BS: Food for thought on climate change

Subject: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 04:17 AM

http://www.vice.com/read/a-psychologist-explains-why-people-dont-really-give-a-shit-about-climate-change-608?utm_source=vicefbus

I found it interesting. Both pessimistic and optimistic in turn. I did particularly like the like "Of the four largest companies in the world, only one is an oil company. The other three are Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Why should these companies let ExxonMobil ruin the growth of their consumer markets, as global warming will?"

Never thought of Google as a world saver :-)

Enjoy...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 04:52 AM

Hmmm
We had better give a "thought for food".
Global Warming (whatever the cause) will mean different plants growing in unfamiliar eco-systems. And a global reduction in total plant production (according to the New Scientist), smaller yields, from plants better suited to hot/arid conditions. Someone has done the agricultural predictions based on temperatures, desertification, and water shortages. Not to mention population growth. Almost all of who expect "science" will find a way. Yea. Sure!

The upshot has to be, as third worlds wake up to their being "exploited", that food will become more expensive. And maybe the waste we see in developed countries subsides and becomes anti-social as drugs and smoking has. People still smoke, so waste will never go away but....

The current figures tell us that we spend 11% of our income (as a UK nation) on food. Compare that to 50/60 years ago when the figure was 24% and we had a lot of grow-yer-own philosophy then, compared to now.
We are borrowing from somewhere, third world or the future.
I mean, strawberries the whole year round, coming in by plane! That is borrowing from the climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 05:16 AM

That certainly is a big factor Mr. R. I first thought of it when I lived in Belgium many years ago and noticed, of all things, that the yoghurt in the supermarkets was all from the UK while the ones in the UK were all from France :-( If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say the transport companies had a hand in that!

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 05:55 AM

Morrisons were selling alien courgettes when I was so overwhelmed by my own in my garden that the compost heap was the main beneficiary. I can buy a pound of tasteless New Zealand apples in Cornwall that have been chemical-sprayed twenty times, cold-stored for weeks or months and air-freighted half way round the world - for a quid. It costs me twice as much to send a birthday card to my nephew in the opposite direction!

I've completely changed my mind about the only way to save the planet. Nuclear energy (there, that's nearly all my friends gone...). We have shown that we can't reduce emissions and you can bugger off with your wind turbines all over Cornwall whose main purpose is to line the pockets of big landowners who already have too much money and to keep the air-conditioning running in badly-designed buildings in big cities.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 06:04 AM

I'll have a word with the boss, Steve. Our new CEO is called Dave, last name starts with Po and he is from Manchester so I have a lot in common with him. Sure he will listen to me :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 06:44 AM

It was a few years ago, Dave. Maybe Morrisons have upped their game. If I need to buy courgettes these days (very rare though I do have a very nice frittata recipe) I buy them from Waitrose, which is pronounced Waytrowse... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Rumncoke
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 07:41 AM

We ought to be using more cannabis - no not the smoking kind, the sort Du Pont got outlawed in the USA. Hemp, Cannabis sativa.

It is a really useful plant for so many things - plus it doesn't need a lot of looking after or spraying and the water consumption is way lower than for growing cotton.

It used to be used for clothing, sails, food, paper, a huge list. It is beneficial to the ecology, and would be good for the economy - but maybe not for those in the oil business.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 02:19 PM

Hemp is at hand!

Every little helps as our competitor says :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 03:23 PM

"We ought to be using more cannabis - no not the smoking kind, the sort Du Pont got outlawed in the USA. Hemp, Cannabis sativa."

Both indica and sativa can be smoked to produce a 'high'.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 05:09 PM

Most of the plant is not productive of THC. It is a very useful plant.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 06:40 PM

It is reckoned that 10% (or maybe as much as 20%) of all world electricity is consumed in computers. Server Farms run by IBM, Farcebook, Amazon and, yes, Google are by far the biggest users. So much so that Farcebook are (have?) built their latest in Scandinavia because it is cooler there and they can sell the heat they have to extract more readily. A Dutch university installs domestic radiators in private houses that are actually power hungry PC's linked as part of a distributed network that sums to a humungus computing system. And they are specially vented to atmosphere in summer!

Google have a vested interest in looking like the good guys, they hide a guilty secret. And we all use them. Well I don't, I use Yahoo, as if that exonerates me!

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 07:48 PM

"Most of the plant is not productive of THC. It is a very useful plant."

The part that isn't useful for fiber, edible seeds, oil (which makes an excellent lubricant) produces THC. That part is called leaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 10:29 PM

Wrong. The flower is where the THC is concentrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 11:15 PM

It's all about the buds, bud.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 12:11 AM

Bud me no buds, younker! :D

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 04:26 AM

Not much use if it goes to pot!

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 06:30 AM

Online bud:


BC Bud 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 07:09 AM

Gentlemen, of course the bud is where the greater concentration of THC is, but the leaves are good too. Never having smoked the demon weed--unlike many miscreants who frequent this site--I am at the mercy of scholarly articles such as the one attached.

http://www.leafscience.com/2014/06/19/indica-vs-sativa-understanding-differences/

Beautiful colours I might add.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 09:21 AM

The part that is a controlled substance in the UK is "the flowering or fruiting tops".

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 09:48 AM

And, then, there is clothing.

hemp-more than rope 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 10:13 AM

From CULPEPER'S COMPLETE HERBAL [1814]
        
HEMP

This is so well known to every good housewife in the country, that I shall not need to write any description of it.

Time. It is sown in the very end of March, or beginning of April, and is ripe in August or September.

Government and virtues. It is a plant of Saturn, and good for something else, you see, than to make halters only. The seed of Hemp consumes wind, and by too much use thereof disperses it so much that it dries up the natural seed for procreation; yet, being boiled in milk and taken, helps such as have a hot dry cough. The Dutch make an emulsion out of the seed, and give it with good success to those that have the jaundice, especially in the beginning of the disease, if there be no ague accompanying it, for it opens obstructions of the gall, and causes digestion of choler. The emulsion or decoction of the seed stays lasks and continual fluxes, eases the cholic, and allays the troublesome humours in the bowels, and stays bleeding at the mouth, nose, or other places, some of the leaves, being fried with the blood of them that bleed, and so given them to eat. It is held very good to kill the worms in men or beasts; and the juice dropped into the ears kills worms in them; and draws forth earwigs, or other living creatures gotten into them. The decoction of the root allays inflammations of the head, or any other parts: the herb itself, or the distilled water thereof doth the like. The decoction of the root eases the pains of the gout, the hard humours of knots in the joints, the pains and shrinking of the sinews, and the pains of the hips. The fresh juice mixed with a little oil and butter, is good for any place that hath been burnt with fire, being thereto applied.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 06:03 AM

Hemp used for sacking is from plants bred to have no useful THC.

One thing not widely talked about with cannabis is day 7. All that mellowness it is supposed to inculcate, is traded for aggression building to a peak on day 7 after.

Like Guest # I never. But I do read the New Scientist weekly and occasionally there are reports of reasearch such as it is, it is difficult to get funding for research on the subject. No surprise. But the article was based on reportage from imbibers and close associates thereof.

A Folkie friend told me it was day 5 and 12, but then admitted that by day 5 her husband was so difficult to live with she got some more on day 5. Day 5 to day 12 is 7 days!
I have seen a colleague get difficult to converse with 8 days after his proud Sunday smoke.
Then there is the potential for paranoia. And the drug tests on drivers in the UK (and some company employees) to consider.

Know the risks. And don't drive yer car near me - PAL.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Rumncoke
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 07:19 AM

Just as the version of hemp sold as - I think - skunk, has a higher concentration of some part of the usual or possible content, the sort grown for paper or long fibres has a far lower level.

Also, grown in places with lower temperatures, the plant still grows quite happily to be several metres tall, but it not likely to produce the highs associated with more tropic climates.

The powers that be seem perfectly willing to allow alcohol to be consumed, and that has far fewer benefits than hemp, and causes distress and injury which seems socially acceptable.

Ecologies and economies could be transformed by having such a useful resource as hemp grown in bulk and freely available.

By the way - when the permafrost really starts to melt, if there's nothing to hold it together there's going to be problems as the land slumps into the sea - and hemp fibre resists waterlogging.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 03:53 AM

We all select the facts that support our proclivities. Proof above. As if there aren't plants that last more than 1 year that will hold soil!

Alcohol is a toxin. And much to the surprise of the ignorant is medically called a depressant.

I have never become intoxicated by the exhaled fumes of a drunkard. But I am willing to bet the passive smoking of cannabis is inebriating.

And it is widely known that you can be intoxicated to the point of being over the limit for driving even 12 hours later. The aggression from imbibing cannabis 7 days before is not out there in the consciousness of the public, let alone the pot-heads. The law makers are aware, thankfully.

I value road safety. That is my proclivity.
All those not in favour of road safety, kindly drive somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 04:31 AM

But I am willing to bet the passive smoking of cannabis is inebriating.

I was made aware of this as the designated driver coming back from a concert where there was plenty being smoked. About halfway back I realised that, even though I had no alcohol at all, I should not have bern driving!

But what it has to do with climate change is beyond me so

if
Anyone would care to add anything about that is to do with the subject
then
please feel free.
else
Start your own thread
fi

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Rumncoke
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 06:34 PM

What do we make paper out of - even if a small amount of it does get recycled - trees.

Stop cutting down trees - they absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide and they put out oxygen and also water vapour which falls as rain.

That is a good thing.

Man made fibre is a petroleum derivative. Hemp fibre is made by a plant which absorbs carbon dioxide, which is a good thing.

You can make really good paper out of it, and lots of other stuff too, and you can grow it in far more places that you can get oil out of, including you own garden.   

Hemp plants do not need pesticides, another petroleum derivative, the water requirements are modest, and most of it ends up in the air, and falls as rain. It also put out oxygen all day long.

Having breathable air and clean water is a good thing. Having tons of carbon dioxide locked up in plants is a good thing.

As has been said several times - hemp does not equal smokeable dope. The type used for making British bank notes, for instance doesn't have the chemical in it to give a high. I repeat this for the slow of understanding.

A huge industry dedicated to extracting gas and oil, (and spoiling so much water as it does so), and selling it's products for vast amounts of money to be used in oh so many ways - could that ever be a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 03:49 AM

But what it has to do with climate change is beyond me so


the connection is (apart from thread drift) is that people choose their own pet route to climate re-habilitation by championing their pet hobby.
Carefully ignoring that other constituents can be utilised in precicely the same methodology. And smoking dope has another side effect - blinkers.

The only way the world will truly wake up to the problem is when it hits our pockets. In cashless societies starvation is the motivator.

The ultimate problem with global warming, may very well turn out to be water resources. Think Middle East or Darfur, they tell you it is religious or ethnic but how much water do they have? Why is Isreal still occupying the Golan heights? And drilling them to send water eastwards?
Population growth only exacerbates this. Why does London & SE England want more water from 100 miles away? Because they are wedded to the wages there - and don't see that the area can't support the numbers properly. Make 'em pay the correct price and reality will bite.
I was told 15 years ago that LA tap water was more expensive than petrol. Even if that was an exageration, but the resident didn't deny it. And what is the Californian "crisis talk" of this year?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 05:37 AM

From further up the thread: "Almost all of who expect "science" will find a way. Yea. Sure!"

Yes, I hear this all the time. Whenever I try to discuss climate change or environmental degradation with certain friends of mine, they always tell me not to worry because scientists will sort it out. For a start, this is expressing blind faith in "science" - and science doesn't do faith!Second, scientists have been warning us for decades now that we're on a slippery slope.

An image always comes into my head of a man who is walking down the street and notices a school on fire (a fire caused by the ignorance and stupidity of the parents and teachers). The man shouts "fire!!" - but everyone ignores him. The blaze gets more intense and he again shouts "FIRE!!!" as loud as he can. This time, one of the parents turns round to him and says, "well, you spotted the fire, so it's your responsibility to put it out!"

Actually, it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to put the fire out!

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 06:41 AM

Rumncoke. Please can you explain the differences between planting trees to cut down and make paper and planting hemp to cut down and make paper ?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 07:30 AM

The guy on Fox News has his own, special take:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/greg-gutfeld-pope-francis_n_7616156.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Rumncoke
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 08:01 AM

Time, mostly, manpower and the cost to process.

You plant hemp and step back before the sprout hits you in the eye. You have a harvest the same year.

plant a tree and it needs to be looked after - moved from nursery to where it will be for the next 20 years or more. Time for pests to develop or governments change, it might burn, die from drought - they are a big investment. You could die before you get a return from growing trees.

Meanwhile the hemp comes up every year and it is a great tall stem - 3 or 4 metres, loads of raw materials for little investment of time and resources.

By the way, cotton is another poor choice as it requires pesticides, fertiliser and lots of water. Cotton growing causes inland seas to dry up in places closer to the equator than you can grow hemp.

To harvest hemp you tug it out of the ground, (wear gloves) tie it in bundles, put it over your shoulder and carry it to the cart. You don't need to do much to it to get the fibre, and the other parts of the plant are useful too. You can crush the seed, it makes great food for animals you might like to eat, it gives oil when you crush it - that is a good thing.
You can then grow things in the soil you just cleared. Hemp puts the soil in great condition and that is a good thing too.

It is easy to grow and use hemp - it would make a big difference if it wasn't illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 08:13 PM

In the UK hemp cultivation needs a government licence, and they make sure the stuff that's grown isn't much use for health and recreational purposes, but given that rather daft restriction, it's perfectly legal, and is officially encouraged.

You can buy hemp milk in supermarkets, for example.
......

Pope Francis's encyclical about ecology, and injustice is online here for free, all 180 pages - http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/269022079/Laudato-Si-English-Translation

Well worth reading attentively. Very easy to see why Fox variety Americans might feel hostile to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:14 AM

An interesting article on the impact of paper on forests, discussing alternatives, which also have other impacts:


http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/09/wheat-straw-paper-save-forests/

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:19 AM

Oops, article below

Paper 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:37 AM

"When a company proves itself committed to sustainability, customers are more loyal and more vocal in support of that company's actions. "

If it were so. The success of China's industries in the international marketplace and its poor envirinmental record would lead one to think otherwise.


collaborative conservation  

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:26 PM

Being incredibly cheap is the significant factor in achieving that. And that's got precious little to do with having a poor environmental reccord.

There's every reason to anticipate that China's environmental record could quite rapidly change for the better, with the cost of production staying low.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 09:18 PM

"Every reason"?

And just how exactly do you get to that broad assumption? Kindly share your information on this enlightening perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 09:42 PM

http://www.vanishingbees.com/

My mothers bees received 1st prize for their honey in NYS. The next spring after systemic goucho and poncho were applied in the area she was depressed that all her bees had died over the winter.

This documentary is the best hope w finally know what caused an is causing total bee collapse. France has shown us a cure.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 09:46 PM

China's industries in the international marketplace and its poor envirinmental record

Not to mention the U.S. of A's abysmal environmental record vis a vis fossil fuel use & etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:01 AM

Why do I make "that broad assumption"? Basically because the factors that stop America from responding rationally to climate change - powerful lobby's opposed to such a response, working on public opinion - don't have the same force in China.

We can hope so, anyway. And there's nothing much we can do about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 06:47 AM

OK, I understand hope-that's a bit different, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 04:55 AM

"The success of China's industries in the international marketplace and its poor envirinmental record would lead one to think otherwise."

China is in the process of developing renewables on a scale that dwarfs the western economies, and with good reason. Whilst western countries are held back by scientifically illiterate politicians and corporate self-interest China has ploughed investment into creating a huge industry based around renewable energy. What they are doing is making themselves world leaders in the design and manufacture of renewables, and their industries will reap the not inconsiderable benefits of free energy long before we've caught up.

The myopic, idealistic idiocy of western governments is typified by the UK, who have just stopped subsidies for onshore wind basically because some people don't like the look of the turbines. This sort of retrogressive policy (began by Gordon Brown when the let world leader of turbine design and manufacture, GKN on the Isle of Wight, go to the wall rather than bail them out for the short term) will consign us to the backwater of modern renewable technology.

This is, apparently, fine with the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 06:30 AM

Well, Stu, generally I agree with everything you say, but I disagree vehemently on this. I may be biased, but I live in a sparsely-populated county that probably contributes negligibly to global warming in the overall scheme of things. Yet the whole place is plastered with a rash of these ugly wind turbines, and for what? For farmers to sit on their arses getting £40000 per annum per turbine. For us all to feel better because we're using green energy, instead of less energy. So that badly-designed commercial buildings in our cities can keep their air-conditioning on all the time. They are ugly and they are inefficient. They do not work when the wind isn't blowing and they frequently have to be turned off for fear of overloading the grid at other times. It's the technology of my 1950s kiddies' bike dynamo. In a hundred years' time, if there's anyone still here (and if there is anyone left they'll be using nuclear power), they'll be looking back at old photos of these lumbering idiocies and laughing their heads off.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:00 AM

Steve: Farmers are subsidised on a fair number of things, not just wind turbines.

The fact the infrastructure is not up to snuff when it comes to coping with the amount of electricity generated on windy days is part of the problem of course, but I'm willing to bet that whilst the energy companies remain unregulated and the hydrocarbon lobby hold sway it will remain thus.

Turbines aren't ideal, but what is? As technology advances wind turbines will become obsolete (they already are as bladeless wind turbines are developed) burt we have to be in a position to develop that technology, which we're not.

The whole of the country is altered by the hand of man; to cite 'ugliness' as a reason not to develop green energy is pure nimbyism. The tories are about to start fracking as the oil companies prepare to plunder the arctic for deepwater oil; a disaster waiting to happen. Meanwhile, we rely on Gazprom and other crooks to give us our hydrocarbon fix which is unsustainable, polluting and killing us all slowly.

Wind power is part of the transition from old to new forms of power generation. It isn't easy, perhaps not pretty but the alternative is far, far worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:05 AM

Talking about bike dynamos my mate and I often come up with brilliant green energy ideas. For some reason this is often late on and in the pub. Can't think why...

Anyway.

Brilliant idea 1. A band all the way round the equator with stationary satellites connected to it via long arms with a wheel at the end. Perfect dynamo using the rotation of the earth :-)

Brilliant idea 2. Clockwork cars. Wind turbines along all motorways to which you can connect the cars to wind them up. Generate energy AND reduce car emissions at a stroke.

Can't think why no-one takes us up on them ;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:28 AM

They are ugly, Stu, but that is not my main focus. As for nimbyism, well I can't see any turbines from my house or its vicinity as it happens, and am unlikely ever to do so by dint of geographical good fortune. Cornwall is a beautiful place that is being despoiled because of the energy demands of big cities. Fifty years ago we opened windows in summer. Now we have vast air-conditioning systems that cost more to keep hermetically-sealed buildings cool in summer than it does to heat them in winter. But we can feel good about that profligate waste of energy because two hundred miles away thousands of Westcountry wind turbines are not only producing "green energy" (ha!) but are also making already-rich landowners, friends of the City, even richer. It's a scam of the highest order, Stu. I mean, why don't we just go totally wind and smother the Lake District, Snowdonia, the Highlands and Islands and the Mourne Mountains with turbines? Degrading all our finest landscapes is surely a small price to pay, and the corporate types won't have to worry because they won't see them from their office towers and they can rest easy because their energy-guzzling climate control systems will all be green!

Surely you can see the madness...?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:31 AM

Your ideas are no more mad than smothering the nation with turbines and solar panels, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:45 AM

Many of the most vociferous objectors to wind turbines are people who have retired to the country on pensions earned in the city. Back in the city they expected the light to come on when they flicked a switch.

There was a story going round about one rural community who were prepared to accept turbines changing the character of the area if it kept out the incomers - who were changing the character even more and doing most of the objecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:09 AM

That is just kneejerk stuff, Guest. You cannot assume that everyone who lives in the country has base motives. What you say is not representative of the people round here that I know. No-one is entitled to have the yah-boo-but-you-still-want-the-lights-to -come-on-don't-you parroted in their faces. Of course we all do, and we managed it for a hundred years before the first turbine ever went up, didn't we. You know as well as I do that it isn't people switching lights on who cause the energy crisis. Here's your issue: if you're ok driving down to Cornwall and seeing hundreds of turbines, are you ok with smothering the whole country with them? After all, with every hilltop and every headland in the country harbouring turbines, we'd never have to worry about energy supply ever again, would we? Yes or no? If no, then which bits do you want to keep beautiful for posterity? And do you really think that a landowner should be paid more per annum for a single turbine, taking up just a few square metres, than a nurse or a teacher? Address the real issues instead of apparently harbouring jealousy about rural dwellers (who have the lowest pay, the least secure employment, the highest council taxes, the poorest public transport, the lousiest affordable housing situation, the steepest fuel costs and the worst health provision in the country, by the way...)

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:16 AM

""Rising levels of air pollution have accompanied three decades of phenomenal economic growth in China. Coal-burning factories and vehicle emissions fouling the air in the country's major industrial and population centers have made deteriorating air quality a leading health concern that until relatively recently had been downplayed or dismissed by Chinese government authorities. Key announcements in the past year, however, have signaled a significant shift as the central government has begun to tackle the difficult question of how to reduce pollutants without slowing down economic growth.""




China's Off-the-Chart Air Pollution: Why It Matters 



""China's efforts to improve urban air quality are often viewed as a helper for fighting climate change, but a new joint China-U.S. study says otherwise.""


Air quality and carbon emissions 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:56 AM

we managed it for a hundred years before the first turbine ever went up, didn't we.

Until the last of those hundreds of years doing things like reading and studying after the days work was done was almost impossible for most people and homes were smoky places. As it is now in much of sub-saharan Africa - hence the push to get some sort of non smoky lighting into houses so that kids can study in the evening.

For the last couple of hundred years we have 'managed'- and produced all those products that give us our more comfortable and healthy lives - by burning vast quanitities of fossil fuel. Arguably countries like France that went nuclear in a big way decades ago have done less long-acting damage to the environment than similar sized countries that stayed with fossil-fuel. However, they have bequethed centuries of responsibility for the waste on their descendants. Several other countries have demonstrated that human beings can't be relied on not to get it wrong with nuclear power.

An old green lobby view about wind turbines was that the environmental cost is mainly that they 'spoil the view', which is all paid when they are operating and not passed on the the rest of the world and future generations.

One way for the cost to be born by the recipients of the benefit is to shift almost all taxation to being a payment for environmental cost and push up tax allowances for the lower paid so that they are not disavantaged. Having the view spoiled may encourage people to think about that more than invisible CO2 and radioactive animals will.

Community turbines may be one way forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 09:54 AM

"Which City Has The World's Worst Air Pollution? Hint, It's In China"



Air pollution map 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:29 AM

The scale of modern energy consumption is madness I agree Steve, but we have to change the way we generate energy regardless; the consequences of not doing this won't be felt by us but our kids and grandkids will suffer and we have a duty of care to avoid this.

I'm not advocating covering the whole country in turbines, but in windy areas why not?

Truth is, we're in big trouble anyway. Perhaps it might be better for us as a race to be wiped off the face of the earth (if something as simple as harnessing free energy sources is beyond us) and let the earth go on it's way without us. We're taken virtually all the major vertebrate taxa with us, the oceans are full of plastic but no-one gives a shite about those things either.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:59 AM

In response to the Pope's encyclical, Tea Party presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, a former senator and a professed Catholic, suggested that "The Pope should leave science to the scientists."

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:03 PM

Nuclear, Stu. Nuclear, Guest. As a species, we can't behave. Carbon emissions are rising out of control in spite of (excuse the play on words) all the hot air. There is no other answer and it's time we got on with it. Turbines and solar panels are no more than conscience-salvers. They merely make us waste energy with a spring in our step. By the way, Guest, the climate change legacy bequeathed to us by the Industrial Revolution is a function of the fact that we knew nothing about global warming and the greenhouse effect until it was far too late. Blackening lungs and buildings was irresponsible, but of the science of climate change there was no inkling. We'll have to let off our ancestors with that much at least. As for misuse of nuclear, yes the few accidents have been high drama, but they are as nothing compared to the devastation caused by pollution of the environment and damage to people's health resulting from fossil fuel burning, not to speak of the thousands of deaths and horrific disease suffered by coal miners. It doesn't take too many mining disasters to dwarf the total of the direct effects on people of nuclear accidents. Environmental effects are another argument, but, in spite of centuries of horrible air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, from that particular source we ain't seen nothing yet, have we? Makes nuclear power look like a fluffy bunny, frankly.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:22 PM

Your views are rational Steve but how do you address the political issues around things like this: Sellafield ?

Don't say we didn't know. We did. Blaming ancestors does not change the future and is largely the useless recourse of those with chips on their shoulders. Learning from their mistakes might.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:28 PM

Two wrongs don;t make a right and nuclear is not a long-term option. We're not even close to understanding the long-term effects of Fukushima yet and the spill hasn't been contained and is very vulnerable, and were Chernobyl to happen in Morecambe Bay for example, would we be prepared to abandon large areas of our country for centuries whilst the radioactivity died down?

Also, there's a huge nuclear reactor sending incredible amounts of free energy our way every single hour of the day, and yet we seem unable to tap that resource in any meaningful way.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 01:00 PM

They merely make us waste energy with a spring in our step.

We waste it because it is cheap and easy to access.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:08 PM

So when it's cheap, easy to access, and allegedly green, so that our consciences will be clear, we can waste even more. It's the wrong approach, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:09 PM

Some people clearly think wind turbines are ugly. I think they look great. I've never seen any evidence that my view isn't the majority one, and I strongly suspect it is.

Stick one in my back yard, or at least across tge road from me, and I'd be happy.

............

"The Pope should leave science to the scientists". Which is precisely what he has done in his encyclical, accept the overwhelming consensus of the world's scientists that we are creating a ecological catastrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:49 PM

> accept the overwhelming consensus of the world's scientists that we are creating a ecological catastrophe.

No no no no no. He means leave science to "scientists who reject the consensus for any reason, including incompetence and/or industrial subsidy."

Otherwise his comment would be ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:39 PM

Stick one in your back yard and you can retire and live in prosperity for life. Stick one across the road and your view will be wrecked, your sleep will be ruined (try standing underneath one and you'll see), and you'll find dead birds in your garden every morning. And you can satisfy yourself, in spite of all that, with the knowledge that your neighbour across the road will be able to retire and live in prosperity for life, and not give a damn about you.

In other words, come off it, Kevjn!

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:51 PM

Sorry, that sounded a bit Soviet. "Kevin" cuts it better! See you in the Guardian anyway. I'm going to get my next letter in before you... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 09:00 PM

If I could hear the wind turbine that would be great because it would mean the roar of traffic from the road would have eased enough to let me hear it. I don't imagine I'd be standing under it that often.

As for dead birds, I get that already from one of our cats.

There may indeed be some problems from the turbines, and it's sensible to think hard about where to put them, like anything else like houses or roads. But as for them being ugly, that just doesn't make sense to me, because I think they can look pretty good.

I like windmills too. I suppose if they were invented today there'd be howls of protest at how horrible they looked.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 03:26 AM

Getting back to nuclear. In the UK the long term waste storage problem has not been solved. Across the world storage underground in granite rocks is one of the safer options. Lots of granite in Scotland but they may not like that as they have lots of renewables and England uses vastly more electricity.

So where could it go in England ? The geological map shows lots of granite in Devon, but that is all National Parks. Next up seems to be Cornwall.

How do you feel about a nuclear waste storage site in your back yard Steve ?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 05:31 AM

Well, apart from the fact that the nearest granite to me is almost twenty miles away, do you think we can get away from this puerile people-who-live-in-the-countryside-must-be-nimbies nonsense? You'd almost think that I should be disqualified from having an opinion. I happen to have a view that renewables are not going to solve the global problem, that we can't get emissions down to save our lives (literally) and that nuclear is the only answer. I'd think that no matter where I lived.   Of course there are issues with nuclear safety but there are issues with fossil fuel consumption that, on the global scale, dwarf the nuclear problem. As for where you put the waste, well if I happen to support nuclear I have to support sensible solutions apropos of where the waste goes. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Did you hear that? Sensible, I said. If that means under my house, so be it. Naturally, "sensible" means that there would be no danger to my health and that my house wouldn't actually fall into a hole. Got it? As it happens, we already have a big radon problem in parts of Cornwall, much worse than that posed by any carefully-disposed of nuclear waste anywhere to date. If we want a sensible conversation about wind turbines, ugliness aside, let's take into account their inefficiency, the fact that they only work when the wind blows, that they sometimes have to be disconnected from the grid, that the vast amount of aluminium needed to construct them requires huge amounts of energy in its extraction (just about the worst in that regard of any metal in large-scale use) as well as the environmental devastation caused by the mining of the ore. Then there's those rich landowners getting even richer courtesy of ludicrous government subsidies (in other words, coming from my taxes). I don't want the local farmers turning into King Croesuses at my expense whilst wrecking one of the most beautiful places in Britain with useless windmills. That's not nimbyism, that's me having a quick rush of sanity. Not only is the renewables lunch not free then, it also gives me chronic indigestion.

And it's not OK to sanction the killing of even more birds just because your cat kills a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 06:39 AM

vast amount of aluminium

Could you clarify that ? Where ?

let's take into account their inefficiency

Could you clarify that ? Inefficient in what way ?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 07:22 AM

Wind power has already made nuclear outdated: This Huge Wind Turbine Floating on Water Is Fukushima's Energy Solution

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:11 AM

""Wind power  promises a clean and free source of electricity that would reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and the output of greenhouse gases and other pollution...A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not, in fact, live up to the claims made by its advocates.""



Is wind power's potential contribution over-rated? 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:20 AM

Genuine question with no agenda. I just do not know. Could nuclear waste be safely stored in closed down coal mines?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:30 AM

Coal mines were almost all kept dry by pumping during operation. On closure they fill up with water, often to very near the surface. For that and other reasons not suitable. Neither is the rock around Sellafield. HM Gov tried that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:34 AM

Ah - OK.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 09:46 AM

Inefficient? The maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from the kinetic energy of the wind hitting the blades is 59% (that's physics). The mechanical inefficiencies such as friction, and drag in the gear mechanism, etc., reduce this to less than 50%. In addition, coastal or offshore turbines are adversely affected by salt. A typical value for energy extraction per turbine is around 20% of that less-than-50%. That's because they will only work at maximum efficiency when there is a *steady* wind, turbulence-free, of around 30 mph, an ideal that is seldom if ever encountered. Add to that the fact that they can't be used at either very high or very low wind speeds, and that you can't tell a turbine to give you energy just when you need it, and you have a very clumsy form of energy generation that does nothing to stop power stations having to keep working at full capacity. As Guest's article says, wind energy is extra energy, not replacement energy. All info wiki-able. As for the aluminium, look up mining and extraction of ore. Incidentally, a typical turbine will require a reinforced concrete base that uses about 20 tons of steel and 250 tons of concrete. The blades, hub and generator assemblies weigh about 70 tons, mostly high-grade metal, and that's not counting the tower. I'll leave you to work out how long those blades have to spin for at "20% of 50%" to cover the environmental cost of all that lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 10:17 AM

Wind is free, Steve. Efficiency of conversion is irrelevant to your argument. The numbers you quote are engineering data relevant to the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of design changes.

You have not answered about the vast amount of aluminium . Did you check and discover that what you see is steel (tower) and fibreglass (blades and housing for the generator). As for high grade metal what do you think the turbines and generator in a nuclear power station are made of ? And in both cases don't you think it will be recycled ?

How does the concrete base compare with that for a transmission pylon or a nuclear power station ?

I hope you are glad that the new government is bringing forward the end of subsidies for onshore wind. Perhaps they need the nimbies in all those blue areas on the electoral map more than the rich farmers and city investors.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 11:04 AM

"How does the concrete base compare with that for a transmission pylon or a nuclear power station ?"

We need the pylons anyway. As for the concrete base, etc., do a little like-for-like. Compare the puny megawattage output of a turbine against the vast gigawattage of a nuclear power station. Then do a little multiplication.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 11:53 AM

We need the pylons (with aluminium cables) to move power from nuclear power stations miles from population centres (I wonder why they don't build them in cities...). How much of that electricity from turbines in Cornwall gets used out of the county ? How big are the pylons moving the power ?

No, you brought the concrete up - if you have a valid point you do the calculation.

It is possible to calculate the financial and CO2 cost of a wind turbine over its operational life. Every nut, bolt and ton of concrete. The you can think about doing it again for less by recycling the turbine and putting another one on the same concrete base.

You can't do that for nuclear because no-one knows what the final financial, energy and environmental cost of dealing with the waste material will be. How much of a nuclear power station can be recycled ? There still seems to be a lot of stuff on the sites of the shut-down first-generation ones.


Go on, admit you were wrong about the aluminium. Where did you get that from ? Can you rely on anything else from that source ?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 12:25 PM

You need at least 672 examples of Japan's current most powerful wind turbine to match the power output of Fukushima. More like 1400 when you factor in those inefficiencies and the unreliability of the wind. Even then you couldn't risk decommissioning a single power station because the wind doesn't always blow. Now that Japanese turbine is a floating one and it's far more powerful than most land-based turbines. Let's be charitable then and suggest two thousand large turbines per power station. So that's 40000 tons of steel and half a million tons of concrete. And lots of transport costs and other environmental implications, because you don't stick up 2000 turbines all in one place like you do with a power station. I admit to being out of date about the aluminium, to save you asking again (it's the kind of bloke I am). But a lot of what I'm saying, and more, is stuff the green energy scammers don't want you to know about. Wind energy is additional energy, not replacement energy; it makes us feel good about wasting energy instead of encouraging us to conserve; it's bloody expensive (we haven't mentioned that, have we?); it's clumsy and inefficient; its main advantage appears to be to make rich landowners even richer; it hasn't made us cut our carbon emissions, in. Fact they are still rising year in year; the turbines are ugly. Apart from all that, wind energy is just fab. Not!

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 12:28 PM

In fact. Dunno how that happened. My eyes are dim...

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 12:30 PM

"How much of that electricity from turbines in Cornwall gets used out of the county?"

I think you know it doesn't work that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 12:57 PM

Now that Japanese turbine is a floating one and it's far more powerful than most land-based turbines. It's less than three times the power of most recent onshore ones (see this
list for the UK). The frozen chips firm in Whittlsey has three that add up to more. People can drive past and make their own mind up about them. No drama.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 01:07 PM

it's bloody expensive (we haven't mentioned that, have we?)

No it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 01:14 PM

Cutting the onshore wind subsidy is perverse nimbyism.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 01:31 PM

Well it seems that every report you google tells a different story. Wind is cheapest when "health considerations" are included; every wind power job is subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of £10000 per annum; it depends what you include in the costings; etc. And when you say that the Japanese turbine is less than three times the power of the latest land turbines, in riposte to my statement that is far more powerful than most land-based turbines, you're not really disagreeing, are you? :-)

And poor Polly.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 01:40 PM

Nuclear waste isn't a problem that can go away, it's a problem that will be with us for ever, because the nuclerar waste we produce woll be with is for ever.

The bottom line really is the only long term solutuon for our energy needs is the huge nuclear fission plant up in the sky, the Sun. Whether we use its energy directly from sunlight or indirectly via wind, wave, hydroselectric biomass or even solar powered powerstations out in space is a secondary matter - the Sun where it all comes from.

There is an exception - tidal power, which reliant on our planets' relationship with the moon.

But apart from that everything else is fossil fuel, and by definition that has to be temporary, both because of limited supplies, but more important, because of the damage that does to our world and our future. And that applies to coal, gas, fracking and nuclear fission.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 02:17 PM

Older, but, still an interesting perspective:


France's nuclear energy 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 02:29 PM

you're not really disagreeing, are you? I think your calculations are too loose and 'far more powerful' is part of that. Transport costs from A to B compared with A to B1, B2...   ...B2000 depend on where the A and B's are. How do you compare the environmental cost of 2000 loads past your door with one load past your door and one past each of 1999 other peoples' doors ?

Unless you have hard evidence of a bias between different sorts of civil engineering work I suggest construction cost per GWh is as good an estimate of the relative environmental cost (of the construction) as any. Looking at that table of costs non is 'far more' than any other.

But do remember to add in decommisioning costs.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 02:43 PM

Alternative means of energy production, need an alternative means of energy distribution. Dump the grid & decentralise - either that or take a leaf out of China's book & go hydro big time.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 04:57 PM

I thought the new tidal generator I saw looked very promising. Instead of relying on wave power etc. it was, effectively, a big pipe in the sea that, when the tide rose, water rushed down and drove a turbine. Not sure of the efficiency and so on but someone on Countryfile was raving about it.

Not being a scientist I don't know the ins and outs but being an optimist it seemed quite heartening.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 05:03 PM

Tidal energy turbines remains a work in progress (save blocking off estuaries and disrupting fish habitat).

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 05:18 PM

I think the big difference with this one was that it did not block anything or affect marine life. But I cannot find anything about it so maybe I dreamt it. Anyone up for crowd funding if I have come up with a new idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 06:03 PM

So here's the thing about wind turbines. We've had them big time for a couple of decades. They are far from being a free lunch, as their construction requires massive amounts of energy and raw materials, and we seem to want to give millions of taxpayers' money to already-rich landowners in order to persuade them to give up a few square metres of land per turbine. During that couple of decades, in spite of tens of thousands of evermore powerful turbines springing up, we have not reduced carbon emissions (the very opposite, in fact), and we can't close down a single power station, as we never know when the wind won't blow. What we have from wind is extra energy, not replacement energy. You might like the look of turbines, you might not care if you have one in your back yard, you might not worry if your turbine kills as many birds as your pussycat. But what you do have to do is address their serious lack of success. So let's hear it. And let's make it a rational argument, eh? Not pie-in-the-sky green is good because it's green, ok?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 07:08 PM

Indeed Dave. There are plenty of stand alone tidal units in open water, worldwide, where tides are significant. Most I have seen are phototypes representing the evolving technologies to suit the different conditions -and attempts to get a good energy return. Someday, when the wrinkles are worked out, it will be a contributor to some degree. Considering the hurdles to be overcome (notably the initial costs), it seems to be a work in progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 07:34 PM

We haven't got time for works in progress that have been in progress for decades but without the will to develop them. We have got time to get building nuclear power stations, just about. We haven't got the luxury of time for anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:29 PM

Strikes me that these nuclear power plants years down the road are the dangerous waste of time.

Harnessing the enormous amounts of renewable energy of one wort or another makes far more sense to me. "without the will to develop them", that's the point. That and the resources, human and organisational and financial, to turn that will into action.

Wind turbines are just part of it, and no doubt they could be improved. For example look at this, a bladeless system that would completely eliminate those dead birds - https://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/saving-birds-lives-with-bladeless-wind-turbines/

The main thing going for nuclear power plants is that people with political leverage stand to make enormous profits from the massive subsidies that are on the way.

Our grandchildren will curse us.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:42 PM

With nuclear, at least they'll be here to curse us.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 02:50 AM

as their construction requires massive amounts of energy and raw materials

And nuclear power stations don't ?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 02:58 AM

Does building turbines use more energy than they produce?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 03:37 AM

Of course nuclear plants do. But all I'm saying is that wind energy is far from being the panacea its fans sometimes claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 03:45 AM

But all I'm saying is that wind energy is far from being the panacea its fans sometimes claim.

No you are not, you are repeating the disinformation put out its detractors. Sheesh, it's almost like arguing with a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Stu
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 05:13 AM

"We have got time to get building nuclear power stations, just about."

They are not safe, plain and simple. Their waste lingers for thousands of years and we still haven't found a secure way of storing it anyway (dumping at sea?). As for being ugly, Morecombe Bay has been blighted by Heysham for decades and Didcot is an eyesore.

Renewables are the only answer, and although the wind drops occasionally, it always blows. Like the song says, God himself couldn't stop the northerlies from blowing.

Nope, wind is certainly the way forward, from ships with sails making a comeback to onshore/offshore turbines that will, if the technology gets a chance to develop under this government of loons.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 06:47 AM

although the wind drops occasionally, it always blows

Yes, and it can be forecast quite well for a day or so ahead, allowing variability of power from wind to be worked into the market.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 10:49 AM

I'm afraid the lunatic fringe green lobby is far more faith-based (aka quasi-creationist) than adherents such as myself to nuclear, which works and which will keep us going for thousands of years. Green's all too little and all too late and the necessary investment is not being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 11:17 AM

What's up , Steve. Getting withdrawal symptoms from the closed thread !?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 11:57 AM

Troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 01:02 PM

Wind and solar both work,step up production and they can come on line far quicker than nuclear.
This can buy us the time to research and. build better and longer lasting sources of energy.
The other advantage is scrapping and removal after redundancy is far easier than sorting out nuclear waste,and the sites restored with a minimum of fuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 01:40 PM

We do have to get rid of all that plutonium and weapons grade uranium though.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 05:27 PM

Wind and solar both work,step up production and they can come on line far quicker than nuclear.

Well they work, but they both refuse to be on tap just when we want them, and production can be stepped up, but it isn't being and it won't be, not on the scale needed. We live in a capitalist world, and there isn't enough profit in renewables. The profit is in oil, which is why we don't get the investment needed for renewables. To big business, green energy is for hippies and earth mothers unless governments put in impossible amounts of taxpayer subsidies. We need to get real about this. It's all a nice idea, but it's all too little, too late. We can all go to hell in a handcart waving placards with our principles daubed on them, can't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 07:09 PM

You said earlier the solution was nuclear when do you think Hinkley Point will be ready to generate? At the present rate of progress not for quite sometime I suspect.
What is your short term solution to the problem?
Given that fossil fuel stations are reaching the end of their life we need a means of bridging the gap until nuclear or some other long term solution is reached.
Wind and solar is the simplest solution and the easiest to decommission when no longer needed.
Solar doesn't work after dark, wind blows somewhere day and night and both will help to fill the generating shortfall until we get some other form of generation up and running.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 07:45 PM

There isn't a short-term solution. Nuclear power stations take a very long time to build and commission. Green energy is not anywhere near sufficiently invested in and will never be while there's more money to be made by other means.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 05:17 AM

I seem to have seen something similar elsewhere on this forum, the gun problem in America springs to mind.
The theme is "I agree that there is a problem,I don't know what the answer is, but I do know your solution will not solve the issue.
Snafu (situation normal all, insert f-word of choice,up

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 06:02 AM

I think the planet is in massive trouble and there is no easy way out. We seem to lack the will to get to grips with the issue. I think I'm allowed to say that green energy is going to fail us without having an alternative that will work in the short term. We can only hope that the planet will spare us for longer than expected so that we can get nuclear power up and running. Decades of realisation that global warming is a desperate issue has failed abysmally to persuade us to cut emissions. We can't behave well enough to go on using fossil fuels and we refuse to invest properly in renewable energy. Our track record is useless and there will be no turnaround in this failing of human nature any time soon. So what's your answer then?

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 06:57 AM

"UK Government To Scrap 250 Wind Farms As Subsidies Are Axed

The Renewables Obligation subsidy for new onshore wind farms is being scrapped a year early from April next year.Ms Rudd said this would save consumers cash by avoiding a surplus of state-funded windfarms and by helping newer green technologies compete. "

UK wind farms 

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:43 AM

Your nuclear solution is one longer term solution,the waste disposal issues and decommissioning costs are a problem.
Any energy generation system be it green or any other costs money so why not pick a cheaper and cleaner option?.
Other energy sources may be more reliable in the long term,have we got time to set them up?, not much if some forecasts are right..
What we don't seem able to solve is the stupidity of mankind,between us we can solve the energy crisis,nobody seems to have the solution
to the blindness of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:10 AM

I can't explain why we can't pick a cheaper and cleaner option, but we simply don't invest what's needed in green technology. One avenue we simply have to go down is energy conservation. We could start by withdrawing massive subsidies to landowners and using the money instead to insulate and double-glaze every home in the country. We could impose punitive taxes on all cars with more than minimal emissions and stop people hauling caravans and motorhomes all over the place. We could tell the yanks that they need to ditch their gas-guzzlers and that they don't pay enough for petrol. Make farmers pay the same price for diesel as everyone else has to. Get freight back on the railways. Stop shipping unripe apples half way round the world so that Morrisons can sell them for less than a quid a pound. I saw a bag of Duchy Originals organic spuds in Waitrose this morning, grown in Israel (!!!) when English spuds are coming out of our ears. We could stop sending Devon milk to bottling plants two hundred miles away before shipping it back to be sold in Devon. Add your own dozen absurdities to the list. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic..

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:25 AM

I think we have reached agreement Steve,the real problem is the insanity of mankind.

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:47 AM

I'm like Brian Clough, Derrick. If someone disagrees with me, we have a chat about it for a little while before deciding that I'm right. :-)

(Cue the first po-faced yank who doesn't get that...)

Subject: RE: BS: Food for thought on climate change
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 05:00 PM

The food for thought is that food is threatened world wide.

FOOD IS AT THE NEXUS OF CLIMATE CHANGE-POLLUTION, TOXICITY from systemic poncho &gaucho poison insecticide, FRACKING TOXICITY AND GROUND WATER LOSS.