Jump to content

Who says we don’t need fossil fuels?


Sharpend
 Share

Recommended Posts

I firmly believe that NO old plant should have been shut down until reliable alternative UK based power sources are on line.

We are now dependant on scrounging power and gas from Europe who in turn are dependant on gas from Russia. How sensible is that?

If Europe starts running short who is going to be the first to be turned off?

Without storage systems which don't yet exist wind power is useless. Yesterday it was providing 1.5% of the modest demand on a mild autumn day. Gas was providing over 50%.

It's time for our green obsessed politicians to waken up and make some serious investment in nuclear capacity and tidal barrier schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve said for many years that it is inevitable that the UK will be a third world country in time. 
We don’t actually control any significant amount of anything that supports ourself. We are at the mercy of everyone else. 
All this demonstrates is Green isn’t practicable in its current guise. What are the future governments going to do when we are all driving electric vehicles and power usage increases and the green energies are not producing sufficiently, beg the controllers to provide us with energy?? 
I’m pretty sure that there was a form of coal that has lower carbon emissions or was I dreaming? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sharpend said:

I’m pretty sure that there was a form of coal that has lower carbon emissions or was I dreaming? 

The methods of burning coal, to extract the maximum power with minimum emissions was steadily refined over many decades and could have continued. 

However, once someone says, "we aren't using it any more". development stops without considering any further potential.  They have just done exactly the same with the internal combustion engine.

Prescribing the solution, rather than tackling the original problem is bad science and bad engineering, all carried out by politicians who don't have the first clue about either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there in lies the problem, politics is too involved with everything bar actual politics. 
If they had stuck with the actual politics of what IS good for this country and it’s people as opposed to what they THINK is good then we might actually have solved more along the way. Have you noticed how there seems to be a THINK tank for near everything these days and what have any of them actually proved/come up with that isn’t common sense? 
politicians are so scared to make decisions these days that all they do is actually hinder progress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heard on the radio that steel plant abroad has been succesfully run on hydrogen gas.

 

The USA is putting over $2trillion aside to bolster defences against fire and flood as part of coping with climate change, I'm sure the UK gov needs to put aside similar amounts of money pro-rata, so why the F aren't we investing in the tech to remove the need for fossil fuels, then we wouldn't be hanging on good will of the Russians or other oil producing countries. I do see nuclear as part of the solution as we have discussed many times before, but energy independence has got to be agood thing as a long term stratergy. As I've also said, if we get in early we can sell the tech abroad, although I fear our gov will 'outsurce it' to the cheapest bidder like efffing China. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with bolstering defences and I also believe we should have total independence in power generation. I also favour non polluting power, especially nuclear, and surely tidal barriers, but these are a couple of decades from initial commitment, so fossil fuels have to be accepted in the meantime.

I do take issue with those under the delusion that we can actually control climate change.

As you know from previous postings I am a sceptic at the science which says we can, but even if that's correct it would need the rest of the world to go along,  -  which they won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever anyone's personal opinions are regarding all these climate & green issues...

 

I think the old phrase..  "Don't Put All Your Eggs In One Basket",  is still very true and wise....

 

If we don't keep multiple options, functional and ready to use, to maintain our basic energy requirements..

 

Not "If" but "When" the sh1t does hit the fan, we will all be well and truly screwed!! 

 

I am not convinced that we do have sufficient resources...

that are under our own control & management!

 

:C

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Geoff1946 said:

I absolutely agree with bolstering defences and I also believe we should have total independence in power generation. I also favour non polluting power, especially nuclear, and surely tidal barriers, but these are a couple of decades from initial commitment, so fossil fuels have to be accepted in the meantime.

I do take issue with those under the delusion that we can actually control climate change.

As you know from previous postings I am a sceptic at the science which says we can, but even if that's correct it would need the rest of the world to go along,  -  which they won't.

 

If we spend the money on reducing CO2 emissions, then we dont need to spend money on defences - building the defences will release shed loads more CO2 exasperating the problem and is probably far more expensive. As for the rest of the world, sometimes you need to lead by example, but we are still a major economy, so slap CO2 taxes on the polluters that peddle cheap ****e to the UK, they'll soon change energy sources. I'm not a fan of taxation, but the way free market economies work is that you have to make it financially viable to go green. Getting the tech into mass production will also drop the prices of it, making it more affordable to less well off nations. Solar panels for example, have dropped from £2.40 per watt to 22p per watt in just 10 years.

 

The EU and other nations will soon follow suit if we act - the issue, as per normal, is politicians not wanting to do anything that upsets the electorate. However, given recent weather events, and their frequency, I believe most people are on board with the need for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/09/2021 at 18:21, Geoff1946 said:

 

As you know from previous postings I am a sceptic at the science which says we can, but even if that's correct it would need the rest of the world to go along,  -  which they won't.

 

saw this and couldn't help think of you :D 

image.thumb.png.ffba59bb285dc3dd45daa36d9834772b.png

Edited by binky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, binky said:

 

saw this and couldn't help think of you :D 

image.thumb.png.ffba59bb285dc3dd45daa36d9834772b.png

Science can find absolute evidence to back up any findings depending on who is paying the research fees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to enter into a protracted argument here, but I will say there are many reasons I doubt some of the pronouncements of the climate emergency religion.

Not least is the rapid descent of its protagonists into ridiculing and insulting anyone who questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From another forum, source unknown:

 

Ireland has been forced to freeze power exports to the UK to prevent a shortage which could have sparked blackouts as surging energy prices continue to cause chaos across Europe.

A toxic combination of low wind speeds and a severe squeeze on the supply of natural gas sent power costs jumping tenfold on the British mainland on Thursday to as much as £2,300 per megawatt-hour, a new record high.

It came as transmission was halted on the Moyle interconnector, which sends electricity from Northern Ireland to Scotland.

Mutual Energy, which owns and operates the undersea cable, said that flows had been stopped for "operational security reasons due to generation shortfall in the all-Ireland single electricity market".
Ireland's Single Electricity Market Operator had issued an amber warning on Thursday morning, alerting the public to a "general shortfall" of electricity which could result in power cuts.


The cost of energy has been spiralling across Europe, due in part to calm weather which has drastically reduced the availability of renewable power.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ProDave said:


The cost of energy has been spiralling across Europe, due in part to calm weather which has drastically reduced the availability of renewable power.

 

 

There have also been times when energy prices have been driven down by oversupply of green energy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Geoff1946 said:

 

Not least is the rapid descent of its protagonists into ridiculing and insulting anyone who questions.

 

That tends to be the nature of the t'internet these days - little proper discussion, and a lot of wind and water. Please just go read the science papers. Even the Daily Mail has concluded the current climate change is man made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, steptoe said:

Science can find absolute evidence to back up any findings depending on who is paying the research fees. 

 

Most of the research has been done by universities and is known as 'pure research' ie it's not sponsored by a large corporation with an axe to grind and products to sell. 

 

With so much interest in climate science and attention to the hypothesise generated, the evidence has been scrutinised over and over again by many thousands of people, possibly hundreds of thousands of people. The overall conclusion is that the current climate change is as man made as all the plastic in the sea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, binky said:

Most of the research has been done by universities and is known as 'pure research' ie it's not sponsored by a large corporation with an axe to grind and products to sell.

The insignificant research may be "pure research" but the vast amount of university research does have outside funding as the student fees would never cover the costs to make it financially viable

 

I remember the research into alternatives for CFC's around 20 years ago the daughter of one of the lads that worked for me at the time was doing her PHD at Manchester she came up with an alternative to the CFC, her PHD was sponsored by Air Liquide who took the information away and filed it, she was hoping to get a job on the back of it and got nothing from them other than a non disclosure order she eventually got a job at Porton Down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big stumbling block with any of this sort of debate is any of the bits that refer to "Man-made"..

 

because more often than not "Man" doesn't really fully understand the things he/she has made..

or how they can influence or affect their surroundings .  .

 

The climate has been changing since the birth of the planet..  and will most likely continue to change irrespective of what mankind does or doesn't do..

(e.g.  Volcanic activity can and will have climatic effects..  and we can do sod all to stop volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunami's etc..)  

 

So climate change in itself is not man-made..    But things we do can influence the rate of change..

But.. history has proved that mankind is a bit thick and often gets it wrong...

 

i.e. with all of its expertise, knowledge, analysis, data processing..  etc.. etc..

Experts in banking from various countries couldn't even predict correctly how the financial institutions it had created could fail so catastrophically in the 2007/8 banking finance crisis!!

So how do they realistically predict a more unpredictable quantity such as weather?? 

 

Which leaves that great big unknown in the middle of the room....

with questions about who do you trust..

who actually knows what they are talking about..

who isn't been paid from some source that may influence their opinion...???

 

Most University's are not financially self sustaining and require various sources of external funding...

which may or may not influence research the choose to undertake!

 

Being able to identify genuine independent advice is a dark art in itself!! 

 

One of my old workmates has had a Tesla for a few years now..  (but I think less than 6 years)..

recently he has been getting a bit anxious about reduction in range following re-charge as the battery gets older.....

and maybe considering changing it...

 

So a car less than 10years old is becoming a bit of a reliability burden..!

I am struggling to see how this is greener than keeping a traditional vehicle operational for much longer timescales?

 

Our old car, (a 7 seater people carrier), could still do over 500 miles on a full tank when it was 15 years old..

And over 400 miles while towing the caravan..

 

Still waiting to hear about any EV's that can match this sort of range and towing capacity and load carrying..

that take less than 10 mins to fully re-fuel anywhere in the country, when they are over 10years old?

  

I still think some of those making the decisions have one or more fingers in the pies that will benefit from their policy decisions they make!

 

 :popcorn 

Edited by SPECIAL LOCATION
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, UNG said:

her PHD was sponsored by Air Liquide who took the information away and filed it, she was hoping to get a job on the back of it and got nothing from them other than a non disclosure order she eventually got a job at Porton Down

 

one of the big issues is large corporations buying up technology patents. The oil industry has been doing that for decdes, no doubt to be a substitute product to replace oil when we run out of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SPECIAL LOCATION said:

 

Which leaves that great big unknown in the middle of the room....

with questions about who do you trust..

who actually knows what they are talking about..

who isn't been paid from some source that may influence their opinion...???

 

this is the point I keep trying to make, very few things have been as analised over and over again as climate change and it's current root causes, and by many, many different outfits. There were lots of arguments about it being natural, and even about more CO2 being good for plant growth and therefore not a problem. All of this has been discreditied and the man made bit has become the accepted thesis. The what happens next is difficult to predict, eg the glacier and artic/ antartic ice melting is happening faster than originally predicted. Current investigations suggest that ash from increased forest fires is making the ice dirty and therefore prone to absorbing more heat from the sun, it also acts a bit like chucking salt on your path on an icy day. This is oart of the run-away climate change that we are trying to avoid by limiting warming to 1.5C 

 

Distrust - seems to be a bit of a modern problem, not that I've ever really trusted anyone in power. I'm of the opinion that certain enemy states are deliberately pushing distrust to destabalise western democracy hence so much anti-vacc, flat earth, lizards rule the earth and other conspiracy theories abound these days. 

 

You are dead right about mankind being thick, who else would risk destroying their own planet. Even if you don't believe the man made bit, you just can just look around at the world around us - plastic in the seas, too many people being born, deforestation, killing the bees off, polluting our own air so that kids die young in cities, etc etc. Change is needed regardless.

 

8 hours ago, SPECIAL LOCATION said:

 

So a car less than 10years old is becoming a bit of a reliability burden..!

I am struggling to see how this is greener than keeping a traditional vehicle operational for much longer timescales?

 

Our old car, (a 7 seater people carrier), could still do over 500 miles on a full tank when it was 15 years old..

And over 400 miles while towing the caravan..

 

Still waiting to hear about any EV's that can match this sort of range and towing capacity and load carrying..

that take less than 10 mins to fully re-fuel anywhere in the country, when they are over 10years old?

  

I still think some of those making the decisions have one or more fingers in the pies that will benefit from their policy decisions they make!

 

 :popcorn 

 

I'm still of the opinion that battery tech is a poor, stopgap, quick fix, that is ultimatley doomed. I dont think it's so much about fingers in pies as desparation because the problem is real and rapidly approaching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, binky said:

very few things have been as analised over and over again as climate change and it's current root causes, and by many, many different outfits.

So having been analised over and over it definitely is a load of 💩 then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems that we have with the current battery technology, is range.

 

Most of the BEV family car's being made at the moment just don't have enough!!!  250 to over 300 miles isn't enough for most of the population especially when most journeys are far less than 50 miles

 

....sarcasm ends....

 

I have to admit thought that there are only 1 or 2 BEV cars out there that can tow,, and even then their towing capacity is pretty poor; and the facts are that the tech for towing isn't there yet... maybe another technology like Hydrogen will be more suitable?.... the same goes for haulage, etc...

 

As for cost of running,,, we went to Birmingham (to see our daughter) a few weekends ago... over the weekend we did 267 miles,, starting off fully charged, topping up at the hotel and a very quick splash & dash (both for us, and the car).... after working out the figures, it cost us about £8 to cover those miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NozSpark said:

One of the problems that we have with the current battery technology, is range.

 

Most of the BEV family car's being made at the moment just don't have enough!!!  250 to over 300 miles isn't enough for most of the population especially when most journeys are far less than 50 miles

 

....sarcasm ends....

 

I have to admit thought that there are only 1 or 2 BEV cars out there that can tow,, and even then their towing capacity is pretty poor; and the facts are that the tech for towing isn't there yet... maybe another technology like Hydrogen will be more suitable?.... the same goes for haulage, etc...

 

As for cost of running,,, we went to Birmingham (to see our daughter) a few weekends ago... over the weekend we did 267 miles,, starting off fully charged, topping up at the hotel and a very quick splash & dash (both for us, and the car).... after working out the figures, it cost us about £8 to cover those miles

The range is nowhere near enough, no sarcasm needed, 

It may be fine for people that don't actually go anywhere, but in the real world it's lettuced. 

Manchester to Penzance, I can do that in one go in my van, about 6 hours-ish, not having to stop at all, how long would it take me in an EV,? It would be a whole day thing at least, probably an overnight stop, 

That one instance alone shows that EVs are nowhere near practical yet for anyone that actually goes anywhere, 

Edited by steptoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, steptoe said:

The range is nowhere near enough, no sarcasm needed, 

It may be fine for people that don't actually go anywhere, but in the real world it's lettuced. 

Manchester to Penzance, I can do that in one go in my van, about 6 hours-ish, not having to stop at all, how long would it take me in an EV,? It would be a whole day thing at least, probably an overnight stop, 

That one instance alone shows that EVs are nowhere near practical yet for anyone that actually goes anywhere, 

 

Totally agree, I'm surprised there aren't more hybrid vans and lorries. EV is great for knocking around town, shortish commuter journeys.

 

You could do Manchester to Penzance on 2 /3 charges, stopping for about an hour at motorway services with fast chargers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said elsewhere that an EV is fine as a second vehicle.  They are fine as a shopping trolley and short range commuting.  But no good for long journeys and no good for people that want to "do" something with a vehicle like tow something.

 

When we retire I had envisaged a situation that one car between us would be fine.  but it would have to be a capable vehicle.  Ironically the present direction of travel means we will probably stick with 2 cars, one EV for the local stuff and an ICE car for towing and long journeys.  At least the ICE car would not be doing many miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.