C02 of one beef dinner in comparison to a flight.

There is no possibility of battery technology being useful for balancing demand over a day or longer. Batteries can smooth out near-instantaneous spikes in load, but the total amount of grid-scale battery storage that any country has managed is measured in single-digit minutes of demand, not hours or days. Data centres are vast consumers of electricity. There has been talk about putting them in Iceland, or underwater, to reduce cooling requirements.

On a more general point, I do feel we have to get more numerate in order to be able to grasp the scale of energy issues. Otherwise people tend to believe in solutions that are the equivalent of building a house out of a couple of match sticks. In the UK and Ireland, transportation energy is about twice the amount of electricity generation. Energy for space heating is about the same again. If you were to get rid of fossil fuels for transport and heating you'd need to increase electricity generation by 500%. Currently in Ireland we just manage to increase electricity generation by 10% per decade to keep up with demand. Replacing our energy infrastructure is a job which would take a century if we had suitable replacements ... and we don't.
 
Purple said:
I can't see the battery and engine/motor weight being heavier than the engine and fuel weight on a jet plane, even relative to power output. I'd say we are still 10-15 years away from the engineering capability and 20 years at least away from the regulatory approval and commercialisation of electric powered planes replacing jets but they are coming.
Click to expand...
The energy density of lithium ion batteries is less than a sixtieth of that of jet fuel. That's really all that needs to be said to know there's no possibility that long or medium haul flight can ever be done by battery-powered planes. Not to mention that Li-ion is not even allowed to be carried on commercial flights due to fire hazard, let alone power them.
 
dub_nerd said:
Currently in Ireland we just manage to increase electricity generation by 10% per decade to keep up with demand. Replacing our energy infrastructure is a job which would take a century if we had suitable replacements ... and we don't.
Click to expand...
So, big picture/broad brush do you A) see any feasible solutions? B) think its either cut activity or go 'fried frog' on it? Why did bio diesel (PPO - pure plant oil) not take off more? There was a crowd Elsbett in Germany that could modify your Volks, and a distributor Great Gas but not sure even they are using it anymore.

Could we not use a data centre for district heating?, radiator fins taking the heat off...a house of matchsticks I guess!
 
dub_nerd said:
On a more general point, I do feel we have to get more numerate in order to be able to grasp the scale of energy issues. Otherwise people tend to believe in solutions that are the equivalent of building a house out of a couple of match sticks.
Click to expand...
Is that not the big problem non experts and non numerate people like Greta Thornburg are getting the ear of the politicians and the media. I doubt Greta on board that yacht is getting her proper education in trigonometry or basic physics. She probably wont understand the science seen as she is not actually studying it, it's not concepts that can be picked up reading articles as many of the concepts in nature are non intuitive and are hard to understand. That's why it took so long for even geniuses like Isaac Newton to discover the basic laws of nature.
 
dub_nerd said:
The energy density of lithium ion batteries is less than a sixtieth of that of jet fuel. That's really all that needs to be said to know there's no possibility that long or medium haul flight can ever be done by battery-powered planes. Not to mention that Li-ion is not even allowed to be carried on commercial flights due to fire hazard, let alone power them.
Click to expand...
The design of planes will change significantly over the next few decades and battery technology will improve. Both of these factors will increase the potential for the use of electric planes for short to medium haul flights. Li-ion batteries are not allowed on commercial flights but there are a number of companies (Siemens, GE, NASA) working on improving battery safety for use in planes. Hybrid Planes will probably come first as most of the power is required at take off. This gives more information.
 
dub_nerd said:
There is no possibility of battery technology being useful for balancing demand over a day or longer. Batteries can smooth out near-instantaneous spikes in load, but the total amount of grid-scale battery storage that any country has managed is measured in single-digit minutes of demand, not hours or days. Data centres are vast consumers of electricity. There has been talk about putting them in Iceland, or underwater, to reduce cooling requirements.

On a more general point, I do feel we have to get more numerate in order to be able to grasp the scale of energy issues. Otherwise people tend to believe in solutions that are the equivalent of building a house out of a couple of match sticks. In the UK and Ireland, transportation energy is about twice the amount of electricity generation. Energy for space heating is about the same again. If you were to get rid of fossil fuels for transport and heating you'd need to increase electricity generation by 500%. Currently in Ireland we just manage to increase electricity generation by 10% per decade to keep up with demand. Replacing our energy infrastructure is a job which would take a century if we had suitable replacements ... and we don't.
Click to expand...
That's why the only viable green energy solution I see is Nuclear.
What are your views on Bill Gates's Travelling Wave Reactor Nuclear Technology?
 
Ok uranium does not have a by product of carbon, but isnt it also a scare resource, a "fossil fuel" in the sense that we are going to run out of it too. Nuclear fusion or converting water to hydrogen and oxygen are, I suppose, the ultimate alchemy??
 
Betsy Og said:
Ok uranium does not have a by product of carbon, but isnt it also a scare resource, a "fossil fuel" in the sense that we are going to run out of it too. Nuclear fusion or converting water to hydrogen and oxygen are, I suppose, the ultimate alchemy??
Click to expand...
The Travelling Wave Reactor can use existing nuclear waste, It is also much safer as when you stop powering it the reaction stops so it can't "melt down". The existing 700,000 tonnes of waste in the USA is enough to power 80% of the world as current American per capita consumption for a thousand years. Source.
 
In short, the solutions to climate change are;

1) Stop eating meat and dairy, or reduce it by 90%. That would free up are area of arable land the size of Africa.
2) Use that land to plant trees.
3) Embrace modern, safe, Nuclear Power.
4) Tax "fast fashion" so that the Penny's of this world disappear.

That takes care of most of the problem.

Don't worry about transport; cars and planes are far more efficient and cleaner than a few decades ago and will continue to get cleaner over the next few decades.
 
The 11bn cant eat trees though, so I guess we're need to be producing plant food in some way.
 
Betsy Og said:
The 11bn cant eat trees though, so I guess we're need to be producing plant food in some way.
Click to expand...
85% of the world's arable land is used to produce meat and dairy. Meat and Dairy contribute about 15% of the world's calories. There's more than enough land (after we plant the trees) to feed the world on a plant based diet.
The argument we need meat for protein is also nonsense. I eat meat and dairy because it tastes great. There's no dietary argument to eat it and there's a massive environmental reason not to eat it. There's also a massive health reason not to eat it but that's for a different thread.
 
I see Greta arrived in Lisbon yesterday on the yacht, it was like Columbus arriving back from the new world, she will be greeted by the king and Isabella next in Seville.
 
I think the tide is starting to turn against greta now, sure even Columbus fell foul of the Spanish monarchy back in the day ended up being forgotten about and buried in an unmarked grave for a time.
 
joe sod said:
I think the tide is starting to turn against greta now, sure even Columbus fell foul of the Spanish monarchy back in the day ended up being forgotten about and buried in an unmarked grave for a time.
Click to expand...
Just because she's off the wall it doesn't mean that Climate Change is any less real and that it isn't man made. The science deniers are using her to try to invalidate reality.
 
Purple said:
Just because she's off the wall it doesn't mean that Climate Change is any less real and that it isn't man made. The science deniers are using her to try to invalidate reality.
Click to expand...

Why is she off the wall. She is a 16 or 17 year old, trying to draw attention to climate change. What more do you want from her. I would have thought you would be a big admirer.
 
cremeegg said:
Why is she off the wall. She is a 16 or 17 year old, trying to draw attention to climate change. What more do you want from her. I would have thought you would be a big admirer.
Click to expand...
I am a big admirer but I'm not sure she is really helping.
 
Purple said:
I am a big admirer but I'm not sure she is really helping.
Click to expand...
No, she has now become a focus of ridicule because of the obvious hypocrisy in some of her arguments, obviously being a young teenager she will not understand the complications and difficulties in trying to provide energy for an ever growing global population.
Will she travel to China and India to evangelise those countries to her movement, after all global warming is a global issue not just a western one, if she is going to have any consistency or longevity she will need to , otherwise she will face increasing criticism and become a passing fad.
 
I think fair play to Greta. It has certainly raised awareness. I'm sure if she had a magic wand she'd use it, how much do we need her to achieve as 1 person?

Back on home...err...turf. I see talk of "outright bans" of all solid fuels. As usual this government seems to want to take things to extremes with no appreciation of the merit (like the new 0.00000001 mg of blood alochol they want to bring in....I'm joking of course but that is how they seem to think). Where air quality is an issue (towns) then enforce the ban on any households not drawing the old age pension. Fuel poverty is a big issue for the elderly. If it was only the elders burning solid fuel then I think we wouldn't have an air quality issue. Or at least give it a go and see. Blank off chimneys if no permit to burn (padlocked capping mechanism). Maybe it would have the knock on incentive of people looking after their elderly relatives....... I thought a recent Twitter post about the UK struck a chord - people want less tax, more services, free university fees, free elderly care because they dont want to look after them. Lets be realistic, keep high taxes, fight for better value for money services and stop this absolutist/universal approach to everything (e.g. no child benefit if high income household - it would cost me but would make sense overall).
 
Betsy Og said:
fight for better value for money services
Click to expand...
This, from what I can see, is almost impossible in this country. No accountability with the general taxes that are collected. We read about so many overuns / costings increasing on projects etc., yet we never seem to learn from our past projects / work / mistakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top