea I could become massively rich!
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740012The main thin in "carbon emissions" that are glossed over by journo\'s who don\'t ever understand science is that we have been digging up carbon ( in oil/coal/gas/peat) locked in the earth and burning it thus creating an unnatural imbalance demonstrated by the increase in CO2.
NO time in the past has any activity introduced such a huge amount in such a short time -- all driven by "man".
Second point I always smile about is the "name" causing confusion and argument.
"warming" etc etc. The average temp is rising, that means some areas may well have weather patters which for their area is colder ! YES, these have all existed and occurred before. But this time we are accelerating the process so the natural balances that have "protected" our atmosphere for billions of years cant/wont cope.
The science behind the projections are sound ... just that there are dozens of projections on the evidence collected and SOME are saying the opposite end results.
So no wonder journo\'s only seek headlines and not reasoned discourse on the topic. Hell the scientists can\'t even be objective about it all.
THAN add on top those with political agendas and the car owner is doomed :(
re what we can do, then not unreasonably suggesting we slow done the impact WE ADD to the planet by our actions can only be a good thing. Problem I have is some suggest it\'s a definitee certainty, it\'s not, only a probability and worse that a solution exists that is a definit certainty, it cant be, only a probability.
BUT, do I want all of the population of China and India consuming hydrocarbons and producing CO2 and other worse oxides at the same per capita rate as the US ? hell no ! Not even at our rate.
For me that\'s where the challenge is for us. If we don\'t do something to limit our consumption can we reasonably ask/expect others ? Personally I think our fuel costs already do that in the UK and the push by the ecologists to wind power is just a waste of time and money ( but WILL make some politicians and big businessees VERY successful )
Good point on the "adapt" the suggestion is we reduce the damage we cause which is WAY different from suggesting we are adapting it per se and we know we can\'t prevent major weather patterns :(
Are you a scientist?
^ prefer "engineer" and not one happy to have BS paraded as "science".
Worked for major research lab tho\' and happy to have one of the strongest debunkers of the pseudo science crap as a close friend.
Don\'t get me started on the basics of the BS the wind energy faction promote :)
and yes blitzboy that para is a straight lift of the kind of language they use to say nothing but make it sound "important" :)
@dthbunk: burning wood is "reasonable" as it grows and you\'re only releasing carbon that was in the atmmosphere in the last 20-100 years. But we\'re digging up coal, oil and gas that has been stored for billions of years from our atmosphere. We\'ve released it in the last 200 years. It\'s that rate of extraction and burn that does seem to be "dangerous" logically ..... but you can find evidence to fully support that premise AND find evidence to disprove it depending on how you want to play the statistics. Common sense I\'d say tho suggests burning something that quickly and releasing it is not ideal ..... BUT there are a milion other things to do before we stop burning petrol in cars ( to be slightly on topic for a car forum ) :)
I hate this entire topic...
means I usually go on a long rant about how unfair it is, try to give opinions etc...
ok, so;
the earth has an elliptical orbit around the sun, over the course of centuries and millenia, the earth shift closer and further away from the sun simply due to centrifugal force and gravity, hence making our world colder and warmer making Ice ages etc etc yady yada.
technically, any time there is ice at either cap, we are still in an ice age, the world has been around for billions of years and the different ice ages and, whats the other called, hot ages? change the face of this earth many many times.
The only reason we, as a species, are so concerned about it is because we are power hungry, we like to be in control, and because we cannot control the NATURAL progression of the earth as it spins closer and further away from the sun, we get all het up and start saying its our fault, we must do something about it.
the problem is, the government is presented with a "problem", their advisors tell them what to do/the easiest solution, it gets released to the press, we read a vastly edited version of a very one sided argument and then have to take the heat for it.
Yes, the oil may be running out, as with the rest of our natural (supposedly) resources, but does anyone think about how much it takes to charge up these lectric vehicles? and where that power comes from? ok you personally may not be making any more emissions, but the power station that supplies your electricity for your electric car is, probably a hell of a lot more than if you had a regular petrol/diesel/LPG car.
it all comes down to the greed of politicians at the end of the day, and their blatent stupidity and the fact we (the public) willingly bend over and take it, like lambs to the slaughter, we believe their bs science, the scaremongering, and the media/government drowns out (or worse *coughDr David Kellycough*) anyone who says otherwise or disproves the point that supplies their money.
but, why change the habit of a lifetime in the history of mankind, we have always been lied to by our leaders, ever since we were "cavemen".
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740060^ prefer "engineer" and not one happy to have BS paraded as "science".
Worked for major research lab tho\' and happy to have one of the strongest debunkers of the pseudo science crap as a close friend.
Don\'t get me started on the basics of the BS the wind energy faction promote :)
and yes blitzboy that para is a straight lift of the kind of language they use to say nothing but make it sound "important" :)
@dthbunk: burning wood is "reasonable" as it grows and you\'re only releasing carbon that was in the atmmosphere in the last 20-100 years. But we\'re digging up coal, oil and gas that has been stored for billions of years from our atmosphere. We\'ve released it in the last 200 years. It\'s that rate of extraction and burn that does seem to be "dangerous" logically ..... but you can find evidence to fully support that premise AND find evidence to disprove it depending on how you want to play the statistics. Common sense I\'d say tho suggests burning something that quickly and releasing it is not ideal ..... BUT there are a milion other things to do before we stop burning petrol in cars ( to be slightly on topic for a car forum ) :)
^^this bit.
As a fellow engineer who did a post-grad Masters in Sustainability Engineering, I have to agree that, from a strictly thermodynamic standpoint, the burning of fossil fuel for energy is PHENOMENALLY inefficient. When you look at the figures of a modern, state-of-the-art coal power plant and work out that you only get back (at best) ~35% of the energy you put in you can see how bad it actually is.
However, renewables are not the holy grail that everyone seems to think they are...
Although there is indeed enough power available in offshore wind around the coast of the UK to power us 1000x over, you have to look at the practical side of things:
1) The largest commercially-available wind turbine is around 5MW. Now assuming that it is 100% efficient (IIRC the Betz efficiency of a turbine is more around 65%) you will still need FOURTEEN THOUSAND to power the UK (at a power consumption of around 70GW).
2) To put these turbines in the North Sea (average depth ~100m) you need specialised ships to drop them to the sea bed, and then pile them a further 50m or so into the bed. There is only a limited number of these ships available and most are on long-term contracts already.
3) We all know turbines don\'t work when the wind is too low, but believe it or not, they also don\'t work when the wind is blowing too strongly - as it can damage the rotor assembly. So in reality there is a fairly narrow band of windspeed in which they can work. So in order to guarantee power supply you will need to build a significant factor MORE than the 14000 given in point 1).
4) Even then, we cannot 100% catagorically confirm that the wind will be blowing all the time. Therefore, because electricity storage (i.e. batteries) is also fairly useless on any great scale, we will need back-up supplies for industry / hospitals / etc, as we simply cannot run a society on the HOPE that there may be power available today. This will require the building of a fail-safe unit, a la a conventional power plant. So why not just build these in the first place????
Renewables are a nice idea, granted. However, they offer little use in a large scale practical application. The money would be much better spent (IMHO) on researching advances into hydrogen fuel cells and fusion power.
graeme
Graeme, mate has a book from an engineering standpoint that totally debunks the windpower lunacy. The headline I remember is you have to fill EVERY mile of coastal britain with wind power to match the peak demand -- and hoep the wind is blowing when it comes :)
DO see a future for the lake district, scotland and wales though and use the mountain areas for pumped storage hydro systems :) when the greenies realise that wind and sun aren\'t 24/7 !!
nuclear is the way forward!
So are we just ticking boxes when it comes to reusable energy? Is it just something to keep the greens and show we are looking at other methods. Similar to how Aston have had to build that silly car just to show they have green credentials!
I was always led to believe that it would take 10-20 years to start turning a profit on the wind generators, and solar was similar.
Water is certainly a way forward, tidal energy is huge isn\'t it? Ive not yet understood why the seven estuary unit was canned...it seemed to be a great source of free energy that is completely guaranteed!
I have just thought of the beet solution to reduce emissions, create energy and solve obesity in this country.
Install a small wind turbine in every families garden and attach it by a belt to an exercise bike at the bottom, so in times of no or low wind, an obese person or a family member has to go out on the bike until they have created enough electricity back into the system for the amount used.
Not on my will this reduce emissions, and create free electricity, it will also reduce the costs that all of these fat b stards having gastric bands fitted and having their fat sucked out, freeing up funding for the NHS and also creating an elite nation of cyclists for such things as the olympics and world tournaments.
It\'s a win win situation.
I have thought about the ways in which people would cheat doing the exercise but I have thought of that solution too.
What does everyone think?
Quote from: AtomicRex;740192So are we just ticking boxes when it comes to reusable energy? Is it just something to keep the greens and show we are looking at other methods. Similar to how Aston have had to build that silly car just to show they have green credentials!
I was always led to believe that it would take 10-20 years to start turning a profit on the wind generators, and solar was similar.
Water is certainly a way forward, tidal energy is huge isn\'t it? Ive not yet understood why the seven estuary unit was canned...it seemed to be a great source of free energy that is completely guaranteed!
Solar panels are complete pants, in the time that you have them they only just start to pay for themselves before you have replace them, due to the life of the actual solar unit itself.
Quote from: Grant Monkhouse;740195I have just thought of the beet solution to reduce emissions, create energy and solve obesity in this country.
Install a small wind turbine in every families garden and attach it by a belt to an exercise bike at the bottom, so in times of no or low wind, an obese person or a family member has to go out on the bike until they have created enough electricity back into the system for the amount used.
Not on my will this reduce emissions, and create free electricity, it will also reduce the costs that all of these fat b stards having gastric bands fitted and having their fat sucked out, freeing up funding for the NHS and also creating an elite nation of cyclists for such things as the olympics and world tournaments.
It\'s a win win situation.
I have thought about the ways in which people would cheat doing the exercise but I have thought of that solution too.
What does everyone think?
This is a subject we have banded around the office of late!
Our idea was mainly centred towards prisoners....but I guess the same follows for your idea too! We could use it for the job seekers, that would be useful!
They would need to achieve a quota for each and everyday. If they weren\'t reaching the quota then they get a small electric shock! Now this obviously would come out of their quota...thus meaning they had to pedal even harder so as not to get a slightly more powerful 2nd and 3rd shock.
You\'d soon get a job!
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740186Graeme, mate has a book from an engineering standpoint that totally debunks the windpower lunacy. The headline I remember is you have to fill EVERY mile of coastal britain with wind power to match the peak demand -- and hoep the wind is blowing when it comes :)
DO see a future for the lake district, scotland and wales though and use the mountain areas for pumped storage hydro systems :) when the greenies realise that wind and sun aren\'t 24/7 !!
Absolutely, now THAT is a clever idea, storing electricity in the form of water as potential energy.
Incidentally, wherabouts \'nr Edinburgh\' are you? I\'m originally from Liberton and then Penicuik before I moved down here...
Quote from: AtomicRex;740187nuclear is the way forward!
Certainly in the short-to-medium term it is Jon, there\'s no other realistic source to feed our current demands if we get off fossils fuels.
Quote from: AtomicRex;740192So are we just ticking boxes when it comes to reusable energy? Is it just something to keep the greens and show we are looking at other methods. Similar to how Aston have had to build that silly car just to show they have green credentials!
I was always led to believe that it would take 10-20 years to start turning a profit on the wind generators, and solar was similar.
Water is certainly a way forward, tidal energy is huge isn\'t it? Ive not yet understood why the seven estuary unit was canned...it seemed to be a great source of free energy that is completely guaranteed!
This pretty much sums it up, any technical person with their head screwed on straight can see renewables (with the POSSIBLE exception of hydroelectric) it the waste of time and money that they are (most of the reasons I listed above can be applied to solar / PV, etc). however it is a kind of \'Emperors New Clothes\' scenarios in that no-one will tell it like it is for being seen as some sort of anti-planet Nazi or whatever the Daily Mail are currently calling them.
However, for stakeholder reasons (and by stakeholder I specifically mean public relations), all the big governments / companies have to be seen to be doing something to match the expectations of the public which has been (by and large) \'brainwashed\' by the half-arsed, factually incorrect arguments that have been perpetuated by Journalists, etc as mentioned by CPZ in post #11. Therefore, they are all taking baby-steps to be seen to be doing something, but if you scratch the surface, aren\'t really committed at all.
graeme
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740012The main thin in "carbon emissions" that are glossed over by journo\'s who don\'t ever understand science is that we have been digging up carbon ( in oil/coal/gas/peat) locked in the earth and burning it thus creating an unnatural imbalance demonstrated by the increase in CO2.
NO time in the past has any activity introduced such a huge amount in such a short time -- all driven by "man".
In fact a Volcano can quite easily achieve this in a much shorter time that we can - one large volcano can put more CO2 in the atmosphere in a few days than we\'ve managed to do since the beginning of the industrial revolution...
Makes you think.
Another interesting point is that according to some research, the earth should be much hotter than it is based on the emissions we\'ve made, but mankind has somehow managed to save his own ar$e by emitting a large amount of particulate (coal burning, diesels and so forth) and this has caused \'global dimming\' - keeping the sunlight levels lower and helping balance out the CO2 increase.
Then there\'s the effectiveness of different greenhouse gases - water vapour is far worse than CO2 (like tens/hundreds of times worse), and so we move towards lower CO2 emissions by using less carbon rich fuels - like say Hydrogen - which burns in air to make - you guessed it - harmless old water (or is it ;) )?
I think the computer models are flawed - they haven\'t spent long enough looking at the longer term natural trends to understand how we can impact on it, and I\'m fairly certain some variables are missing all together from their research.
All that being said - I am not against cleaning up our act, being responsible with fuel and energy usage, and designing in efficiency into new things we build. That\'s just good husbandry and we should always stive towards this.
Prof, I agree on Volcano, but we don\'t get those big ones any more and we dont control those and IF one were to happen it ADDS not replaces what we do :(
Liek they say cows burp more gases than cars by an order of magnitude, but we need to eat meat ( or do we ... a debate for another evening :) )
You are spot on on the models being flawed and why each "faction" in this debate can use a model built on different premises and samples and come up with the answer the politician/big-business wants :(
"Good husbandry" ... I like it, embodies the whole big picture without needing to get too anal about the reasoning.
Heres another thought.
Are the greener issues pushed by car manufacturers?
We are persuaded to buy a new car, as it will be greener because it will be more fuel efficient.
However, these new cars cost in terms of Co2,
new plastics
new engines
transportation of the cars via see
batteries (they are a huge debate on their own!)
scrapping your existing car.
So we are doing the world a favour holding on to our ageing Rx7s despite the crap fuel consumption
Quote from: Prof;740208In fact a Volcano can quite easily achieve this in a much shorter time that we can - one large volcano can put more CO2 in the atmosphere in a few days than we\'ve managed to do since the beginning of the industrial revolution...
Makes you think.
Another interesting point is that according to some research, the earth should be much hotter than it is based on the emissions we\'ve made, but mankind has somehow managed to save his own ar$e by emitting a large amount of particulate (coal burning, diesels and so forth) and this has caused \'global dimming\' - keeping the sunlight levels lower and helping balance out the CO2 increase.
Then there\'s the effectiveness of different greenhouse gases - water vapour is far worse than CO2 (like tens/hundreds of times worse), and so we move towards lower CO2 emissions by using less carbon rich fuels - like say Hydrogen - which burns in air to make - you guessed it - harmless old water (or is it ;) )?
I think the computer models are flawed - they haven\'t spent long enough looking at the longer term natural trends to understand how we can impact on it, and I\'m fairly certain some variables are missing all together from their research.
All that being said - I am not against cleaning up our act, being responsible with fuel and energy usage, and designing in efficiency into new things we build. That\'s just good husbandry and we should always stive towards this.
Spot on with the water comment Prof, however it is never taken into account on greenhouse gas lists for too reasons:
1) Because of the balance between evaporation from the land and precipitation as rain, snow etc depends on humidity (in turn, a function of temperature) you can never be sure as to how much water vapour is up there.
2) If you don\'t know (apologies if you do!!) the \'warming\' effect comes as a result of greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation that would have otherwise reflected back into space and re-directing it back down to earth. But because the absorption spectra of water closely overlaps several other GHGs, it\'s impossible to tell how much it actually contributes - it may be a lot, it may be negligible.
graeme
Quote from: AtomicRex;740212Heres another thought.
Are the greener issues pushed by car manufacturers?
We are persuaded to buy a new car, as it will be greener because it will be more fuel efficient.
However, these new cars cost in terms of Co2,
new plastics
new engines
transportation of the cars via see
batteries (they are a huge debate on their own!)
scrapping your existing car.
So we are doing the world a favour holding on to our ageing Rx7s despite the crap fuel consumption
I think it\'s not just cars either - most household appliances are built with designed life limits, and parts to repair them are either not obtainable or are so costly compared with replacement of the item as a whole, that it would be financially stupid to repair it.
I saw a printer once in Rymans - which came with print cartridges, and actaully cost less that a new set of cartridges for my existing printer - when Jo public are faced with such things - they naturally junk old in favour of new :(
As for the weather - It must be possible to control the weather in a similar way to accupuncture - by forcing some deliberate conditions at set points around the world to influence the weather conditions in ours (the side affect is someone else will no doubt end up with crap weather, but maybe we can take it in turns ;) If I know when it\'s going to rain, I wont take holidays on those days :D )
Quote from: AtomicRex;740192Ive not yet understood why the seven estuary unit was canned...it seemed to be a great source of free energy that is completely guaranteed!
There were a number of reasons, the biggest being the ecological impact on the wetland areas upstream which are breeding and nesting grounds for a hug population of waterfowl. The area is also designated an SSSI under UK and EU law. The consultants brought in to do a feasibility study calculated that the construction costs + the mitigation costs for habitat creation for the bird population would make the project a non-starter.
While I am not either an engineer or an environmental scientist, I have worked to support the sector for 10 years. The whole CO2 debate is often taken out of context (particularly by the nay-sayers) and there is a lot of misquoting on both sides of the arguement.
That CO2 levels are increasing is a given, that since the industrial revolution CO2 output has increased dramatically is also widely accepted, that we are reducing the planet\'s ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere by deforestation is also pretty obvious.
Now the question is what is the effect of this CO2 on climate? As Prof says, it is likely that there is some data missing from the computer models, but I would suggest that the overall premise that climatic shift can be affected by increases in CO2 has some merit.
The problem is that the zealots on the AGW side have made a rod for their own back by implying that man-made CO2 emmissions are wholly responsible for climate change, rather than an additional influencer. So if we continue to push CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate we are, it will speed up an already existing process.
H2O Vapour is always raised by the AGW deniers as some sort of "proof" that CO2 is not the culprit, but while water vapour is certainly a more efficient Greenhouse Gas than CO2, we are still adding to the overall greenhouse and that wil increase the greenhouse effect. Additionally, as the global temps rise (albeit slowly) more water vapour is released into the atmosphere increasing the greenhouse effect further. There is evidence to suggest (as Prof mentioned) that actually we are masking the true greenhouse effect by the pollutants and particulates we have released so as these reduce thanks to improvements in filtration and clean-burning technologies the true effects of CO2 will be seen.
re: renewables, I have actually been one of those to have benefitted from the wind industry, but the problem remains that without a huge amount of research into energy storage techniques we are in a situation where we are trying to create an energy industry based on intermittent power sources! Tidal power is probably the most promising renewable energy source, but for some strange reason the powers that be seem to have nailed their flag well and truly to the wind power camp.
re new cars being green is well known BS line as the energy taken to MAKE a new car far exceeds any savings that can be returned. That energy released emissions in it\'s creation. So net loss to the planet in moving to a new car. But profit to big business :(
A few years back the US produced a publication on the total cost of a car, from the colelction of it\'s raw materials till it\'s scrapping. Will try and find it again. The Prius came out worse than most modern cars of vehicles compared :) Didn\'t stop all the Californians buying them for their image !!
Quote from: sadgoth;740216the powers that be
I see what you did there ;)
I should have googled the development of the estuary...so thank you for that. Understandable about the SSSI, and I certainly couldn\'t condone the interference of that.
Batteries are the biggest let down in the whole equation. We have moved forward rapidly in other forms of development...but yet the battery world is yet to catch up!
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740222re new cars being green is well known BS line as the energy taken to MAKE a new car far exceeds any savings that can be returned. That energy released emissions in it\'s creation. So net loss to the planet in moving to a new car. But profit to big business :(
A few years back the US produced a publication on the total cost of a car, from the colelction of it\'s raw materials till it\'s scrapping. Will try and find it again. The Prius came out worse than most modern cars of vehicles compared :) Didn\'t stop all the Californians buying them for their image !!
And the winner was a Jeep!
Everything is recycled or used from parts bins! the development of the cars is zero....and when one falls to pieces it gets recycled.
The number of parts that can be recycled is limited...and the whole manufacturing of the batteries has a massive footprint. It does make me giggle that the small minded greenies only look at blinkered part of using the car! Oh and the stuff that comes out of the wall doesn\'t carry any Co2 to make it either! :Hammer:Hammer:Hammer:Hammer
Quote from: AtomicRex;740197This is a subject we have banded around the office of late!
Our idea was mainly centred towards prisoners....but I guess the same follows for your idea too! We could use it for the job seekers, that would be useful!
They would need to achieve a quota for each and everyday. If they weren\'t reaching the quota then they get a small electric shock! Now this obviously would come out of their quota...thus meaning they had to pedal even harder so as not to get a slightly more powerful 2nd and 3rd shock.
You\'d soon get a job!
Only downside I can see to using prisoners isthat they would steal the bikes and buy drugs with it, using fat people is more beneficial as if they try running away they won\'t get very far because they would be knackered or you would find them at mcds.
Fat prisoners would be good though! I think we should get in touch with the PM as were into a money winner here!
ah but the flaw Grant is by making them pedal-for-power they become strong and fit, overpower the guards and run away.
But I have the solutino for that too .... you do not chase them. Let them go home, fatten back up over a year and THEN go bring them back.
I love renewable energies :) AND we might even get a government grant to produce the solution Grant :)
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740233ah but the flaw Grant is by making them pedal-for-power they become strong and fit, overpower the guards and run away.
But I have the solutino for that too .... you do not chase them. Let them go home, fatten back up over a year and THEN go bring them back.
I love renewable energies :) AND we might even get a government grant to produce the solution Grant :)
I had been thinking about that, and with a fat person being undeniably greedy by nurture they will become fat again. It\'s a perfect solution, to an endless problem. He\'ll I would even put the hours in on the electrobikes to help me achieve the Greek god like physique. Lmao
And I can\'t remember who said that we don\'t get volcanoes erupting any more, what utter rubbish, if they don\'t then where did that huge ash (carbon) cloud come from last year which grounded and cancelled all flights in the uk? Because it sure as he\'ll didn\'t come out of my rx7!!!
Quote from: Grant Monkhouse;740235Because it sure as he\'ll didn\'t come out of my rx7!!!
Are you sure??
And if you are getting grants for this plan.....I would like some commission for my input :D
There is no doubt about it Hydro power is the way forward. Look at the American side of Niagra falls. It generates enough power to supply New York and more daily. And thats just the smaller American side. The Canadian side is even bigger. I know we haven\'t a supply as big as this over here but, trust me we could be doing so much more as a nation than we are. I worked for the probably the biggest Hydro Turbine manufacturer in the country for best part of 12 years. I now work for the water board. I\'ve been to more sites than you can shake a stick at that are doing great things. But I still can\'t help seeing daily potential sites that could have a Hydro installation of some kind. Small or large. You could even get the farmer involved if you need to use their land for a source. The main trouble on out small (and getting smaller) island is that most of the areas where you could put an installation are part of the national parks and are therefore protected.
Oh and then there is the many many miles of tunnels/acuaducts/pipelines that supply water around our fair nation 24/7 via gravity. It seems a no brainer to me.
Ade
Quote from: AtomicRex;740239Are you sure??
And if you are getting grants for this plan.....I would like some commission for my input :D
That\'s fine by me, we will split it 50/50
50 million for me, 50 thousand for you. Lol
On a serious note, making our fossil fuel burning more efficient is a great idea, for me at this very moment I\'m installing units into tescos that will save up to 40% of energy used by the heating system in the store by controlling the frequency of the supply to motors. It\'s all I referring stuff and I\'m learning new things as an electrician, and the money is always a bonus.
But for the government and the media to use carbon emissions as scare tactics for us to pay more taxes is a joke, being honest would be better and I think more people would be willin to help towards creating more efficient ways to use the energy.
As for the amount of carbon in the air I watch a programme roughly a year ago where they were core drilling for ice samples in the artic or antarctic, I can\'t remember which, and through this they discovered that over the centuries carbon emissions went up and down, also they discovered that temperature increase came before the increase in carbon emissions, I found this programme really good at the time as it was the only one out of 20 programmes that gave the opposite argument, which I found funny as the scare mongering programmes always outweigh the good ones.
As for smoke coming out of my car, it only does that when it\'s cold due to the premix, so there is no way I could ground the planes due to an rx7 induced ash cloud, as I o ly get the chance to drive it on weekends. Lol.
few points, it was me on the volcano point. The volcanoes that get talked about as producing huge amounts aren\'t active now. Our volcanoes are small fry compared to those. I\'ve some Mt St Helens ash somewhere .... and it was "small" comapred to the volcanoes of yesteryear.
hydro plans wont work for full scale production here becase we jsut dont have the landspace. Niagara is a natural winner, Hoover dam man made and it\'s more awesome :) BUT that dam is backing up the river all the way into Canada and increased the width/depth. We just dont have enough rainfall on enough land to capture enough to use for large amounts of power. BUT the idea of short term "top ups" for sure - as they are used now with nuclear pumping it up at night and call on it for the peaks. BUT when everyone plugs in their electric car at 7 at night then the peak can never be met --- the aspect of electric cars that seems to be forgotten.
I\'ve rallied the PZ on gravel stage and left a pretty good ash cloud on that one :)
Cant claim any planes tho\' :(
EDIT: THought best "evidence" the remembrance on volcanoes so .....
Quotestudies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy\'s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
the problem with nuclear is public perception. there are small number of existing sites that could be regenerated, but it would be a very very difficult task to get new sites developed, NIMBYism would stop most projects in their tracks. There would have to be a lot of promotion and re-education to counter the years of greenpeace and CND propaganda.
Quote from: Grant Monkhouse;740196Solar panels are complete pants, in the time that you have them they only just start to pay for themselves before you have replace them, due to the life of the actual solar unit itself.
sorry not true...
i own a company called core heating. we supply and install renewables
solar (pv cells) for electricity. if you have 10k to invest in a system. you will recieve back from the government approx £1000 per year through the new RHI scheme. thats on top of the actual electricity you produce for your own home. and on top of that if you have a "return to the grid" system. any unused electricity you dont use the grid purchase off you.
ASHP air source heat pumps. these are basically air con units in reverse.. they are pretty good for energy effencies..
approx energy them give out
for every 1kw of electricity to run. produce apporx 3.8kw of heat
these also are on the RHI scheme. estimated annual payback for a 3bed house appox 140m2 is near about 800 quid a year
GSHP these pull the heat from your back garden, these give approx 4.5kw of heat to 1kw of electricv.. these offer slightly higher on the RHI
solar thermal for hot wateris prob the cheapest of the bunch and a good system can produce about 80% of your annual hot water for approx 20p a day.
we are still along way off full renewable tbh but pgetting better.
my house has solar for hot water and my underfloor heating. i heat my down stair of my house for almost free. i have an ASHP for my 1st floor heating and as back up for down stairs if the weather is bad. but over the winter so far. my heating and hot water bill for energy has been approx 40 a month for a 3bed house with 3 adults.. my carbon foot print is very low. so i can sleep easy having a fuel burning rex:D
sky, what are your half life for your panels ?
Friend got pulled into the grant-aided installation and the numbers they presented to jsutify him stumping up the cash were based on the panel producing at the same rate in 20 years time. Checking the manufacturers own published figures it\'s 10 years.
It\'s just wrong that the government supported the con and in a few years it MIGHT start to make sense ( and maybe is already if you let us knwo the panels and half-life ), but the pollution to mine the raw materials for panels is causing horrendous emissions --- just not in the UK ! Everyone is paying a little so a few can benefit.
I think the grants are ended now, but still higher return to grid pricing, yes ?
Solar thermal is sound science ( well not so much up here ) but still can assist main heating very effectively. Hadn\'t ever looked at using it to do underfloor, so maybe talk to you off-forum for some advice :)
ASPHP and GSHP are a really good thing, I have seen these work, especially the GSHP, the box of tricks that takes cool water from underground and takes the temp out and the. Returns cold water back to the ground is amazing, but these trying to produce electricity is laughable, the pumps require power (watts) to work.
My argument is mainly towards the electric producing parts, as I just can\'t see these units providing enough energy to supply microwaves, lighting, kettles, tvs, computers, computer consoles. People always want better things, you mention GSHP produce 1kw of power, how far will that go to working these 9kw power showers people have installed?
Using solar and HEat pumps for hot water is the best thing to do but for producing electricity they are just poor, all electrical equipement requires maintenance and testing at stated intervals, the 17th edition states the time scales between different installations, which depends on their use, a house hold is 25 years, I think, but even then if you have alterations to any electrical system you has to have it tested thus costing more money in top of the money already paid for the energy saving equipement.
Also electrical wiring has to be replaced over time because it degrades, becomes brittle etc due temperature, faults that may have occured, the demand in which the circuits are used for, costing more money. I just don\'t think using these things for generating electricity are quite there yet, but using these technologies for heating houses is good, it is practically free.
If this doesn\'t make sense it is because I am knackered, I have only just got back from work.
Using water heated from GSHP for underfloor heating is just the same as using radiators, except that there are huge lengths of pipe under your floor( It looks like crazy mazes in the floor when doing the piping) with the water running through it releasing the heat up into the house. These can be controlled by room stats so that you don\'t heat up the room to silly temperatures, I beleive though that that heating systems are still backed up with a boiler incase the temperature being taken out of the ground isn\'t reaching the wanted room temperature.
This is from my personal experience from work and talkin to the guys that install it, it is very good stuffand interesting how the heat is produced.
I may be wrong about certain bits.
no problem chap. . your right about the grants for installation cost. they dried up. some manufactures offer supposed grands. but all they do is up the price by 2 grand then knock it off at the end user. so a marketing ploy. the grid prices are very good still and dont look to be changing either
totally agree about the pollution it takes to make the panels. the tech is getting better by the year now though and the effeicency rates they produce.
i suppose ive just jumped onto the band wagon with it all but hey . basically if you`ve got 10 > 15k in your savings account. in 10 years it`l earn alot more money by putting panels on your roof. thats the bottom line of it.
the solar for underfloor heating does work very well. the way i`ve installed it for my property was a bit of a test really to see how it would perform. i`ve used 4 velux flat solar collectors on a true south facing roof with a 40 degree pitch..
ive used a 200litre buffer tank with a very high effiecency heat exchanger for the solar heat transfer. during the day the solar panels are easily heating this volume of water to 35>50 degree c. my underfloor heating is set at 35 degree c.
i have set the solar collectors to heat hot tap water as priority. it will only switch over to heating the underfloor water once the hot water cylinder demand is satisfied. my secondary heat source for the buffer tank is an ESP ASHP this is a 5kw and is amply powerful enough for extra heat input to the buffer tanks..
upstairs radiators are oversized by 0.595 . this allows me to run them using the same water temp as the underfloor heating water.
lower the temps the more effecient it will all be.. i only need to acheive 35 degree in the buffer tank and this house stays warm..
sorry if that sounds boring as hell to some. but im trying to develope a cheaper way for home heating. my complete install has prob cost iirc 10k and has reduced my monthly outgoing by 80quid. not a quick recovery but i get the rhi also with brings payback to 5 years give or take
Quote from: Grant Monkhouse;740372ASPHP and GSHP are a really good thing, I have seen these work, especially the GSHP, the box of tricks that takes cool water from underground and takes the temp out and the. Returns cold water back to the ground is amazing, but these trying to produce electricity is laughable, the pumps require power (watts) to work.
.
ashp and gshp dont produce electricity in any form. they use it..
this is why i dont class these items as renewable heating methods. these are just super effeicent.
eg..
a super duper electric shower... 10.5 kw make about 9kw of hot water per hour.
a kettle 3 kw.. produces about 2.6kw of hot water per hour.
ashp 1kw produces about 3.8 kw of hot water.
they are still using electricity that a home PV system cannot provide. heck. you`d need £60,000 worth of solar panels to provide enough electric to power a 10.5kw shower lol
how pv panels are good is but contributing. . while your all out at work during the day. peak demand. your pv panels could be prviding apprx 2 kw of electricity., this is plenty enough to run fridge freezer. applences on standby etc etc. and putting half back into the grid. then when everyones home. dependant on your tarif. can be offset by what you put into the grid during the day.
i`ve have some better real world figures of my own in about 12 months once i`ve got 3kw of PV on my roof as well;)
Thanks guys all good stuff.
Apartment in Germany uses the underfloor piping and it\'s THE way to heat houses for sure - it\'s from gas boiler though :(
Be good to see results in one year for sure.
Mate installed a large domestic wind generator and 18 months later he had made the sum total of £1.50 ... and had to listen to the throbbing sound and the huge vibrations when it over-revved. Pulled it down and he\'s a happier man :)
Moving heat around makes more sense to me than trying to generate electricity and maybe summer project to dig up the large garden and sink some deep heat recovery pipes.
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740383Moving heat around makes more sense to me than trying to generate electricity and maybe summer project to dig up the large garden and sink some deep heat recovery pipes.
I wonder if enough of us did this weather we would begin to cause a higher rate of cooling in the earth, eventually leading to the solidification of the core, loss of magnetic flux and more radiation able to penetrate the atmosphere (this is an extrapolation over millions of years :Giggle - probably not going to affect us, but at least your mortgages will be paid off !)
the pipework in the garden for GSHP is a very safe garenteed result as the ground has a very near constant temperature. only problem.. you need a huge back garden lol
eg for a GSHP large enough for a 3 bed house 140m2 eg is approx 8kw. this size requires about 700m of 40mm pipe to be laid.
Quote from: skybusr34;740379ashp and gshp dont produce electricity in any form. they use it..
I do apologise I did actually mean the solar panels that try to produce electricity as you have just said don\'t produce anywhere near enough. I was tired when I wrote that last night
this is why i dont class these items as renewable heating methods. these are just super effeicent.
they are still using electricity that a home PV system cannot provide. heck. you`d need £60,000 worth of solar panels to provide enough electric to power a 10.5kw shower lol
60k! Now who is going to be living in a house that long to reap the benefits. Lol.
We have a ground source heat pump...been in the building for a year now and has worked out really well...hence why another is going in our next renovation
I did read however though that, as with all renewables, if they are in the correct situation, I.e. New build or renovation with correct insulation etc they work well....but any more stress demand on them, then all efficiencies go out the window
@prof: We use the energy we capture, so it goes back into te environment anyway.
@skybusr34: Got the space for sure ( some of it under where 6 cars are stored :) at the moment ). Just this seems a business area where the market is full of charlatans and carpet baggers :( Finding someone "good and trustworthy" is hard .... how far North you wiling to work ? :) :)
By the way...you don\'t have to have a garden for the pipework, it\'s the cheapest way, but alternatively you can use bore holes
Quote from: Competiton PZ;740491@prof: We use the energy we capture, so it goes back into te environment anyway.
In absolute terms yes, but the energy has moved from one system/location to another.
You could argue that burning fossil fuels is using solar energy - the suns energy grew plants, they died, were squished/heated into oil over millions of years, then we dug it back out of the earth and released the captured energy by burning it.
I\'m all in favour of using the suns energy and wind and wave and what have you, but they must have some impact on the environment around them - a solar panel casts a shadow, so it\'s easy to see what the effect is here - if the panels on your roof then the sun\'s rays wouldn\'t have gone much further so the effect is inconsequential.
A windfarm, however, takes a large amount of energy out of the wind, and this must have a knock on effect on the surrounding flora / fauna. They tend to site these things out to sea or in the middle of nowhere, but I wonder how much research is done around this.
With geothermal energy, you are extracting heat from the earths crust, which has come from the earths core, and you are exhausting the energy into the atmosphere.
Computer farms exhaust energy (heat from electrical) into the atmosphere as well, so that\'s another example of energy movement.
Long term these things must add up to an issue....
Good point Prof, like all systems there are likely "costs" somewhere.
For PV for example there are HUGE costs in China to the environment and emissions.
Yes, PV example means less heat to the ground at that point, BUT I think that as there is still non-direct light and heat transfer the differences will be very small.
Does remind that another oft-missed aspect of our changes to the environment is the amount of heat captured and re-emitted by the massive cities of concrete and sprawling tarmac :(
Windfarm was mentioned in that book I cited previously (still cant find it in my library :() and that whilst a large energy capture will affect wind at ground level that most of our weather and global patterns are by high altitude winds and less affected.
The Ground Source as I understand it are VERY localised and a few hundred miles away from affect crust or core. Deepest I\'ve seen dug is 10m in the US may years ago at a work colleague\'s place.
The beauty of solar ( and indirectly near surface ground sources ) is that the source is emitting that energy anyway and all we do is capture it. If what we capture is the same as would have been captured by natural means then it\'s a near zero sum game.
few misconseptions about GSHPs . they absorb the heat energy the sun puts into the ground. not from the core rising up..
regarding how far from home base will i work. well i work anywhere. been sent to spain a few times lol.. as long as my travel time and costs are covered i`ll work where ever
if you fancy a chat about anything give me a buzz 07779703330 i have phone on till 10pm after