They aren’t being arrested just for campaigning, are they? It’s the way they are choosing to campaign. Their methods IMO are terrible as they just make everyone hate them which is the opposite of what you need to be a success.
This sort of argument always makes me remember the anti nuclear protests in the 80s. In the UK they all stood around and held hands and sang songs. In france they attacked the sites with bazookas!
We can shut the UK down tomorrow and propel us back into the Stone Ange and it will have sweet FA impact on the global climate change.
This is true but does not absolve us from doing our bit and we could also become both a example of best practice adn produce technologies to export
this is however the basic reason why i am so pessimistic. the US is the worst per head of population - dunno the latest figures but at one point were 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds greenhouse gas production
then we have developing nations like India and china who want to get to western levels of prosperity. Its hypocritical to tell them they cannot develop while we carry on polluting
I still remain convinced tho the planet is FUBAR because the US, china, India will not take the steps required and even in Europe we will not - look at all the folk on here who claim nothing can be done
Unfortunately much of Europe has fallen for the myth of pale green consumerism which means fiddling around the edges not taking the radical steps that will actually make a difference. an example of this is the hybrid / electic SUV. there is no significant energy reduction with these. what we need is 500kg cars not 2000 kilo cars
the only thing that will work ( until fusion comes onboard) is consume less of everything including energy
So you don’t want to breath cleaner air? You are happy to live surrounded by landfill? No problem with our polluted rivers and seas? Shall we just chop the last few trees down in the UK and be done with it?
I guess you don’t tidy up your own house because you neighbours don’t bother ?
Er no. I've acknowledged we're improving our environment and that is good and we should continue to do that but all. But in itself it isn't a solution to the global problem. We now have clean rivers and coastlines and more trees than we've had in centuries and CO2 levels are falling etc. Obviously more than we can do and we're doing it.
I'm saying is don't pat yourself on your back because in the global context of the challenge our contribution isn't even measurable.
Go on I think we're all wanting the same outcome but just debating the best way to get there. Personally I'm interested int he bigger picture stuff....all the stuff we waffle on about generally is the small 'in the noise' stuff...of course it all adds up but its a case of prioritisation and making sure we don't end up with the unintended consequences trap that Germany fell into in instigation f short terms and popularist knee jerk reactions to placate a small minority of activists. We just need to take the emotion out of it and make sensible and evidence based decisions.
But as individuals we can just do what we can do so lets crack on.
We now have clean rivers and coastlines
Hmm. We have less industrial pollution but still massive nutrient loading and cso pollution
We now have clean rivers
This is news. Do you have a (sic, sic, sic!) source for that data please?
Germany fell into in instigation f short terms and popularist knee jerk reactions to placate a small minority of activists.
In fact in 2011 it was the majority of the population that wanted to shut down the nuclear plants and compenstate the energy companies. There were multiple opinion polls. Here's one:
The majority wanted out of nuclear by 2020 or earlier even if it meant increased CO2 production. The mandate for the government to shut down th enuclear plants was far stronger than for say Brexit.
Recent polls say that opinion has now tipped in favour of using nuclear to cut CO2 emissions.
That is a personal insult that has nothing to do with me pointing out that the protesters demanding we insulate are right.
You said they were arrested for protesting. That's not strictly accurate, they were arrested for blocking traffic on purpose whilst protesting.
We now have clean rivers
This is news.
Not really. They've got worse recently but they are still far cleaner than they were fifty years ago. Salmon in the Taff would have been unthinkable then.
We might be heading in the right direction finally, but far too slowly and nowhere near the level that is required.
his is news. Do you have a (sic, sic, sic!) source for that data please?
No...are you saying our rivers and coastline is dirtier and more polluted than they were say 20 years ago?
I know I was swimming in the Trent over the summer something I wouldn't have done 20 years ago and it was crystal clear...fish and water life numbers have been increasing and general water wildlife increasing. Generally every wildlife programme and documentary I've seen in the last 10 years talks about how rivers and waterways are cleaning up. No reason to assume they're lying atey're the same people who are informing us about climate change and a whole host of other ills and problems we face today.
Depends what you consider as clean...but fish populations are increasing as is general water wildlife. Many wildlife centres around me are abundant in massive increase and recovery of wildlife both on land and in the water.
To say we've made no progress over recent decades is just wrong. Alway more we can do of course and I'm not sure what success looks like...what are the goals and when do we say job done? but if you want to say our rivers are dirty then they'll never be clean enough for the likes of you.
You've latched onto the press headlines not the facts, Molgrips.
A High Court injunction banning protests around the M25 and Dartford Crossing was issued on 23 September.
It stated demonstrators were banned from "causing damage to the surface" on or around the M25.
It was the protest methods, glue, paint etc. that led to the charges being brought against very few protesters. The charges were conspiracy to commit criminal damage not blocking traffic. The police by their own admission couldn't do much about people blocking the traffic which is why an injunction was sought to make it illegal.
The government was granted an injunction by the High Court last week banning anyone from blocking the M25 following the group's initial protests.
Anyone who breaks an injunction can be found in contempt of court and could face two years in prison and an unlimited fine.
So those arrested initially were arrested for painting and gluing AKA protesting.
No…are you saying our rivers and coastline is dirtier and more polluted than they were say 20 years ago?
Maybe you've not seen the news wobbliscott. Yes the EU's legislation cleaned up our water hugely in recent decades. I remember bits of turds floating past in the sea when I was young (~1970s).
One of the great unsung benefits of Brexit is getting rid of all this meddlesome European bureaucracy and we're now dumping sewage and other pollution into water courses around the country again. British turds on British beaches! Put that on the side of a bus.
(It's marginally more complex than that, in that the legislation is still in place, it's just being ignored, and of course the EU cannot force the UK govt to do anything about it.)
Yeah it's not job done. No idea why you would think this.
British turds on British beaches!
Be nice about the sunbathers.
Congratulations you have won absurd extrapolation of the day competition. A fine effort sir.
No it's just the logical conclusion from saying the planet can only support 2 billion people. It's rubbish, and an excuse for not accepting that we have to change the way we organise society.
Of course it's not a logical conclusion. Dont be absurd.
Hi, I think the world is overpopulated and perhaps 2 billion might be sustainable
Isnt code for
Hi I want to kill 5 billion people
Hi I want to kill 5 billion people
So if reducing the population to 2 billion is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change, and that has to be done in the next 20-30 years how do you do that? If population reduction is being proposed as a serious solution, then it follows that it would involve killing/culling billions of people. I feel like we're moving towards my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of nuclear war.. 🙄
Maybe you’ve not seen the news wobbliscott. Yes the EU’s legislation cleaned up our water hugely in recent decades. I remember bits of turds floating past in the sea when I was young (~1970s).
I've seen floaters just off the beach, quite possibly within site of your apartment just last year.
To be fair in that case, the I'll informed word in the boat is theres a sewage pipe that still works but has been kind of lost that discharges straight into the sea.
So if reducing the population to 2 billion is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change, and that has to be done in the next 20-30 years how do you do that? If population reduction is being proposed as a serious solution, then it follows that it would involve killing/culling billions of people. I feel like we’re moving towards my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of nuclear war..
What we really need is a mystery disease to kill off several million and to make fossil fuels increase in price so much as to become unaffordable.....oh wait.
Maybe the tories have a plan after all. ;-P
Bird Flu is where its at apparently
@wobbliscot I asked if you had a source claiming that our rivers are ‘clean’?
No…
Fair enough. But you go on:
are you saying our rivers and coastline is dirtier and more polluted than they were say 20 years ago?
And on. I was simply asking for a source that shows how they are ‘clean’. The rest of your post was largely a strawman argument for ‘the likes’ of ‘me’ so I’ll just move on.
We now have clean rivers
This is news.
Not really. They’ve got worse recently but they are still far cleaner
ISWYDT
Clean =/= ‘cleaner’.
England is especially bad. Our local Wye is (sadly) subject of a new documentary titled (appropriately) ‘Rivercide’. My favourite swimming spot in another local river (Powys/Shrops) made my eyes sting and was covered in scum and weird bubbles the last time I dipped. Haven’t been in since. The supposedly protected freshwater mussel beds there are also in sharp decline. But enough anecdotes.
All of the rivers, lakes and streams in England are polluted, says the Environment Agency.
The figures reveal a complete lack of progress towards the target of 100% healthy waters by 2027.
The most problematic pollutants are chemical sewage discharge, farming, and industrial chemicals.
In 2016, when figures were last published, 16% of waters were classed as good.
In fact, water quality hasn't deteriorated since then - but it hasn't improved as promised.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54195182
To make things worse, the EA’s number of samples and sampling points had fallen by nearly 50% since 2013 so we don’t even know the state of much of our waterways and coastal waters. The UK’s water sector is arguably broken.
Our rivers and freshwater have continued to suffer due to the failure of the water regulator to take the environment seriously. This is evidenced by the declining condition of freshwater in England. Not least the increasing failure of a sewerage system incapable of meeting demand with over 400,000 extra sewage spills reported in 2020. These failings are cemented by the known gap in capital funding of at least £10 billion for the water industry over the last 10 years.
Using figures supplied by the water industry, the report examines data on water pipe replacement rates revealing that the typical replacement/renewal rate in the UK is around 0.05% of the network per annum. This implies OFWAT and the water companies are expecting sewers to last for up to 2,000 years – 10 times longer than the European average. By anyone’s maths, this does not add up!
https://www.wcl.org.uk/time-to-fix-the-broken-water-sector.asp
It continues not to ‘add up.
No one quite knows how much untreated sewage and storm water is released into England’s waterways…
…The difficulty in relying on water company data will be underscored next month when Southern Water, which supplies water and treats sewage for 4.7m people in Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, appears in court for sentencing after pleading guilty to deliberately dumping “poisonous, noxious” substances including untreated sewage into rivers and coastal waters near several popular tourist hotspots over five years.
Last June the financial regulator Ofwat found the business, which is owned by a consortium of infrastructure investors, had deliberately manipulated and misreported data for seven years. https://www.ft.com/content/6bcec6e6-c214-4062-9cf1-7812c996af0f
The ‘likes of me’ would like not to shut my eyes and call it ‘clean’ simply because some waterways were entirely barren during my childhood. Or because A. N. Ecdote was known to have recently took a dip in The Trent and reported all was good. I’ll rather take note of the (however incomplete) data - and that says that only 16% of my Country’s rivers currently achieve good ecological status, according to government data published last year.
Here’s a semi-useful map detailing where effluent (treated and untreated) is released/spilled into our waterways:
So if reducing the population to 2 billion is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change, and that has to be done in the next 20-30 years how do you do that? If population reduction is being proposed as a serious solution, then it follows that it would involve killing/culling billions of people. I feel like we’re moving towards my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of nuclear war.. 🙄
Well if you're just going to make stuff up regarding the content of the post you responded then yes, I can see how you make logical conclusions.
As usual the debate has descended into bickering and point scoring over each other. I'm guilty, but at least I stopped my argument. Problem is there's nothing left apart from the bickering. So the thread'll die as everyone walks away from it. This is the problem in a nutshell, isn't it?
@edukator https://www.iter.org/mach/coolingwater
There's your cooling loop sorted. ITER is no longer expected to reach ignition (self heating) but is expected to achieve a Q factor of 10 (500MW output for 50MW input).
The whole cooling thing is, for now, a non issue, not until we break Q=1 anyway.
Go on squirrelking – explain to me how you can have carbon zero energy production?
I've offered you the means, you rejected them. Go look up "zero carbon generation" for yourself. It's literally the top Google hit. If you can't be bothered to learn and communicate with the accepted terminology then I don't see why I should hold your hand.
Did you read the article I linked explaining why that oft quoted Q of 10 is misleading, Squirrelking?
The "500MW output for 50MW input" completely ignores the energy consumed to achieve that state. The thermonuclear Q might well be 10 but the generating Q will be about 1. You need a thermal Q of about 40 to achieve a generating Q worth having. There no point having a reactor with a thermal Q of 10 on the grid as it will consume as much if not more electricity than it produces.
Having a cooling system dumping heat to the environment at low pressure for short periods isn't my idea of plumbing the reactor so that it can be run continuously with a high pressure cooling system taking away enough heat for continuous generation.
The ITER people have slightly changed the wording on their site in response to accusations that it's misleading but to me it's still ambiguous. It doesn't make it clear that if ITER were a power station it would produce no more electricity than it consumes at best. I will admit to having had the wool pulled over my eyes until a guy who works on JET posted on this forum (including comments about their huge draw on the grid) and I read it all more critically.
poah
Free Member
rUK going to be screwed when Scotland gets independence for their % of renewables.
Why?, in scotland renewables are only about 20-25% too, same as the uk.
https://scotland.shinyapps.io/Energy/?Section=WholeSystem&Chart=RenEnTgt
If you can’t be bothered to learn and communicate with the accepted terminology then I don’t see why I should hold your hand.
So merely a semantic debate then. Its bollox as there is no such thing as zero carbon energy generation just semantic obfuscation. You did agree I was technically correct
I understood what you meant that its no additional carbon once the installation and decomissioning costs are discounted - but its "technically incorrect"
|Its also not "accepted terminology - many folk even in renewables do not use it
seosamh77
Scotland is 20 % of Total energy use, england is 20% of electricity generation I thought
Scotland certainly has a much higher rate of renewables than england - but when scotland gains its independence it will make little difference to the rUK figures as the populaton of scotland is only 10% of rUK
Boladerdash 0- misread it
But does your ‘1%’ include emissions that we outsource to China and ‘developing nations’?
On the Chinese emissions. 90% of chinese emissions are due to domestic use. So it's not like chinas export of the products it makes causes all their emissions. China is responsible for its own emissions largely.
I think you're confusing total energy use and electricty consumption Seosamh77. In terms of electricity generation Scotland is at about 97% renewables, and rising:
https://www.scottishrenewables.com/our-industry/statistics
A few years from now an independent Scotland would be able to rely on domestic renewable electricity to replace fossil fuels in many activities whereas England would suddenly find itself with a huge electricity shortfall if cut off from Scotland.
tjagain
Full Member
seosamh77Scotland is 20 % of Total energy use, england is 20% of electricity generation I thought
Dunno, I'm really just making the point that this pdf is misleading.
Our total system here in scotland is still largely carbon based.
Edukator
Free Member
I think you’re confusing total energy use
I'm no confusing it, I'm making the point that it is confusing. 😆
When talking energy you need to look at the whole system.
England would suddenly find itself with a huge electricity shortfall if cut off from Scotland.
Not really edukator and Scotland has an issue with over reliance on wind which needs fossil fuel as backup for that winter high pressure event 0- but there has been weeks when no or almost no fossil fuel energy was used in scotland
but there has been weeks when no or almost no fossil fuel energy was used in scotland
in electricity generation aye, but we still largely use gas to heat our homes, petrol in cars, and million other things that use fossil fuels. the total system is still about 75+% carbon.
The plan to reduce does look good going forward though, which is fair enough. (tbh I think the uk as a whole will be fine going forward, we are on a change over strategy imo.)
in electricity generation aye
indeed - I should have put that in. My mistake
i think one of the biggest challenges in Scotland in particular is heat generation, we are all mostly on gas central heating in homes at least, not sure about business, I'd guess so.
Considering that gas prices are a lot cheaper than electricity, I'd think that's is probably the biggest stumbling block there. Electricity is 9 or 10 times the cost of gas per KWH I think, there would a riot if we all had to switch tomorrow. (sorry mind that 50 quid heat bill, I want 500 now. :lol:) That's quite a disparity.
That's seems to be where Scotlands biggest challenge lies. Heat is about 51% of Scotlands energy consumption, renewables are only at 6% the now.
Transport is the next largest sector, at 25%. But as mentioned, shifting that on to the grid is an issue in itself even with efficiencies..
The price of electricity generation needs to come down. That seems like an obvious thing eh?
Interesting though, never actually did realise, that when I used my plugs I'm turning turbines, but when I turn on the heating I'm burning stuff. 😆 Pretty much that simple up here(mostly). Still warm enough to have the heating off so far, but will be on soon I reckon!
Does seem like insulation is also a big factor, so they daft protesters do have a valid point, if not ridiculous methods!
Electricity is 9 or 10 times the cost of gas per KWH I think
About 4 times if you pay 15p for electricity and 4p for gas. Electric heating is 100% efficient, gas is somewhat less. Use a high COP heat pump and the cost becomes comparable.
The price of electricity generation needs to come down.
It is, wind power is cheap, however the price you pay is the market price which is a supply and demand thing.
tbh I just quickly googled, and got different prices. I just googled the average uk price there, Gas for 3.80p per kWh and leccy for 17.2p/kWh.
So technically, 4.5 times. I'll accept that, fair dooz, cheers for the correction, it's still quite a bump in your heating bill if you need to switch over to leccy.
On the Chinese emissions. 90% of chinese emissions are due to domestic use. So it’s not like chinas export of the products it makes causes all their emissions
I’m not sure anyone claimed that all Chinese emissions were due to exported goods?
But your figure is interesting. Do you have the source please?
Economists now say that one-third of China's carbon dioxide emissions are pumped into the atmosphere in order to manufacture exported goods – many of them “advanced” electronics goods destined for developed countries. “Export goods emissions” account for 1.7 billion tonnes of China's carbon dioxide
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14412-33-of-chinas-carbon-footprint-blamed-on-exports/
[img] 
[/img]
just basing it on graphs in there on there. interestingly the US is fairly even, about 4-5% imported, uk is about 30ish%.
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
It's a net figure rather than absolute tbh.
But as I've said before, the seller should also be responsible for their emissions. so just cause you export, doesn't mean you should be getting off with those emissions. You know, I'm not allowed to start a company and start putting all sorts of toxic waste into the Clyde for example.
I do appreciated alot of the emissions will be due to transportation though.
Stop having children. Simple
You know, I’m not allowed to start a company and start putting all sorts of toxic waste into the Clyde for example.
So you buy it from someone who does?
From that same article (and I tend to broadly agree, although a *shared* burden of responsibility seems more fitting )
China is very aware that much of its carbon footprint is export emissions, and has used this as an argument against adopting Kyoto-Protocol-like emissions caps. Other major emitters, including the US and Europe, it says, demand and consume the products so they should bear the burden of responsibility for the emissions.
International policy at the moment tends to penalise the country which produces goods rather than the one that consumes them.
“In some measure, it makes sense if people buy goods and become liable for the emissions generated when the goods are produced,” says Benito Müller of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, UK. “They will certainly be more choosy about what they buy.”
How to fairly apportion the liability for China’s exported emissions “is the million-dollar question”, says Weber.
“It’s just like narcotics,” says Müller. “Who is responsible, the drug baron or the junkies?”
BTW, the 33% figure was from 2005 as (apparently) no current data is available. One may guess which way that figure is trending as in 1987 just 12% of China’s total emissions were from exports.
@edukator I've not read your article no, so I'll take what you say on board. Only had time to read that page of posts during lunch. Will take a look later but it sounds like you're talking about thermal and electrical power difference. Either way I'm not sure how 50MW in to 500MW out can't be 1:10 but as said I'll read it later.
@tjagain it absolutely is correct use. Please stop trying to correct me on basic terminology from academic work I have studied my arse off on when you won't even read the books I offered you. Just because some activist says it doesn't mean it is so. The zero is in relation to the emissions which you full well know, you're not stupid so obviously you're just being obtuse; wind, solar, tidal etc. produce no CO2 in generation so are therefore zero CO2. Like I said, first Google hit, national grid. Embedded costs are completely unknown since they can range from produced using brown coal to entirely carbon free production hence they aren't counted in generation figures (but far from forgotten).
I don't use google
sure you know more about this shizzle than I do but its a completely inaccurate term and the first search engine hit I got was from EDF describing nuclear as low carbon and I also found others so its far from unversally used and is misleading
Low-carbon energy is:
Wind, solar, hydro or nuclear power,
Generated using lower amounts of carbon emissions,
Better for the planet as it’s releasing less carbon into the atmosphere.
https://www.edfenergy.com/for-home/energywise/low-carbon-energy
I completely understand what you mean but that does not detract from tha tfact that there is NO zero carbon elecricty generation
EDf seems to use the two terms interchanably
You can call a cat rover and put it in a kennel but its still a cat
In terms of electricity generation Scotland is at about 97% renewables, and rising:
No, that's based on consumption, as of today there is still over 2GW of nuclear and whatever Peterhead produces (not sure if islands are included where not grid connected).
Also includes the numerous AD plants, landfill and energy from waste sites that still produce CO2 (which is still better than CH4 in the case of AD and landfill) and other pollutants. Our energy from waste sector is getting a hammering, quite rightly, because its being lazy and burning any old shite. Tbh it shouldn't even be counted as a renewable since it relies on waste generation and the aim should be zero.
Scotland is aiming for what they term 100% renewabbles - its not there yet and due to the intermittent supply from wind will never be
On a sunny and windy day then yes almost all scotlands needs can be met from renewables but on a still winters night it cannot.
