The solution to every problem like that is a pay rise for those involved.
C02 of one beef dinner in comparison to a flight.
- Thread starter joe sod
- Start date
Cop25 summit in Madrid ends with no agreement, the biggest co2 emitters China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and usa refused to commit to bigger reductions in co2. Therefore it is pointless for Ireland and the eu to commit to drastic reductions when it won't make any difference and will make Europe even more uncompetitive against the emerging economies.
And now it looks like those clever Australians might have the energy storage problem cracked with their https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/1/eaay2757 (Lithium-Sulphur Batteries). It would also answer the question "Name one useful thing that Australia ever given the world?"
Been absent for a while. Excuse the splurge.
But when it comes to nuclear we face many of the same problems. Even conventional nuclear of the type we know how to build is a political hot potato. Regulatory restrictions massively increase project costs and timelines. The same is true of novel nuclear technology. I read that Gates's TWR technology has been massively slowed down by red tape. I love the idea itself. It's in the class of high burn-up breeder reactors using fertile (versus fissile) materials. It's similar to the high hopes for the Thorium fuel cycle, except using U-238. A reactor that needs no fuel rod maintenance or reprocessing for decades could, in principle, be completely locked down against proliferation concerns. However, novel fuel cycles typically need many years of testing so I wouldn't be holding my breath for anything to happen quickly. Until public fears are allayed and governments actively promote the technologies, I think nuclear will move at a snail's pace. The Green movement is too sold on the idea of wind and solar as panaceas, which they are not.
Converting water to hydrogen and oxygen is not a fuel per se, but a way of storing energy. Proponents of the hydrogen economy sometimes forget this. It's like batteries -- just another way of storing chemical energy, but the energy has to come from somewhere first. Electrolysis is not a particularly efficient way of doing it either (around 80%), unless the energy would otherwise be wasted, e.g. with stranded wind.
I think the big problem with the way we look at climate change is that those making the loudest (and sometimes hysterical) noises are a) not proposing workable solutions, and b) not looking at both sides of the balance sheet: the downsides of climate change versus the very serious downsides of cutting energy use (or foregoing it in the case of developing nations). Without much of our modern energy use millions would die. Millions do die for want of energy in the developing world but thankfully the situation is vastly improved over recent decades. Where is the evidence that things will be worse with climate change when you consider this balance?
Fundamentally, the energy return on plant growth is small. Plants did not evolve to maximise sunlight-to-chemical efficiency. It's on the order of 0.1 to 2%, a small fraction of the efficiency of artificial solar power such as photovoltaics or concentrators. Both the US and Europe blend biofuels into what you buy at the pump, but two aspects of biofuels border on scandalous -- a) they use artificial fertilisers made with large quantities of natural gas, so some of the energy of biofuels is actually fossil fuel, and b) they use large areas of land that could be used for food production. They also contribute to plant monoculture and soil degradation and -- for crops like palm oil -- contribute to habitat degradation and destruction.
I agree. Wind and solar power have their place, but the energy sources are diffuse and therefore they have large land requirements and high capex costs. Desert solar with HVDC transmission could power the world but these are absolutely massive infrastructure projects that would take a century to implement. When technology optimists think about solutions they are generally only thinking about technology and not all the other things that have to come together to make projects (especially international ones) feasible and successful -- funding, guarantee of supply, political stability. Would you be any happier about your electricity coming from Libya or Mali than you are about your gas coming from Russia?
But when it comes to nuclear we face many of the same problems. Even conventional nuclear of the type we know how to build is a political hot potato. Regulatory restrictions massively increase project costs and timelines. The same is true of novel nuclear technology. I read that Gates's TWR technology has been massively slowed down by red tape. I love the idea itself. It's in the class of high burn-up breeder reactors using fertile (versus fissile) materials. It's similar to the high hopes for the Thorium fuel cycle, except using U-238. A reactor that needs no fuel rod maintenance or reprocessing for decades could, in principle, be completely locked down against proliferation concerns. However, novel fuel cycles typically need many years of testing so I wouldn't be holding my breath for anything to happen quickly. Until public fears are allayed and governments actively promote the technologies, I think nuclear will move at a snail's pace. The Green movement is too sold on the idea of wind and solar as panaceas, which they are not.
There's plenty of uranium, even for conventional use. The high burn-up sort of reaction in the TWR that Purple was talking about could use depleted uranium that the USA already has stockpiled. (It's a much more productive use than making artillery shell tips for tank busters). And depleted uranium is nothing more than the most common uranium isotope (U-238) which is over 99% of naturally occurring uranium and could be extracted from seawater. Thorium is even more abundant than uranium and is a constituent of a type of black sand on beaches in many parts of the world. Fusion, as you say, uses an even more unlimited fuel but fission could do just fine.
Converting water to hydrogen and oxygen is not a fuel per se, but a way of storing energy. Proponents of the hydrogen economy sometimes forget this. It's like batteries -- just another way of storing chemical energy, but the energy has to come from somewhere first. Electrolysis is not a particularly efficient way of doing it either (around 80%), unless the energy would otherwise be wasted, e.g. with stranded wind.
Unfortunately many "solutions" to global problems assume some sort of benign guiding hand. As I said, technological feasibility is not the only criterion for success. What about the economies that depend on carbon-intensive animal farming? Whose going to accept their territory being turned into a forest? Residents of Leitrim are already complaining about it. "Solutions" have to benefit local populations. Ethiopia has a massive tree planting program because it benefits local soil stability and water management. But you can't assume everyone is going to love the implications of global solutions. That's why I think carbon emissions will only be reduced when there are alternatives that are both cheaper and better than existing energy sources. And "better" is measured on multiple complex dimensions.
This is the problem with only complaining, and not proposing solutions. A column in the Irish Times said the other day that groups like Extinction Rebellion need to stop pretending that climate change can be fixed by giving up burgers and cycling to work. The column went on to say, apparently unironically, that we would need a total change of lifestyle including rationing that had never been seen outside of wartime. Does anyone seriously think this is going to be acceptable to the general public? Think about it this way: the average household uses the energy equivalent a couple of dozen full time slaves. People in the part of the world without electricity do that slave labour themselves. It will take more than a couple of degrees of warming to make me give that up.
Novel energy technologies appear in the press almost every day. Most disappear without a trace. I see that one says it's good for 200 cycles, i.e. practically useless for most applications.
The wonders of petroleum you are referring to here, it's the equivalent of having a few slaves working for you. If you talk to older people about the back breaking work they used to do before petroleum powered machines took the heavy work away.
Yet Greta Thornburg lectures the older generation because they "destroyed her future", but Greta Thornburg never did an hour of real work her entire life, she doesn't understand how difficult life was beforehand.
You're exactly right, though I was thinking of the electric slaves in our kitchens that wash the dishes and the clothes, and collect the virtual firewood to heat the water and the cook the food. Your mention of Greta reminded me of one of her compatriots, sadly no longer with us. Search for Hans Rosling on youtube, a master of data analysis for whom the washing machine was close to his heart.
Last edited:
In my view the solutions to climate change will be technological with modest lifestyle changes. Those technological changes will be things like vertical farms, improvements in energy efficiency in transport and manufacturing, increasing levels of recycling etc. but by far the biggest polluter and damager of the environment is agriculture. Until we deal with that sector everything else is meaningless. The above mentioned vertical farms use less than a fifth of the land and only 5% of the water of traditional farming. There are no pesticides and a shorter supply chain. The land freed up could be used to grow trees. Farmers are essentially on welfare anyway so why not pay them not to destroy the environment instead of paying them to destroy it like we do now?
My point in a previous post is that there are existing solutions which do not require us to move back to the pre-industrial age. We just need a mature discussion about them and we need lots of irons in the fire as we don't know what technologies will work.
What we need to avoid is a resignation that there is no solution and we are heading towards the collapse of civilisation.
Last edited:
The above is probably the most sensible approach in this thread. I've had it with Greta Thunberg and other Save-the-Planet morons. We recycle etc but the Eat Lettuce Only Brigade are getting far too vociferous with what others should to satisfy their dictating and unusable solutions.
I'll give up eating meat when I see all of them reverting 100% to using cloth nappies and other hygienic products instead of they are currently using.
There's no getting away from the fact that meat farming consumed 85% of the world's arable land but only provides 15% of the calories. Farm animal population growth is rising twice as fast a human population growth and they already produce over 90% of the world's sewage/effluent/poo.
We can't give out to Brazil for cutting down their Rain Forests to grow Soy when we then buy that Soy to feed our cows.
I couldn't care less. Until I see clothes lines filled with washed cloth nappies and a ban on the sale of paper nappies and other paper hygiene products I am not going to listen to any of the Eat-Lettuce Brigade. I'm looking forward to meeting them on my doorstep shortly.
Why? Cloth nappies v disposable nappies is irrelevant when compared to meat farming either locally or globally.
@dub_nerd I watched that clip of Hans Rosling, a great speaker and a realist. Because we have grown up with the fruits of industrialization in the west we have forgotten how wonderful it really is and the effort it took by very far sighted and industrious people to bring it to reality.
When Greta Thornburg says " how dare you", she is pointing the finger at Alfred Krupp, Nicholas Tesla, James watt and Thomas Edison. If there is any chance of moving to low carbon industry then it will people like these that will do it not Greta Thornburg.
When Greta Thornburg says " how dare you", she is pointing the finger at Alfred Krupp, Nicholas Tesla, James watt and Thomas Edison. If there is any chance of moving to low carbon industry then it will people like these that will do it not Greta Thornburg.
Last edited:
No it isn't - just nobody wants to clean cloth nappies again. It takes time, effort, endurance and a strong stomach - much of which is not around these days.
Or maybe they know that in terms of overall environmental impact, there isn't a lot of difference between cloth and disposable nappies? Efficient laundry methods are required so that cloth nappies are less harmful overall than disposable.
There's a huge difference in the use of cloth nappies as against disposable nappies, believe me! For anybody who used both, I bet no matter what they would never use cloth nappies again. And while I'm at it, I bet Greta Thunberg's parents used disposable nappies too.
If anybody wants to know the difference in the actual use of cloth natties -v- disposable nappies, I can amplify, if you wish. but you'd have to sign a disclaimer.
If cloth nappies are washed at 90 degrees and tumble dried they will have a greater environmental impact that disposable nappies over the 2.5 years that the average child wears them.
You didn't read the report or even the conclusions, did you?
Why are you so keen to seek environmental advice from someone else who as misinformed as you?
We can both get into war stories about changing nappies but I see your cloth nappies and I raise you cleaning elderly stroke victims. There is just as much endurance and as many strong stomachs as ever, despite the Pythonesque "back in my day" lamentations to the contrary. Indeed a strong stomach is a prerequisite to listen to said lamentations.
Wonderbar! Neither of you has convinced me. And until I see washing lines full of clean cloth nappies which were previously hacked of you-know-what, hand washed to get rid of the excess, sterilised in buckets, washed at 90 degrees, and dried in the open air, I remain unconvinced.
And . . . . . . . . you can put me on record as declaring that disposable nappies did more for all the combined womens' movements than Greer's The Female Eunuch.
Women and Leper 10 - 0 Purple/Leo Alliance
And . . . . . . . . you can put me on record as declaring that disposable nappies did more for all the combined womens' movements than Greer's The Female Eunuch.
Women and Leper 10 - 0 Purple/Leo Alliance
It's like discussing evolution with a creationist; no facts will convince you. You're a man of conviction, no matter how shakey the ground those convictions are built on.
I've frequently said the same thing about the washing machine.
The Cast Iron bed frame was one of the greatest innovations in women's health as it greatly reduced the chances of postnatal infections.
Last edited: