Green, ethical, energy issues in the news
Options
Comments
-
I think you're underestimating our planet !
Long before the first hominids walked the Earth, there was a time when CO2 levels were far far higher than current levels or even projections and none of that had arisen from burning fossil fuels. Over aeons - and without any help from us - the Earth managed to reach a new equilibrium by absorbing CO2 into the oceans and to a lesser extent by plants converting CO2 to O2 and complex carbohydrates, some of which made their way into our fossil fuels.
We have certainly extracted a lot of fossil fuels over the last few centuries and released their embedded Carbon back into the atmosphere. However, we know there's a lot of fossil fuels still remaining (so still storing Carbon) as they're deemed uneconomic to exploit and the balance of probability is that there's even more fossil fuels still undiscovered. Likely therefore that we've actually burnt only a very small proportion of fossil fuels.
Don't overlook the contribution to CO2 levels by volcanoes. One eruption event outputs far more CO2 in a few days than Mankind generates in a year.
My own personal view is that, for the sake of our descendants, we shouldn't use up all the fossil fuels in case they're needed later but it seems unlikely that our use of them has actually made a significant impact upon the rise in CO2 levels.
'Global Warming' is a completely foreseeable result of the 'recent' Ice Age drawing to a close. Looking a little further ahead, we should expect the next Ice Age to start in another hundred centuries or so.
You do realise, Eric, that the Arctic ice cap will melt overnight from the steam given off by Mart reading your post.Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »the nuclear generation you are relying on, simply won't exist - not an opinion, but a known fact.
On one hand there is Marty who glued some Chinese panels on his roof and now reckons he is master and arbiter of anything energy related
On the other hand there is the institute of mechanical engineers who says that nuclear plant lives can be extended which has already been done, and can be done again
However the operating lives of nuclear reactors can usually be extended with additional investment in reactor maintenance upgrades.
I've also read reports about the USA fleet which basically said they can go on indefinitely which makes sense because most the cost is the building structures which will obviously be able to last a very very long time.Why do all your posts deny reality? Why do you seem so totally unaware of all the real facts and figures?
Your facts and figures are just your options dressed as facts and figures or they are from biased sources. Like your 'fact' that shale is a Ponzi or your 'fact' that nuke lives can't be extended.No need to answer, a politer response would simply be to take your misinformation and AGW denial somewhere else.
The brain of a confirmation biased addict
0 -
Actually, all this happened during a time when the increase in CO2 wasn't significant in terms of climate or ocean acidity.
It's history Mart ... you can't change it ... we're currently contributing 1% & that figure is reducing every year.
Go ahead & indulge yourself in a guilt trip if that's what makes you feel better, but don't expect me to join you anytime soon.
Right, I've got it, when you said this:£1T is a lot of money when you consider the UK is responsible for about 1% of global carbon emissions.....that's about 1.4ppm out of a total concentration of about 400ppm (260ppm are naturally occurring).
You really meant that according to your calculations, 80% of the UK's cumulative emissions have been absorbed into the oceans*, and that's fine?
So to be clear then, you aren't denying that the UK has contributed 5% of the additional CO2 to the environment, you are just saying it's OK if we dumped it in the oceans?
Not exactly a moral argument to suggest we ignore (or deny) old emissions is it?
* Be interested to see your calculations.
BTW just because it's history, doesn't mean you can deny it, nor ignore it.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
I think you're underestimating our planet !
Long before the first hominids walked the Earth, there was a time when CO2 levels were far far higher than current levels or even projections and none of that had arisen from burning fossil fuels. Over aeons - and without any help from us - the Earth managed to reach a new equilibrium by absorbing CO2 into the oceans and to a lesser extent by plants converting CO2 to O2 and complex carbohydrates, some of which made their way into our fossil fuels.
We have certainly extracted a lot of fossil fuels over the last few centuries and released their embedded Carbon back into the atmosphere. However, we know there's a lot of fossil fuels still remaining (so still storing Carbon) as they're deemed uneconomic to exploit and the balance of probability is that there's even more fossil fuels still undiscovered. Likely therefore that we've actually burnt only a very small proportion of fossil fuels.
Don't overlook the contribution to CO2 levels by volcanoes. One eruption event outputs far more CO2 in a few days than Mankind generates in a year.
My own personal view is that, for the sake of our descendants, we shouldn't use up all the fossil fuels in case they're needed later but it seems unlikely that our use of them has actually made a significant impact upon the rise in CO2 levels.
'Global Warming' is a completely foreseeable result of the 'recent' Ice Age drawing to a close. Looking a little further ahead, we should expect the next Ice Age to start in another hundred centuries or so.
Life is very adaptable
Human life even more so
There is no thing as extinction as the lay person might understand it
DNA lives on and transforms into different species
Plenty die out plenty come into existence
Even huge instant climate change is neither good nor bad
The comet that killed the dinosaurs was an almost instant massive climate change
It killed off the big dinosaurs and gave rise to birds and space for mammals
Was the unimaginable destruction fire and instant death from the comet impact good or bad
Well it was neither. The question doesn't even make sense. It was bad for those animals and plants that died but individual animals and plants die all the time nothing is immortal. It was good for the animals and plants that could then come into existence from the vacated space
With this in mind global warming is so trivial
It's almost certainly a zero event
If the comet that literally set fire to half the planet in an instant was a zero net good/bad event then global warming is negligible
If you change the equation to human wellbeing rather than life
It's still trivial because humans are hugely adaptable and our knowledge and productivity improves exponentially.
This doesn't mean do nothing
As I keep saying technology will improve the the point we surpass fossil fuels
At some near future point everything will be 'free' and we will have the ability to control whole solar systems let alone a few molecules of carbon dioxide0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »Right, I've got it, when you said this:
You really meant that according to your calculations, 80% of the UK's cumulative emissions have been absorbed into the oceans*, and that's fine?
So to be clear then, you aren't denying that the UK has contributed 5% of the additional CO2 to the environment, you are just saying it's OK if we dumped it in the oceans?
Not exactly a moral argument to suggest we ignore (or deny) old emissions is it?
* Be interested to see your calculations.
What does it matter
The net damage of these emmissions is about 1 peppercorn per ton
There are real issues
Like war rape famine disease pestilence economic non development
Instead ignore all the actual human problems and suffering and pretend you are a hero for superglueing some Chinese panels onto your roof, well done you0 -
I think you're underestimating our planet !
Long before the first hominids walked the Earth, there was a time when CO2 levels were far far higher than current levels or even projections and none of that had arisen from burning fossil fuels. Over aeons - and without any help from us - the Earth managed to reach a new equilibrium by absorbing CO2 into the oceans and to a lesser extent by plants converting CO2 to O2 and complex carbohydrates, some of which made their way into our fossil fuels.
We have certainly extracted a lot of fossil fuels over the last few centuries and released their embedded Carbon back into the atmosphere. However, we know there's a lot of fossil fuels still remaining (so still storing Carbon) as they're deemed uneconomic to exploit and the balance of probability is that there's even more fossil fuels still undiscovered. Likely therefore that we've actually burnt only a very small proportion of fossil fuels.
Don't overlook the contribution to CO2 levels by volcanoes. One eruption event outputs far more CO2 in a few days than Mankind generates in a year.
My own personal view is that, for the sake of our descendants, we shouldn't use up all the fossil fuels in case they're needed later but it seems unlikely that our use of them has actually made a significant impact upon the rise in CO2 levels.
'Global Warming' is a completely foreseeable result of the 'recent' Ice Age drawing to a close. Looking a little further ahead, we should expect the next Ice Age to start in another hundred centuries or so.
I don't understand your post? It's not about how much of the FF's we release (in % terms), but just how much is released and how fast and we've released to much CO2 from FF's, far too fast, and that is causing global warming, as it's humans that have done this (volcanoes, sun spots etc are not really an issue) the problem is AGW.
The planet can no longer 'make' FF's as the conditions no longer exist (the planet isn't marshy enough, material isn't buried fast enough, and wood/bio eating bacteria now exist).
So the additional carbon humans release from FF's, is above and beyond what the planet can cope with, and thus a newer and higher equilibrium temperature is being reached, and at a rate far beyond anything ever seen before.
Regarding the last ice-age, that's a weird point, the planet should currently be in a cooling phase, so the 'fun' answer to the question "How much of GW are humans responsible for?" is "More than all of it."Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
On one hand there is Marty who glued some Chinese panels on his roof and now reckons he is master and arbiter of anything energy related
On the other hand there is the institute of mechanical engineers who says that nuclear plant lives can be extended which has already been done, and can be done again
However the operating lives of nuclear reactors can usually be extended with additional investment in reactor maintenance upgrades.
I've also read reports about the USA fleet which basically said they can go on indefinitely which makes sense because most the cost is the building structures which will obviously be able to last a very very long time.
Your facts and figures are just your options dressed as facts and figures or they are from biased sources. Like your 'fact' that shale is a Ponzi or your 'fact' that nuke lives can't be extended.
The brain of a confirmation biased addict
Nuclear reactors can not go on for ever. There very use causes structural damage, and once this is assessed as too great they have to shutdown.
Also, as pointed out, to extend life times, they require enormous additional expense*, and also have to be run at lower levels, so you don't get more generation, just generation spread out longer.
*In the US, reactors are being shutdown early, as the cost of maintaining them, even for their original lifespans is too expensive v's RE.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
What does it matter
The net damage of these emmissions is about 1 peppercorn per ton
There are real issues
Like war rape famine disease pestilence economic non development
Instead ignore all the actual human problems and suffering and pretend you are a hero for superglueing some Chinese panels onto your roof, well done you
Nope the damage is enormous, hence the need to act.
And pretending that the UK is only responsible for 1% of the problem (instead of 5%), to justify us not acting, is just silly. Especially when even at 1% (current UK annual contribution) we would have a responsibility given we have 1% of the population, and that's before we consider the moral issue that we should help, as much as possible, regardless.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »I don't understand your post? It's not about how much of the FF's we release, but just how much is released and how fast and we've released to much CO2 from FF's, far too fast, and that is causing global warming, as it's humans that have done this (volcanoes, sun spots etc are not really an issue) the problem is AGW.
The planet can no longer 'make' FF's as the conditions no longer exist (the planet isn't marshy enough, material isn't buried fast enough, and wood/bio eating bacteria now exist).
So the additional carbon humans release from FF's, is above and beyond what the planet can cope with, and thus a newer and higher equilibrium temperature is being reached, and at a rate far beyond anything ever seen before.
Regarding the last ice-age, that's a weird point, the planet should currently be in a cooling phase, so the 'fun' answer to the question "How much of GW are humans responsible for?" is "More than all of it."
Why do you believe so strongly that global warming is a big net negative
Let's pretend humans were at current developments and science and population but during the last ice age
Would marty of ice age times have also cried let's stop all this fossil fuel useage because if the world warms from 11 centigrade to 15 centigrade it will be the end of life and if we don't glue Chinese panels onto roofs the four horseman will be upon us?
Well the world did warm about 4 centigrade and ice age Marty would have been wrong as the world is fine today very habitable and more humans than ever
And guess what, Marty of today is also wrong
If the world warms by 2 centigrade everything will be just fine
Humans will be fine and life will be fine0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »Nope the damage is enormous, hence the need to act.
And pretending that the UK is only responsible for 1% of the problem (instead of 5%), to justify us not acting, is just silly. Especially when even at 1% (current UK annual contribution) we would have a responsibility given we have 1% of the population, and that's before we consider the moral issue that we should help, as much as possible, regardless.
The damage to what is enormous?
Life...no life laughs at your climate change life survives truely massive instant climate change like the comet that set fire to life and earth and ended the dinosaurs but gave space and existence to countless other species (including humans!)
Humans...no humans have the ability to move around the planet and our economic scientific and technological progress is exponential
So what is global warming an enormous damage to?
The only thing that comes to mind is your ability to claim some moral high ground0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards