Climate Change

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not sure that ice-skating on The Thames is equivalent to dinosaurs becoming extinct.

No, but it’s relevant to the climate changes currently being experienced.

I wasn’t talking about dinosaurs. There’s no future in dinosaurs.

---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Does anyone really believe things will change when the likes of Russia, India, and China seem to not give a shit about climate change?

Well, you hit on an important point, because what the UK can do on it’s own makes diddly squat difference if you accept the global warming is due to carbon emissions.

[Carth]

I've decided to play the game, as they do.

I declare, and promise, that by 2050 I will no longer use any type of power for heating, lighting and cooking. I will no longer leave electrical appliances plugged in overnight, and will no longer use transport of any mode to travel around. I will also no longer eat meat, fish, vegetables or drink the water that will (by then) probably be in short supply.

There, I think that's covered it . . go me

[pip08456]

Although I hate to agree with the French, this is sound policy IMHO. We should be doing the same.

In a 2030 roadmap for the French economy presented earlier this month, President Emmanuel Macron proposed billions of euros of support for electric vehicles, the nuclear industry and green hydrogen - produced with nuclear - but made little mention of renewable energy. read more

France produces about 75% of its power in nuclear plants, which means its electricity output has among the lowest carbon emissions per capita of any developed country. However, it lags far behind Germany and other European nations in wind and solar investment.

Link

[papa smurf]

‘Eat fewer croissants!’ France’s eco minister urges breakfast change in climate fight

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...nge-COP26-news

weetabix it is then

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

‘Eat fewer croissants!’ France’s eco minister urges breakfast change in climate fight

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...nge-COP26-news

weetabix it is then

That'll just make you fart more.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

That'll just make you fart more.

I'm doing this for the planet not for the sweet smell

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I'm doing this for the planet not for the sweet smell

We've just agreed to decrease our methane levels, not increase them

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, you hit on an important point, because what the UK can do on it’s own makes diddly squat difference if you accept the global warming is due to carbon emissions.

That's the whole reasoning behind COP 26 - to get every country on board.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Although I hate to agree with the French, this is sound policy IMHO. We should be doing the same.



Link

We’re in no position to go big for nuclear now. We dithered for too long and we lost the expertise. The ones now in the planning/building are dependent on foreign expertise and investment and are costing us an arm and a leg as a result.

Rolls Royce is working on a new modular mini-reactor system that will be easier to deploy on sites in the UK (I say UK, but at present only the UK government has the backbone to stand up against the eco-loons which means it is effectively England - the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland don’t control energy policy but they do have the power to call in planning requests, and have threatened to do so for any proposed new nuclear).

The waste products of nuclear fission are problematic so while it’s better than dumping CO2 in the atmosphere it’s less responsible than generating cleaner electricity from wind, tides or solar. It has a role to play in base load, at least until we crack energy storage. I suspect we won’t crack large-scale energy storage before the present generation of gas fired power stations become life-expired.

I thought fossil fuels were supposed to be running out anyway.
I remember all the doom and gloom telling us we only had about another 50-70 years worth (and that was about 20 years ago).

So no need to bother about reducing them at all, just keep going and we'll run out anyway, job done.

Originally Posted by Paul

I thought fossil fuels were supposed to be running out anyway.
I remember all the doom and gloom telling us we only had about another 50-70 years worth (and that was about 20 years ago).

So no need to bother about reducing them at all, just keep going and we'll run out anyway, job done.

It was a fairly unsophisticated piece of messaging from the environmentalists of the time.

There really only were about 40 years of oil left in the 1980s, based on known recoverable reserves and rate of consumption. The messaging did get a bit more nuanced eventually - you might have heard the phrase “peak oil” doing the rounds about 15 years ago, with the claim that from that point on oil would get so hard to extract that it would be impossible to meet demand even if the reserves were there.

In reality all we have done during the 20th century is extract the easy oil. There’s really no shortage of it, because as it is found in ever more challenging places, our ability to get at it improves. As we shift to decarbonise the economy there should come a point where consumption drops off a cliff. I think it’s likely we aren’t going to run out of oil for the foreseeable future.

They keep finding oil fields and more efficient ways to extract it IIRC. It will still run out eventually though, although we'll probably find cheaper ways to generate the same amount of energy before it does.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

(I say UK, but at present only the UK government has the backbone to stand up against the eco-loons which means it is effectively England - the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland don’t control energy policy but they do have the power to call in planning requests, and have threatened to do so for any proposed new nuclear).

You might be correct for Scotland but the Welsh government is very pro-nuclear. The Welsh government is keen for the Trawsfynydd project to happen and has established a site company. The Rolls-Royce-led consortium has said that Wales in particular holds significant potential for small modular reactors and has cited Trawsfynydd and Anglesey as potential locations.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You might be correct for Scotland but the Welsh government is very pro-nuclear. The Welsh government is keen for the Trawsfynydd project to happen and has established a site company. The Rolls-Royce-led consortium has said that Wales in particular holds significant potential for small modular reactors and has cited Trawsfynydd and Anglesey as potential locations.

I am relieved to stand corrected

Virtue signalling is a particular problem in Scottish politics, especially when it’s an opportunity to stand in opposition to the evil Toaries.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

It was a fairly unsophisticated piece of messaging from the environmentalists of the time.

There really only were about 40 years of oil left in the 1980s, based on known recoverable reserves and rate of consumption. The messaging did get a bit more nuanced eventually - you might have heard the phrase “peak oil” doing the rounds about 15 years ago, with the claim that from that point on oil would get so hard to extract that it would be impossible to meet demand even if the reserves were there.

In reality all we have done during the 20th century is extract the easy oil. There’s really no shortage of it, because as it is found in ever more challenging places, our ability to get at it improves. As we shift to decarbonise the economy there should come a point where consumption drops off a cliff. I think it’s likely we aren’t going to run out of oil for the foreseeable future.

Yes, I wouldn’t dump the BP & Shell shares just yet. This country will look like Cuba in 30/40 years with people still running petrol/diesel motors long after they’ve stopped making them.