Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Lots of news today.

Australia is starting to think increased worldwide coal demand might be wrong, but the IEA said it* ......! :rotfl:

Australian thermal coal exporters warned of falling demand from India

And in the US Moody's has just downgraded the coal industry to negative.

*Always good for a laugh, here's a comparison of the IEA's straight line deployment predictions for PV v's reality:

Annual PV additions, historic data vs IEA WEO predictions

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

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

Looks like this is the new play from 'the team', ignore what's posted and just keep repeating FUD about the cost of RE.

Not green (spreading scare mongering anti-RE info), not ethical (lying about what I say and believe).

GreatApe wrote: »

The threat to humanity is being surpassed by AGI not global claimitchange

"claimitchange" Could be a Freudian slip, but looks like full blown AGW denial now.


Update -

Apparently not a Freudian slip, but full blown AGW denial. At least that's confirmed. Plus a bit of FF apologist lingo for free too.

GreatApe wrote: »

What I don't agree with it the far fetched notion that these human activities (fossil fuel useage, land useage, water useage etc) are huge net negatives just like I don't believe the far fetched claims on heath harm from coal useage. I'm still waiting for my part of the £6 billion NHS savings from not burning coal anymore, maybe my cheque was delayed in the post?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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

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?

How can anyone predict the future that far out

The future is unknown many scientists believe we will see the AGI the singularity within our lifetimes.

I agree with those scientists
The threat to humanity is being surpassed by AGI not global claimitchange

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not green (spreading scare mongering anti-RE info), not ethical (lying about what I say and believe).

You are too narrow minded

Fossil fuel useage will go down at some point because there will be better technologies. We are not there yet by the fact that global FF useage continues to grow.

But we are very likely to get to these new technologies before 2050 imo

Either some humans will come up with a very cheap way to build wind farms and PV panels and storage and grid infrastructure.......or AI will arrive and solve all of those problems

Either way it's not you and your protesting on a forum with only half a dozen members which will change anything.

This is your hobby a man needs a hobby so go out get a part time job and use the income to find your hobby further. spending hours and hours a day discussing your hobby and how evil those who don't 100% agree with you 100% of the time isn't so productive while getting a part time job to buy more solar panels or use electricity to heat your home is more productive

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

"claimitchange" Could be a Freudian slip, but looks like full blown AGW denial now.

I believe in global warming and I believe humanity has and will continue to change the face of this planet, literally

The UK would be mostly woodlands if it wasn't for us so have we changed the UK, it's wildlife, it's vegitation, it's micro climate, the parts that do and do not flood and a hundred other things. YES we have but I don't see it as evil or wrong we are of this world we are part of it what we do is natural. What's more we are finally (planet wise) becoming rich enough to care so in time we will become the custodians of this planet and all its living things. We will save this planet from an expanding sun and other real life ending events like asteroids and volcanoes

What I don't agree with it the far fetched notion that these human activities (fossil fuel useage, land useage, water useage etc) are huge net negatives just like I don't believe the far fetched claims on heath harm from coal useage. I'm still waiting for my part of the £6 billion NHS savings from not burning coal anymore, maybe my cheque was delayed in the post?

Coastalwatch

More good news on the renewable front as UK powers to a new grid carbon density of just 39gCO2/kWh!


https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/uk-powers-to-new-grid-carbon-intensity-low-of-just-32g-co2-kwh

JKenH

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 are talking about the medium and long term. My statement about gas specifically referred to the short term

You just make things up as you go along for dramatic effect.

You say I support GA’s suggestion for a 100% gas future. Do I? I don’t even have gas at my house. I buy my electricity from Bulb which is 100% renewable so I would then have no power - except of course from my solar panels.

Where are all these anti RE posts of mine?

You say FF gas has to go, there is no other option, that is not my opinion, it is a fact,.

This is why I have an issue with your “facts”. (You are continually saying I don’t like facts). You confuse facts and opinions. That fossil fuels must go is a well supported fact based logical opinion which very few people disagree with, based on the problems of the world today (CO2 levels), their cause and the technology available to us to deal with the problem. It is not an opinion I disagree with but it isn’t actually a fact. My saying it is an opinion doesn’t devalue the facts on which the opinion is based or the conclusion reached. It is your opinion, it is a valid opinion but it just isn’t a fact.

Thank you for introducing the moon landing denial thread - I am sure that would add considerably to the discussion. While on that point, though, I do note that you do like conspiracy theories as they feature regularly in your posts.

pile-o-stone

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coal-power-plants-oil-fossil-fuel-healthy-babies-air-pollution-california-berkeley-a8363971.html

"Shutting down coal and oil power plants has been linked with a drop in premature births by a new study.

The closure of eight power plants in California prompted researchers to examine the impact this had on births in the surrounding community.

They found the year following the shutdown of each plant saw a decline in the rate of premature births in the local area – an effect that was particularly pronounced in African American and Asian women.

“We were excited to do a good news story in environmental health,” Casey said. “Most people look at air pollution and adverse health outcomes, but this is the flip side: We said, let’s look at what happens when we have this external shock that removes air pollution from a community and see if we can see any improvements in health.”"

I assume that when we close down coal and oil power stations we see immediate health benefits in babies and children (another study showed improved fertility among humans). Other health benefits will take longer to show through. After all, coal miners don't get black lung from working one day in a mine - it takes years for their health to visibly decline so it makes sense that it will take years for people living around decommissioned power stations to visibly improve.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

You are talking about the medium and long term. My statement about gas specifically referred to the short term

You just make things up as you go along for dramatic effect.

But your response was to my post and you quoted it too:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

FF methane is at best a short term option as we move from coal and oil. It is far, far, far too high in CO2 to be considered as a medium to long term solution.

Plus of course coal is all but gone, and oil consumption can and will be cut dramatically with BEV's. So it seems we have already passed the point in time when that option had any future viability.

It seems you just want to argue.

JKenH wrote: »

It is not an opinion I disagree with but it isn’t actually a fact. My saying it is an opinion doesn’t devalue the facts on which the opinion is based or the conclusion reached. It is your opinion, it is a valid opinion but it just isn’t a fact.

Nope, it's a fact. The CO2 intensity of FF methane is too high for us to meet the Paris Accord targets, so it has to go too.

JKenH wrote: »

Thank you for introducing the moon landing denial thread - I am sure that would add considerably to the discussion. While on that point, though, I do note that you do like conspiracy theories as they feature regularly in your posts.

I take it this is yet another version of your FF apology/denial argument. I'm sorry but the actions of the FF industries over the last 40yrs+ is well deocumented and reported - denial is a waste of time, and denial on a Green & Ethical thread/board seems extremely inappropriate.

JKenH wrote: »

Where are all these anti RE posts of mine?

That's GA - why do you constantly get confused between him and you?

GreatApe

To add I didn't say the UK should transition to a gas only infrastructure

I said if the UK was purely gas powered and with BEVs that this would be quite a very low FF future primarily because it is maxing thermal efficiency

Plus the net zero stuff is s recent thing before it was -80% of 1990 figures which is a more realistic aim until the AI arrives