Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Hexane

Martyn1981 wrote: »

A while back many of us objected strongly to the offensive posts on this thread (racially and religiously intolerant about US shale gas), but that resulted in the deletion of our posts and a change of name to the thread.

If seeing racially and religiously intolerant posts, the best approach is to click the Report button rather than to engage with the poster. It does work, and if such posts continue after the account in question has been warned, then their account will be disabled. Which will slow them down at the very least.

I have some sympathy with those who have mentioned that putting a poster on ignore is not then best followed up by mentioning that one has done so. However I also have some sympathy with the viewpoint that making others aware of the option, helps to keep the forum useable. Likewise I understand the encouragement not to quote a poster that most others have put on ignore, but I sometimes just feel like it ... just as some of those who've mentioned having the poster on ignore, then also engage enthusiastically in discussions of the ideas that poster has put forward ...

The poster to whom many currently object has more recently started separate threads to discuss the ideas they have (one or two threads about self-driving cars and one or two threads about fission-powered shared heating, or something like that), and in my opinion that is to be encouraged, because those interested can discuss those ideas in those separate threads, hopefully keeping such discussion out of threads like this one where they are off topic.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

"The end of the beginning", perhaps?

Remember how legal action finally broke big tobacco, well, perhaps this is the start of the AGW version. A long road, but you have to start somewhere.

Little Rhody Hits The Climate Change Litigation Big Time

While many on this forum would be delighted to see the sudden demise of Big Oil the world is not quite ready for that. I suspect most people celebrating this will still be filling their cars up with petrol or diesel tomorrow. For most people there is simply no alternative.

Big Oil has for the last 100 years been one of the main drivers of prosperity in most developed countries. Imagine what public sentiment would have been had the industry thrown its hands up in the air in the sixties and said we cannot with a clean conscious continue to produce oil.

We have had all the benefits for the last 60 years and now want to crucify the industry for producing what we all wanted.

Can anyone honestly say that the world now would be a better place if the US companies that constitute much of Big Oil had shut up shop as soon as they reportedly became aware of the potential impact on climate?

zeupater

Hexane wrote: »

If seeing racially and religiously intolerant posts, the best approach is to click the Report button rather than to engage with the poster. It does work, and if such posts continue after the account in question has been warned, then their account will be disabled. Which will slow them down at the very least.

I have some sympathy with those who have mentioned that putting a poster on ignore is not then best followed up by mentioning that one has done so. However I also have some sympathy with the viewpoint that making others aware of the option, helps to keep the forum useable. Likewise I understand the encouragement not to quote a poster that most others have put on ignore, but I sometimes just feel like it ... just as some of those who've mentioned having the poster on ignore, then also engage enthusiastically in discussions of the ideas that poster has put forward ...

The poster to whom many currently object has more recently started separate threads to discuss the ideas they have (one or two threads about self-driving cars and one or two threads about fission-powered shared heating, or something like that), and in my opinion that is to be encouraged, because those interested can discuss those ideas in those separate threads, hopefully keeping such discussion out of threads like this one where they are off topic.

Hi

I've absolutely no issue with any relevant point being made, but hijacking threads with the same totally irrelevant ramblings for month after month isn't what we should be willing to accept ... it's also the case that when the laws of physics, materials science as well as engineering & accounting practices are intentionally, or unintentionally, misrepresented then it's common practice in any environment for errors or malicious content to be challenged ....

... "of course you don't need a seatbelt dear, engineers say that if you just sit on this £482.05 upturned red bucket and drink this nice cool liquid nitrogen then all will be fine as we'll only be doing 70! - ready?, well off we go then, hold on!" .... any issues here that someone would in anyway be expected to disagree with? .... well, that's effectively the case in question, some may see the issues in someone suggesting that where others may understand the issues in suggesting investing heavily in solutions such as a national superheated heat-main grid & vast quantities of additional nuclear generation capacity in preference to other forms of heat provision ...

If anyone believes the proposed solution from a previous pro-nuclear member who later claimed to be anti-nuclear on a cost basis whilst still arguing for nuclear solutions is actually possible, fine, park the idea & wait for it to happen or contact your local MP & raise it's profile, I'm sure that within the current cerebral standard of intake there's plenty of them that would take it up in parliament to ensure it happens ... ... maybe not the most likely outcome though! ... :whistle:

Physics is physics, engineering is engineering, materials are materials, distance is distance, solutions are solutions, costs are costs and that's effectively a summary of the set of rules that need to be adhered to ... you simply can't pick & choose what you like and what to ignore as they're all interrelated ... pull the string attached to one variable & it has a direct impact on the others, it's just a case of establishing where the balance lies! ...

HTH
Z

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

While many on this forum would be delighted to see the sudden demise of Big Oil the world is not quite ready for that. I suspect most people celebrating this will still be filling their cars up with petrol or diesel tomorrow. For most people there is simply no alternative.

Big Oil has for the last 100 years been one of the main drivers of prosperity in most developed countries. Imagine what public sentiment would have been had the industry thrown its hands up in the air in the sixties and said we cannot with a clean conscious continue to produce oil.

We have had all the benefits for the last 60 years and now want to crucify the industry for producing what we all wanted.

Can anyone honestly say that the world now would be a better place if the US companies that constitute much of Big Oil had shut up shop as soon as they reportedly became aware of the potential impact on climate?

Pollution from burning oil in cars has a negligible impact on health it is if anything minor or even close to nil. Certainly smoking and alcohol and poor diet or just being overweight and perhaps even temperature of the local area has a much bigger impact. Hence why the Scots die before Londoners even though Londoners are much more exposed to car pollution

The act of driving is probably more harmful to health (accidents) than the pollution from the tailpipe

But there are still reason to hope BEVs replace oil cars. Lower maintenance and less money exported to OPEC (even if powered by fossil fuels paying 3 cents for NAT gas rather than 15 cents for oil is better for the UK) and likely in the future more competition as batteries and electric motors become commodity items so more companies can manufacture EVs

Hexane

zeupater wrote: »

... that's effectively a summary of the set of rules that need to be adhered to

Actually the rules are at https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs/ ... that page contains some useful advice relating to the current issues we see on this forum, even if some of it is slightly self-contradictory.

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

Pollution from burning oil in cars has a negligible impact on health it is if anything minor or even close to nil.

The World Health Organization thinks otherwise https://www.who.int/air-pollution/news-and-events/how-air-pollution-is-destroying-our-health

"The health effects of air pollution are serious – one third of deaths from stroke, lung cancer and heart disease are due to air pollution. This is having an equivalent effect to that of smoking tobacco, and much higher than, say, the effects of eating too much salt." First sentence of that article links it specifically to vehicles, one of their shortlists of suggested solutions is to limit the use of cars on highly polluted days.

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I've absolutely no issue with any relevant point being made, but hijacking threads with the same totally irrelevant ramblings for month after month isn't what we should be willing to accept ... it's also the case that when the laws of physics, materials science as well as engineering & accounting practices are intentionally, or unintentionally, misrepresented then it's common practice in any environment for errors or malicious content to be challenged ....

... "of course you don't need a seatbelt dear, engineers say that if you just sit on this £482.05 upturned red bucket and drink this nice cool liquid nitrogen then all will be fine as we'll only be doing 70! - ready?, well off we go then, hold on!" .... any issues here that someone would in anyway be expected to disagree with? .... well, that's effectively the case in question, some may see the issues in someone suggesting that where others may understand the issues in suggesting investing heavily in solutions such as a national superheated heat-main grid & vast quantities of additional nuclear generation capacity in preference to other forms of heat provision ...

If anyone believes the proposed solution from a previous pro-nuclear member who later claimed to be anti-nuclear on a cost basis whilst still arguing for nuclear solutions is actually possible, fine, park the idea & wait for it to happen or contact your local MP & raise it's profile, I'm sure that within the current cerebral standard of intake there's plenty of them that would take it up in parliament to ensure it happens ... ... maybe not the most likely outcome though! ... :whistle:

Physics is physics, engineering is engineering, materials are materials, distance is distance, solutions are solutions, costs are costs and that's effectively a summary of the set of rules that need to be adhered to ... you simply can't pick & choose what you like and what to ignore as they're all interrelated ... pull the string attached to one variable & it has a direct impact on the others, it's just a case of establishing where the balance lies! ...

HTH
Z

Sure the science is science the engineering is engineering and the economics is economics but how do you claim monopoly on these things (for imaginary infrastructure projects no less) when you've already made a !!! of yourself by trying to cost water pipes based in train tunnel costs?

Not that I think qualifications matter all that much but I have a degree in physics from a world top university, I've worked as a process engineer in heavy industry and I've started multiple business. Now what exactly have you done in your life that makes you the arbiter of truth justic engineering and science ???

GreatApe

Hexane wrote: »

The World Health Organization thinks otherwise https://www.who.int/air-pollution/news-and-events/how-air-pollution-is-destroying-our-health

"The health effects of air pollution are serious – one third of deaths from stroke, lung cancer and heart disease are due to air pollution. This is having an equivalent effect to that of smoking tobacco, and much higher than, say, the effects of eating too much salt." First sentence of that article links it specifically to vehicles, one of their shortlists of suggested solutions is to limit the use of cars on highly polluted days.

I don't believe it

There is too much propaganda and lies or even simply fake nonsense in these studies

For instance I recall reading that a lot of the heath costs were based on valuing a life at $10 million which is of course ridiculous. The justification was because some Americans are willing to spend on life extension goods and services suns which when scaled up to their benefit was something like $10 million worth

Plus it just doesn't pass the instinct test
What do you think would impact your heath more if you lived in ritual Scotland with pure clean air.
Moving to London or starting a habit of smoking 40 a day?


If you can find me a controlled study where they get three large groups and expose one group to London pollution one group as smokers but clean air and one group as clean air non smokers and see the results I'd look at it. But we roughly have this in the form of Londoners Vs the Welsh or Scottish and clearly air pollution is not a dominant factor as we can see the Scots die sooner and have more heath problems dispute nice clean crisp (relatively speaking) air

zeupater

Hexane wrote: »

Actually the rules are at https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs/ ... that page contains some useful advice relating to the current issues we see on this forum, even if some of it is slightly self-contradictory.

Hi

Agree ... but if we're considering that, which applies?

... Most users are helpful but there are always a few bad apples
... our aim is to ensure legitimate information about saving money or fighting for consumer rights stays
... any issues that take up a disproportionate amount of resources or make it a worse place to be will be stopped at our discretion

I'm pretty sure that intentionally posting and continually repeating a disproportionate level of disinformation relating to energy provision & RE wouldn't be considered as being particularly helpful and that doing so on a near continual basis would be classified as making the forum 'a worse place' and therefore appropriately sanctioned ...

As someone has recently highlighted, this isn't anywhere near the first time this has happened by the same person under various guises, it's been going on for years ... even on this very thread there's been little/no input on reported or newsworthy green & ethical issues, it's all just unsupported ramblings based around harebrained ideas in order to divert discussion for those that have a real interest .... that's why some have used the ignore list option, but that doesn't stop the flow of disinformation to others or prevent visibility of related conversations ...

If there was an article in a newspaper in the last few weeks regarding rapid expansion of the nuclear generation fleet and that waste heat was to be piped to run a national CHP scheme, and it was all costed then it would be a relevant point for a discussion that we could all participate in, but in current form it's purely a case of trolling those interested in renewable energy, probably for no other reason than a spoiling effect ....

HTH
Z

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Agree ... but which applies?

... Most users are helpful but there are always a few bad apples

... our aim is to ensure legitimate information about saving money or fighting for consumer rights stays

... any issues that take up a disproportionate amount of resources or make it a worse place to be will be stopped at our discretion

I'm pretty sure that intentionally posting and continually repeating a disproportionate level of disinformation relating to energy provision & RE wouldn't be considered as being particularly helpful and that doing so on a near continual basis would be classified as making the forum 'a worse place' and therefore appropriately sanctioned ...

As someone has recently highlighted, this isn't anywhere near the first time this has happened by the same person under various guises, it's been going on for years ... even on this very thread there's been little/no input on reported or newsworthy green & ethical issues, it's all just unsupported ramblings based around harebrained ideas in order to divert discussion for those that have a real interest ....

If there was an article in a newspaper in the last few weeks regarding rapid expansion of the nuclear generation fleet and that waste heat was to be piped to run a national CHP scheme, and it was all costed then it would be a relevant point for a discussion that we could all participate in, but in current form it's purely a case of trolling those interested in renewable energy, probably for no other reason than a spoiling effect ....

HTH
Z

Who died and made you arbiter of truth justice science engineering and economics?

And why do you feel I am particularly bound by sticking strictly on topic when you can clearly find every poster on these boards including yourself does not do that religiously

Especially with you dedicating So much time and space to why I'm clearly wrong at everything because I don't blindly bid yes to all green is great and will work retoric. Again what makes you the arbiter of wholesomeness unworthy of challenge?