The advantages of using fossil fuels

GreatApe

mmmmikey wrote: »

Today's great pearl of wisdom - this one made me laugh out loud

Great Ape - not sure if you've ever ventured north of Watford, but for your information Yorkshire is in fact inhabited. I'm lead to understand that it's quite an advanced civilisation, with many of the inhabitants able to read and write and sharing the same environmental concerns as Londoners.......

They like coal and coal power stations up north

They kicked up an all mighty fuss when that lady who grew up in a flat above a shop decided maybe cut down on the coal mining

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

They like coal and coal power stations up north

They kicked up an all mighty fuss when that lady who grew up in a flat above a shop decided maybe cut down on the coal mining

Tis true.....people up here are dying breathing all this clean air! Some have even had to be placed into hydrocarbon tents to recuperate. The sooner we get Ferrybridge back onto coal & off that new fangled cat litter the better.

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

There are 4 suggestions in there to improve the life of Londoners. I’m not sure why you feel investment and subsidies should be aimed solely at Londoners. Many of us who live in the sticks already have to put up with a higher cost of heating as a result of not having access to the gas network.

Couldn't you use sticks for heating?

Just get two sticks and rub them together keep doing that until you get tired

The workout will heat you up

Then use a sterling engine to convert that heat into electricity to charge your mobile phone

Use your mobile phone to order a pizza

When the delivery driver comes you keep him busy while the kids siphon some of his petrol

Use the petrol to set fire to your house

With the insurance money buy a plane ticket to southern Spain

Problem solved


You have all those sticks just lying around and you couldn't think of this solution?

Are you from Yorkshire?

:beer:

JKenH

GreatApe wrote: »

Are you from Yorkshire?

:beer:

No, that’s why it says Lincolnshire in my signature. 😀

mmmmikey

GreatApe wrote: »

They like coal and coal power stations up north

They kicked up an all mighty fuss when that lady who grew up in a flat above a shop decided maybe cut down on the coal mining

Good answer


Let's just hope nobody from Yorkshire read your posts - they can get a tad sensitive about God's own county.....

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Our house isn’t on fire yet but we can see the fire coming so if our neighbours aren’t going to help stop it reaching us then we need to take action to minimise the fire when it does get here.

If we only account for 1%of current GHG production how can we stop AGW on our own? I am not saying we shouldn’t do our bit particularly as you point out RE will save us money but we may as well be prepared.

As an example let’s roll out more ASHPs (aircon units) so people (the elderly in particular) can keep cool in a heatwave. This could save ‘000s of lives. (This could be linked to solar panel installations thus reducing CO2 emissions as well when they are used for heating.) Old people’s homes and hospitals would be an obvious place to target.

Our house is on fire, there is no planet B.

False claim that neighbours won't help, they are.

If we account for 1% and remove 1%, then we have done our bit, as we should.

We are not on our own, everyone else is part of this, that's a false argument (spin).

Be prepared for what? The far worse impacts and costs as a direct result of doing less - false economics, put the fire out, don't rebuild the house.

Yep, let's rollout more PV and ASHP's. More RE generation, more FF displacement, cleaner and more efficient heating, and protection against current heatwaves ...... emphasis on the already 'current' heatwaves, which will only get worse if we do less, just like I've been suggesting we do.


So, as I said, the argument is just words, no meat on the bones at all.

So, do you want to try again, how much of the RE deployment budget would you pinch, and of the EV infrastructure and subsidy (and BiK) would you take?

How much more would we then have to spend on dealing with the far greater impacts of AGW thanks to your policies if everyone fell for this scam around the World? What if that pushed us into runaway GW?

The less we do today, the more, in total, we will have to do tomorrow, and like a runaway train it will only get worse. Plus, this argument is dangerously similar to so many others designed to create doubt, division, diversions and most importantly delay. And delay helps the FF companies, just like promoting CCS, clean coal, fuel cell vehicles, SMR's etc, these can all be argued for at the time, but the real reason behind them was to maintain the status quo (and revenues) for a bit longer.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Our house is on fire, there is no planet B.

Sorry, Mart, you are wrong about our house already being on fire. That is pure hyperbole. If temperatures suddenly stabilised at current levels everything would be ok. There is no intention to reduce temperatures below present levels. The fire is on its way but it is not here yet.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

False claim that neighbours won't help, they are.

If we account for 1% and remove 1%, then we have done our bit, as we should.

We are not on our own, everyone else is part of this, that's a false argument (spin).

You rail all the time about the US policy of Trump denying AGW -are you saying he is now on side?

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Be prepared for what? The far worse impacts and costs as a direct result of doing less - false economics, put the fire out, don't rebuild the house.

Yep, let's rollout more PV and ASHP's. More RE generation, more FF displacement, cleaner and more efficient heating, and protection against current heatwaves ...... emphasis on the already 'current' heatwaves, which will only get worse if we do less, just like I've been suggesting we do.


So, as I said, the argument is just words, no meat on the bones at all.

So, do you want to try again, how much of the RE deployment budget would you pinch, and of the EV infrastructure and subsidy (and BiK) would you take?

How much more would we then have to spend on dealing with the far greater impacts of AGW thanks to your policies if everyone fell for this scam around the World? What if that pushed us into runaway GW?

The less we do today, the more, in total, we will have to do tomorrow, and like a runaway train it will only get worse. Plus, this argument is dangerously similar to so many others designed to create doubt, division, diversions and most importantly delay. And delay helps the FF companies, just like promoting CCS, clean coal, fuel cell vehicles, SMR's etc, these can all be argued for at the time, but the real reason behind them was to maintain the status quo (and revenues) for a bit longer.

You are obviously more confident that the big emitters like the US will fall in line and do their bit. My premise and I think that of Nick’s was that they might not do this hence the need for mitigation. (An article I posted today from the Telegraph suggests it may now be too late to prevent the dire consequences of AGW). Where this money comes from is a political matter. Either we pay more taxes (which actually depresses the economy and reduces the amount available) or we find the money from elsewhere.

You asked me to put some meat on the bones of the mitigation point and explain what we should do. I gave you an example of getting more PV powered cooling into hospitals and old people’s homes. I am not aware that you had proposed anything like this but then you include in your manifesto
‘and protection against current heatwaves ....emphasis on the already 'current' heatwaves, which will only get worse if we do less, just like I've been suggesting we do.’
I suggest that maybe we need to provide aircon for the vulnerable who are most at risk from the heatwaves we are getting and which will only get worse and suddenly you claim protection against current heatwaves has been part of your spending plan all along.

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

Sorry, Mart, you are wrong about our house already being on fire. That is pure hyperbole. If temperatures suddenly stabilised at current levels everything would be ok. There is no intention to reduce temperatures below present levels. The fire is on its way but it is not here yet.

You rail all the time about the US policy of Trump denying AGW -are you saying he is now on side?

You are obviously more confident that the big emitters like the US will fall in line and do their bit. My premise and I think that of Nick’s was that they might not do this hence the need for mitigation. (An article I posted today from the Telegraph suggests it may now be too late to prevent the dire consequences of AGW). Where this money comes from is a political matter. Either we pay more taxes (which actually depresses the economy and reduces the amount available) or we find the money from elsewhere.

You asked me to put some meat on the bones of the mitigation point and explain what we should do. I gave you an example of getting more PV powered cooling into hospitals and old people’s homes. I am not aware that you had proposed anything like this but then you include in your manifesto
‘and protection against current heatwaves ....emphasis on the already 'current' heatwaves, which will only get worse if we do less, just like I've been suggesting we do.’
I suggest that maybe we need to provide aircon for the vulnerable who are most at risk from the heatwaves we are getting and which will only get worse and suddenly you claim protection against current heatwaves has been part of your spending plan all along.

The change in temperatures is going to be very minor there is no need to fit air conditioning units but if people want to do that then they are free to do so

If temperature goes up 1-2 centigrade then Scotland will be like Yorkshire
Yorkshire will be like Birmingham
Birmingham will be like london
London will be Bournemouth
Bournemouth will be like Calais
None of them will be like the Sahara

If anything I'd say the UK would see a small net benefit in that our climate is probably a tad colder than most people would prefer. Europe as a while would see a bet benefit with the northern countries better off and the very south like southern Spain worse off. These better or worse are small movements

GreatApe

I've said this before

If humans were at this population and development at the last ice age, ice age mart would be telling us how a 5 centigrade warming would be the apocalypse how life itself would be in Danger how humans could not cope in this +5 centigrade world that if we did not act and with urgency everything would collapse we don't have a planet B we must maintain the ice age

But of course life is fine the planet is fine humans are fine

A warming of 1-2 centigrade over decades/centuries is very very unlikely to be a notable net negative.
It will be a small negligible negative OR positive. Some locations and species positive. Others negatively. Overall negligible

JKenH

GreatApe wrote: »

The change in temperatures is going to be very minor there is no need to fit air conditioning units but if people want to do that then they are free to do so

If temperature goes up 1-2 centigrade then Scotland will be like Yorkshire
Yorkshire will be like Birmingham
Birmingham will be like london
London will be Bournemouth
Bournemouth will be like Calais
None of them will be like the Sahara

If anything I'd say the UK would see a small net benefit in that our climate is probably a tad colder than most people would prefer. Europe as a while would see a bet benefit with the northern countries better off and the very south like southern Spain worse off. These better or worse are small movements

Whilst a 1-2 C rise in average temperature may have no obvious impact on how we go about our day to day lives in the UK (working, sleeping, eating and recreation) it will affect other parts of the world and that may impact us indirectly and there will be a rise in sea level which will directly impact on the UK. It may also affect our ecosystems. The predictions are though there will be more extreme weather events hence more heatwaves.