Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Not energy, I admit, but a crossover issue perhaps, especially if CO2 is removed from the air making it carbon neutral.

So a company that makes food called [STRIKE]Soylent Green[/STRIKE] sorry Soleine:

NASA's idea for making food from thin air just became a reality — it could feed billions

It's not like you can make food out of thin air. Well…it turns out you can. A company from Finland, Solar Foods, is planning to bring to market a new protein powder, Solein, made out of CO₂, water and electricity. It's a high-protein, flour-like ingredient that contains 50 percent protein content, 5–10 percent fat, and 20–25 percent carbs. It reportedly looks and tastes like wheat flour, and could become an ingredient in a wide variety of food products after its initial launch in 2021.

It's likely to first appear on grocery shelves in protein shakes and yogurt. It could be an exciting development: Solein's manufacturing process is carbon neutral and the potential for scalability seems unlimited — we've got too much CO₂, if anything. Why not get rid of some greenhouse gas with a side of fries?

ed110220

JKenH wrote: »

An extract from the CleanTechnica article:

“In a letter sent to the new Energy Minister, who was appointed to the role in late-July by incoming Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a coalition of onshore wind developers, trade bodies, investors, and supply chain companies have urged Kwarteng to reinvigorate new onshore wind development and remove barriers to entry.”

So no vested interests here then?

Lazy and logically fallacious attempt to imply there is something objectionable about onshore wind power without evidence. If you're against onshore wind you'd do better to try to argue logically for why you find it objectionable rather than using cheap rhetorical questions.

Of course no other industries promote themselves, in particular the fossil fuel industries would never do anything so vulgar as to lobby governments or even make donations to political parties or politicians

JKenH

Niklas Hagelberg, a Senior Programme Officer at UN Environment recently warned that offsetting was not a ‘get-out-of-jail free card’ to be used by ‘polluters as a free pass for inaction.’

“Buying carbon credits in exchange for a clean conscience while you carry on flying, buying diesel cars and powering your homes with fossil fuels is being challenged by people concerned about climate change.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/08/20/carbon-offsetting-may-increase-pollution-experts-warn-rich-cant/

JKenH

ed110220 wrote: »

Of course no other industries promote themselves, in particular the fossil fuel industries would never do anything so vulgar as to lobby governments or even make donations to political parties or politicians

Of course they do. That’s how big business works. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s evil isn’t it?

JKenH

ed110220 wrote: »

Lazy and logically fallacious attempt to imply there is something objectionable about onshore wind power without evidence. If you're against onshore wind you'd do better to try to argue logically for why you find it objectionable rather than using cheap rhetorical questions.

They’re fine if you live in a city and don’t live near one. There is an argument they look absolutely spectacular in the distance on top of a hill on barren moorland. Once you get closer to them the aesthetics wear off and the sheer size of them dominates the local landscape. So like everything there are arguments for and against. In the right place, maybe, but not everywhere.

There are practical problems living near them some of which are referred to in an onshore wind farm FAQ document issued by DEAA (I think this was in 2012) excerpts below. There is also much anecdotal evidence of health problems reported by those living close to them

Q9 – Do wind farms affect house prices?
It is entirely understandable that homeowners in the vicinity of a planned wind farm will feel concerned that the value of their property might be affected by the presence of a wind farm, although we have yet to see any compelling evidence that this is indeed the case.
A report published in March 2007 by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and Oxford Brookes University found a limited linear relationship between the proximity of wind farms and house prices. It looked at transactions of residential property near wind farms at two locations in Cornwall, and found that while terraced and semi detached houses within a mile of one of the wind farms were of lower value than similar houses at a distance of four miles, other factors influenced the devaluation: the houses were ex-Ministry of Defence properties and less desirable.
More information is available on a Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors: frequently asked questions
Q10 – Aren’t wind farms a nuisance to public health, what with the noise and flicker they produce?
The Government takes these issues seriously. Both noise and shadow flicker impacts are considered within the planning process before any decision is taken whether or not to grant consent to construct a renewable energy project.
Wind turbines make noise, but not as much as some may think. The noise level of a wind farm at a distance of 350m (1150ft) is comparable to the sound of leaves rustling in a general breeze(approx 35-45 dB). A car travelling at 40mph at a distance of 100m (330ft) creates around 55dB.

A recent report on noise carried out by Hayes McKenzie for DECC concluded that good practice guidance is required to clarify and add to the existing planning guidance on wind turbine noise. The Institute of Acoustics[External link] has set up a working group and is taking forward work to develop such guidance.
Shadow flicker is the effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades periodically cast shadows through openings such as windows in neighbouring buildings. There are a range of factors which can impact on the extent and frequency of shadow flicker, including the location of the building relative to the turbine, the weather conditions, especially wind direction and position of the sun, topography and turbine height and blade rotor diameter.
An independent study published by DECC in May 2011 on shadow flicker, Update of UK shadow flicker evidence base, concluded that there have not been extensive issues with shadow flicker in the UK and in the few cases where problems have arisen they have been resolved effectively.



Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48356/5197-onshore-wind-faqs.pdf

pile-o-stone

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Wind-And-Solar-Gaining-Edge-Over-Natural-Gas.html#

"A new U.S. Dept. of Energy study shows that the cost of generating more power through wind turbines is cheaper now than buying fuel at an expected price from an equivalent natural gas plant.

That means wind will become even more competitive in capturing more power capacity in coming years with natural gas expected to lose share. Solar power is on the same playing field as wind, and is also expected to see real growth.

The report shows that wind hardware prices are dropping, even as new turbine designs are increasing power generated by each turbine that typical in its usage."

ed110220

JKenH wrote: »

Of course they do. That’s how big business works. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s evil isn’t it?

Whoosh- the sound of logic or the wind turbine blade going over your head

You were implying that onshore wind power is objectionable because it promoted itself. That's clearly fallacious. Mass fossil fuel use isn't objectionable because the industries promote themselves, but because of the objective harm it does.

JKenH

ed110220 wrote: »

You were implying that onshore wind power is objectionable because it promoted itself. That's clearly fallacious. Mass fossil fuel use isn't objectionable because the industries promote themselves, but because of the objective harm it does.

No, in my first response to your post I was just making the point, after lots of digs on here about vested interests, that RE industries also lobby governments to act in their interests.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I know you appreciate my third post, but please don't think I spent a 'frantic 45 minutes' on this issue. In fact all I did was un-ignore GA having seen the thread title (and now aware of Ken's campaign on here).

I then clicked on the link, and up popped the title page and "REF".

I then posted my first response, in which I believe I 'nailed it' 100%. There was no need for me to go further, GA had supplied absolute proof:

1 - GA had posted it.
2 - It was from the REF
3 - It was from 2012 and we've never heard anything like that.

Conclusion, absolute garbage, posted to knock RE,

So you saw the title page and there was no need to go further.

“1 - GA had posted it.
2 - It was from the REF
3 - It was from 2012 and we've never heard anything like that.

Conclusion, absolute garbage, posted to knock RE”

Slam dunk! No point in actually reading the article or the accompanying post.

I have made this point before but I don’t apologise for making it again. (No one actually posted rebutting my position first time round so maybe you missed it). This thread is suffering from Groupthink. If you don’t believe that to be the case please read points 2 and 3 below then ask yourself again.

Groupthink Syndrome
Irving L. Janis
Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes
•
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an
unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members
to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.”
•
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative
explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the
group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward
alternative views.
•
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including
–
“a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”;
–
“direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s
stereotypes”;
–
“the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse
information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality
of their decisions.”

ABrass

Groupthink is always possible, then again it's possible to be paranoid and have enemies. Having said all that, this thread was just sneaking back on topic again, 7 year old studies don't count as news.

Edit: To respond to JKenH below because i'm not going to waste everyone's time and bandwidth making the situation worse.

That was indeed the study you, and Mart, and no doubt others, were discussing here on the news thread. That is not news. If you want to comment on that then take it to the right thread. Seriously this is getting to the point where complaining to the moderators is in order. Get a grip the lot of [STRIKE]you[/STRIKE] us.