Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Exiled_Tyke

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All

... although both wings of politics tend to claim ownership of the 'truth' (as in "whatever the opposition say, the 'truth' is", which invariably means that whatever follows is dubious!), the position occupied by the majority of the general public includes elements of what would be classified by purists as both left & right wing thinking .... my left side tends to lean to the left whilst the right side leans to the right & like the vast majority of well balanced individuals, it's the mass & connectivity occupied by the centre that stops everything splitting apart & falling off in opposite directions ....

... probably time to reconsider & leave politics well to one side .... there are plenty of threads elsewhere on the forum where schizophrenics of politics can be discussed at length without resorting to doing so on the G&E board ... neither the left or the right 'own' ethics, renewables or environmental issues, although many activists consider they have a moral right to do so as a form of spin & disinformation for political point scoring! ...

I know a number of individuals that would classify themselves as generally having left or right wing 'thinking', but there's always a good appreciation that on this particular subject it's not a case of day & night, black & white, or even various shades of grey ... think of it as being yin & yang where the majority of those that lean to the left have some right wing tendencies, with the opposite also being the case for those that would lean to the right ...

... it's not a case of right & left, it's one of right & wrong!

HTH
Z

At the time of the referendum I got quite annoyed that there were a few people expressing political views on these boards. As you say this isn't the place. I'm extremely involved politically but that's another side to my life which I try not to bring in here.

To those debunking the nonsense from the climate change deniers - thank you. Theses things need to be said.
But to those climate change deniers on here who are determined to have a debate - this isn't the purpose of this. It's about sharing news of recent Green or ethical energy issues.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

FF methane is at best a short term option as we move from coal and oil.

I think what you should be saying is FF methane is the best short term option, if we want to keep the lights on. It’s all very well being an idealist continuing to knock gas for electricity and heating, and oil for transport but you need it as much as me or GA - you just can’t bring yourself to admit that.

JKenH

Tesla's stock jumps after report of investment interest by German automakers

https://apple.news/AeSoubEIOSf66vTrHr1Egtw

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

But to those climate change deniers on here who are determined to have a debate - this isn't the purpose of this. It's about sharing news of recent Green or ethical energy issues.

But who is it who is continually posting the posturing of political parties and making political comment alongside it - like below?

Another crucial US election is on its way. I feel the biggest lost opportunity was when Gore lost to Bush in 2000 (despite winning the popular vote, as did Hilary Clinton), so we saw an expansion of FF's rather than a reduction.

But 2020 is pitting Trump (assuming he isn't successfully priamaried for the GOP nomination) against multiple Democratic hopefuls putting forward grand plans to start tackling US emissions.

If only the US Republican hard-right would play nice like every other sizeable and respected democratic political party in the World, and stop denying AGW science whilst pocketing vast amounts of campaign monies from the FF industry.

Sanders to unveil $16tn climate plan, far more aggressive than rivals' proposals



Bernie Sanders is a candidate hoping to be nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate undertaking political posturing. What does that add to our understanding of Green, ethical energy issues? It is just an excuse for Mart to have a dig at Trump and the FF industry.

You may be in danger of falling into the trap of believing all the rubbish Mart posts about my anti RE stance. I am in practice as much, if not more, into RE than Mart (and I have a much broader view of being green involving the environment as a whole not just RE.)

This is not an anti FF/AGW campaign site, it is supposed to be a forum to discuss Green, ethical, energy issues or as Mart says, RE. As this is a forum I am of the view that there should be meaningful discussion about these issues not merely a continued promulgation of Mart’s anti FF agenda.

As an example from today; Mart posted an article where an FF company had apparently made an “outrageous claim that renewable energy somehow increases air pollution”. I looked into it and found a paper confirming that intermittently switching on and off gas generation to balance the grid causes more emissions during the start up period than when running it constantly. I hadn’t previously been aware of that but as it seemed to provide some balance to the claim which Mart had reported I posted the report on the thread. Discussing that isn’t in anyway anti RE and isn’t pro FF. It is just stating that intermittent use of gas to balance the grid can cause higher levels of emissions over a short period of time. (I would presume that total emissions will however be lower using a mix of RE and intermittent gas than running gas continuously so it certainly didn’t make me think we shouldn’t have a combination of RE and back up gas generation.)

(Z apparently spotted things that suggested the report I attached may be wrong but he hasn’t expanded on that so we won’t know until he enlightens us.)

A lot of us are on here to learn and understand, not just to be preached at that every FF company is the devil incarnate and RE has to be implemented, right now, at any cost. As I have tonight mentioned in another post we don’t have the capacity to manage totally without FF at the moment so we need to use it as best we can and I (and I hope others) want to understand both the pros and cons of that.

I am a pragmatist where Mart is an idealist and that is a dichotomy it is impossible to resolve in the context of emissions.

Political parties in opposition may preach idealism but in government they unfortunately have to be more pragmatic. (Of absolutely no relevance to AGW, but as an example of pragmatism triumphing over idealism, in 2010 Liberal Democrats supported trebling the cap on tuition fees to £9,000 after over a decade of the party campaigning to abolish them altogether.)

So what really is the point of posting the posturing of aspiring presidential candidates or indeed any other political aspirant on here if it is not to pursue some political agenda?

JKenH

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/yield-hit-for-john-laing-wind-farm-in-ireland-as-wind-strength-weakens-945684.html

Second edit - It would appear falling wind speeds in the northern hemisphere were predicted by climate change models - see link below.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/global-warming-will-weaken-wind-power-study-predicts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I think what you should be saying is FF methane is the best short term option, if we want to keep the lights on. It’s all very well being an idealist continuing to knock gas for electricity and heating, and oil for transport but you need it as much as me or GA - you just can’t bring yourself to admit that.

Actually I, and I think others have already stated that FF's are essential to our daily lives and to us having gotten here. The problem you seem to have is in not understanding that we need to move away from them.

So you can support GA's suggestion for a 100% FF gas future if you like, but it's not a viable medium to long term solution as it is too high in CO2 emissions.

Today its role is crucial in filling in the gaps as we expand RE, and the gas capacity will most likely be essential in the future to do the same, but running on bio-gas.

Perhaps if you stopped making up attacks about me, and instead read what I write, we wouldn't have theses silly games, and if you applied that theory to my past posts, perhaps you wouldn't have even started your little campaign in the first place.

FF gas has to go, there is no other option, that is not my opinion, it is a fact, we should continue to work steadily to reduce and eliminate its use, not support 'Plan B's' from an anti-RE campaigner on here spreading FUD.

And yet again, I note that you squeezed in some FF apologist rhetoric.



What is interesting to see is that we now have three posters repeating the same anti-RE and anti-AGW spin argument about RE costs.

Multiple postings about bankrupting the UK, or the costs are too high, or people can't afford it etc etc.. The simple truth is that we have to act, even if a small number of deniers have loud voices, RE is cheaper than FF when externalities are included, RE employs more people.

So the growing repetition of this denial argument is not only 'non-green' it's also 'un-ethical', so such posts do not belong on this thread and board.

I'm sure there's a moon-landing denier thread or site, that would welcome such nonsense.

Martyn1981

Good news for bio-gas and larger scale storage:

Hydrogen’s Plunging Price Boosts Role as Climate Solution

“Once the industry scales up, renewable hydrogen could be produced from wind or solar power for the same price as natural gas in most of Europe and Asia,” Kobad Bhavnagri, BNEF’s head of special projects, said in the report on Wednesday. “These production costs would make green gas affordable and puts the prospects for a truly clean economy in sight.”

If produced on a large scale, hydrogen could feed into a range of applications, fueling long-haul transport and steel-making and the manufacture of cement. Each of those industries requires the sort of energy hydrogen packs, delivering temperatures hot enough to melt metal and stone.

pile-o-stone

https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/climate-change-could-bring-stronger-winds-more-wind-power.html

"A new study by the British Antarctic Survey, the University of Oxford and the University of Bristol looked at what effect a warmer world would have on winds, specifically across the UK and Northern Europe where wind power is already becoming a major source of energy. In a world that is on average 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer, winds would be stronger and as a result, wind power would make up a significantly larger chunk of the electricity produced in that part of the world.

Using data from 282 onshore wind turbines over a span of 11 years paired with climate model data for that 1.5 degree increase in global temperature, the researchers found that in the UK alone there could be a 10 percent increase in wind energy generation. That's equivalent to meeting the energy demands of an additional 700,000 homes based on the current wind power capacity. The UK is quickly increases wind power installations, so that number would likely be even higher in the future."

Martyn1981

Timely articles.

The first covers the economic benefits of dealing with AGW, v's the losses of not:

Paris Agreement Key To Future Health Of Global Economies

A new study by researchers from the University of Cambridge has concluded that 7% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will disappear by 2100 as a result of business-as-usual carbon emissions, reinforcing the need for countries around the world to fully commit to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.

And the second looks at the on-going campaigns against the US EV industry, by the usual suspects ... <<< cough, cough, koch, cough >>>

The Koch Brothers Have A Mandate To Destroy The EV Revolution — Are You Buying In?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually I, and I think others have already stated that FF's are essential to our daily lives and to us having gotten here. The problem you seem to have is in not understanding that we need to move away from them.

So you can support GA's suggestion for a 100% FF gas future if you like, but it's not a viable medium to long term solution as it is too high in CO2 emissions.

Today its role is crucial in filling in the gaps as we expand RE, and the gas capacity will most likely be essential in the future to do the same, but running on bio-gas.

Perhaps if you stopped making up attacks about me, and instead read what I write, we wouldn't have theses silly games, and if you applied that theory to my past posts, perhaps you wouldn't have even started your little campaign in the first place.

FF gas has to go, there is no other option, that is not my opinion, it is a fact, we should continue to work steadily to reduce and eliminate its use, not support 'Plan B's' from an anti-RE campaigner on here spreading FUD.

And yet again, I note that you squeezed in some FF apologist rhetoric.



What is interesting to see is that we now have three posters repeating the same anti-RE and anti-AGW spin argument about RE costs.

Multiple postings about bankrupting the UK, or the costs are too high, or people can't afford it etc etc.. The simple truth is that we have to act, even if a small number of deniers have loud voices, RE is cheaper than FF when externalities are included, RE employs more people.

So the growing repetition of this denial argument is not only 'non-green' it's also 'un-ethical', so such posts do not belong on this thread and board.

I'm sure there's a moon-landing denier thread or site, that would welcome such nonsense.

You don't get to appoint yourself arbiter of what is and isn't ethical

Likewise your idea that we have to stop using fossil fuels at almost any cost or its hell on earth is just a personal value you hold that others don't share

On top of this, more or less all your ideas assume we will not have general AI this century while most scientists and even your hero musk thinks it is a certainty and close. Why worry about fossil fuels when we will either be exterminated or become gods in the not too distant future?

The far left of the climate movement, the watermelons try to paint it as global warming deniers Vs science. There is a middle ground that you accept human activity causes a changing climate and world (even without !!!!!! the fact that humans have changed land use so much eg the UK would be almost all woodland but it isn't because of us) but that this isn't necessarily a big negative. Human activity is neither a positive or a negative we are of this world everything we do is natural. Fossil fuel useage will be at most a small net negative almost trivial

In the near future we will have the technology to do anything and everything
We don't need to burden ourselves at this point

It would be like trying to calculate pi to a million points back in 1960 it would have cost a huge amount of time and money, effort which would be better spent elsewhere. By 1990 thirty years later calculating pi to a billion places was easy. The same will be true of more or less everything pre and post AI. What seems like an impossible task today will be trivial in 30 years time

You will have your solar wind world but it won't be because of watermelon policies it will be because the AI gifts it to us