Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Piddles

Piddles wrote: »

There's also one that I can personally confirm. Nitrile based seals tend to shrink once the bio/fossil ratio reaches a certain point. My Aprilia motorbike uses this type of seal where the fuel pump slots into the underside of the fuel tank. And where is the fuel tank? Right above the engine....

There's been a few total fire losses by the side of the road especially in the US where the bio ratio is higher in places.:eek:

Timing is a bit spooky. Good for the planet I guess. Not so good for my bike!

Climate change: 'No brainer' fuel change to cut transport carbon

NigeWick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Do you mean hydroponics rather than permaculture?

Permaculture systems as demonstrated by Geoff Lawton. He uses animals to clear land, fertilise crops and for food. He demonstrated its power when making rocky desert land near the Dead Sea fertile and produce crops. Having seen some hydroponic multi level "farms" I can see it having a place too. Then there's insect protein...

GreatApe

People really don't care mostly because they don't believe

They are ok with calling for wind mills and PV panels because the costs are hidden from them

Try banning meat or even just rationing it and see how quickly the 'green' support dissolves

Try banning gas fired boilers and see how quickly people object to having to spend £5-£15k on a heat pump

Try banning cars and have people walk cycle or train and see how quickly you get the boot

GreatApe

It's taken seriously when we impose a meat tax
£1/100grams of beef/lamb/pork
25p/100grams of chicken

A kg of chicken goes up by £2.50 a kg of beef/lamb/pork by £10
Roughly speaking a chicken burger goes up 25p a beef burger £1

People would still eat meat but portions would get smaller and people would waste less
Especially fast food joints would do a lot to reduce portion size (maybe half the beef but include more chips etc or reduce the number of beef options and increase the number of chicken options)

If meat consumption fell 50% to say (5kg red-meat 35kg white)
Would Still bring in about £10 billion a year in meat taxes
Which is roughly the sum needed to convert the housing/building stock to heat pumps and build the offshore wind to power them over a course of 20 years

Piddles

GreatApe wrote: »

People really don't care mostly because they don't believe

They are ok with calling for wind mills and PV panels because the costs are hidden from them

Try banning meat or even just rationing it and see how quickly the 'green' support dissolves

Try banning gas fired boilers and see how quickly people object to having to spend £5-£15k on a heat pump

Try banning cars and have people walk cycle or train and see how quickly you get the boot

That is definitely changing, but it'll take a generation or two and we don't have that kind of time. So the net conclusion is the same.

If it's not going to be demand led for environmental reasons, it needs to be for financial reasons.

For road transport: autonomous cars (90% cheaper).

For air transport: none available.. background tax on carbon emission of the actual flights.

For energy: cheapest possible electricity -onshore wind, more solar, time zone shifted solar, close down the 61% distribution costs part of gas, subsidise heat pumps to prime cost savings from mass installations. Convert natural gas power stations to hydrogen. No more nuclear. No more offshore wind. (he's being provocative...)

For meat: none available.... background taxes on bought-in animal feed (not grass fed - welfare).

Piddles

Piddles wrote: »

.....but it'll take a generation or two and we don't have that kind of time.

Forget that, it's already too late

It is likely too late to stop dangerous global warming

GreatApe

Piddles wrote: »

Forget that, it's already too late

It is likely too late to stop dangerous global warming

Global claim it change is not really an issue of concern it will impact some areas negatively some areas positively some species negatively some positively. The time value of money and the super slow movement of the climate means again it's not a worry for human economics either

It's a trivial inconvenience you need not worry about

Instead this century general AI will be invented which will either mean eternal damnation or the power of the gods. Either way it means claim it change is a non issue mostly obsessed over by two different groups. The sad and lonely hobbyist and the far left who have no means to beat the arguments of the right other than ..... Oh sure capalism has enriched us but at the cost of mafa-earf....the two groups are often in the same camp

Now if you'll excuse me I have half a kilo of beef that needs cooking :beer:

GreatApe

Piddles wrote: »

That is definitely changin.

I don't think so
Most people live in echo chambers
This is your hobby you spend time reading about it thinking about it and discussing it with like minded people

The average person really doesn't care they have actual problems on their lives to deal with
The average person likes wind farms and solar panels because they have no concept of the cost of depreciation or maintenance so think sunshine is free so why don't we have free sunshine electricity? Therefore most people are pro sunshine and wind

But tell them to be cold in the winter
To not eat beef or pork
To walk rather than drive
And they will give you the finger


Having said this I think we are rich enough to decarb and the technology exists for deep decarb
Maybe not 100% but I can definitely see a pathway to 80%+
The next 10 years should be quite productive so we will have the spare money to mass build wind farms and interconnectors and heat pumps and probably robo EVs will dominate without having to be subbed so a good pathway to 80%+ and before we get these we will witness the birth of AGI so I'd be more worried about that by a factor of a trillion than if we will be able to go from 80% towards 100%

Piddles

GreatApe wrote: »

Most people live in echo chambers
This is your hobby you spend time reading about it thinking about it and discussing it with like minded people

I can't disagree, exacerbated by the internet of course.

The internet is responsible for 4% of green house gas emissions. Twice that of aviation...

So we're the problem, not everyone else.

I'm logging off to do something more practical to save the planet

Digital technologies now emit 4% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and its energy consumption is increasing by 9% a year.

Or as The Star spins it: !!!!!! 'is as bad for the climate as Belgium', say scientists :rotfl:

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

TBH I was thinking hydrocarbons produced from Hydrogen (from RE leccy generation) and captured CO2.

Ideas like this:

Stiesdal to produce cheap carbon-negative aviation fuel by 2025

Wind-power pioneer Henrik Stiesdal has begun work on what may be the most ingenuous of his decades’ worth of inventions — carbon-negative aviation fuel.

Plenty of carbon-neutral aviation fuels are in the pipeline, including biofuels and synthetic fuels made using green hydrogen, but this would appear to be the first that will actually result in CO2 being extracted from the atmosphere — so the more fuel produced, the more carbon will be removed.

The Danish inventor’s eponymous company, Stiesdal Fuel Technologies A/S, is targeting a pilot plant in the next four years that will enable the production of 60.000 tons of carbon-negative jet fuel per year — enough to supply 6-7% of the Danish aviation sector’s requirements.