Watched this last summer, hard work. Buried somewhere in it is a ref to a Spanish study that stated that, because mining is so massively energy intensive, electrification of some of the machinery simply wasn’t viable. To mine all of the additional minerals to convert domestic transport to electric would liberate so many fossil fuels in the process that we’d miss the +1.5 degC target by 2050 due to that alone. Never mind everything else. Not word for word sorry, just repeating from memory. I thought I’d made a note of the exact quote but can’t find it now.
Problems with the green agenda
- Thread starter Jonp
- Start date
Watched this last summer, hard work. Buried somewhere in it is a ref to a Spanish study that stated that, because mining is so massively energy intensive, electrification of some of the machinery simply wasn’t viable. To mine all of the additional minerals to convert domestic transport to electric would liberate so many fossil fuels in the process that we’d miss the +1.5 degC target by 2050 due to that alone. Never mind everything else. Not word for word sorry, just repeating from memory. I thought I’d made a note of the exact quote but can’t find it now.
Yes you mine it once but recycling takes energy, I was a great fan of electric cars etc but I'm not so sure that the issues have been thought through properly, not only is there enough material to make all these batteries, perhaps new types will be found, we certainly don't have the generation or grid capacity to deal with the massive increase in demand, while sun and wind are cheap they certainly aren't free and are definitely not reliable and again require huge storage capacity to work and other sources for back up .
Once nuclear fusion is cracked then supply will be sorted, I'm sure science will find a way to cleaner risk free electric, in time, but we are rushing to a position where we can't actually provide reliability currently without looking at potential issues.
- Location
- North Norfolk
Sodium batteries now hitting the market
Cab-over Pete
Member
- Location
- Kenilworth, Warwickshire
I’m not telling anybody to change or abstain from anything. I’m not a dictator or a climate expert.
But ultimately it is humans that are the problem and if anybody REALLY cares about getting the planet back to it’s most natural state, they would voluntarily abstain and be promoting such behaviour.
If every couple around the world just decided to have one child then pretty soon population would decrease massively and there would be enough resources already mined and in use to keep that population going forever.
It‘ll never happen, but less people is the only way.
It’s no use bleating on about climate change, telling everyone how virtuous you are with your electric car and then showing how you can fit all four of your kids into it. (That’s not aimed at anyone in particular)
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
- Location
- The North
That was in other thread, excellent video, people proposing huge spending on stuff they really don’t understand.
All politicians just run with the trend like sheep.
The biggest benefit always was and always will be the reduction in harmful tailpipe emissions within cities, and that’s not to be sniffed at (literally). Electricity still has to be generated somehow though, such a shame electric cars are promoted as "zero emissions" by some. They’re an idea worth pursuing but let’s be grown-ups about it. And pigs might fly.
- Location
- The North
Quite frightening that, one things for sure trying to achieve net zero is just gonna reduce quality of life through high energy costs and probably detriment the environment to, I can only see energy costs going up
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I am now getting so annoyed at all the ridiculous CO2 hype that I am rebelling against it.
Many I speak to are thinking the same.
It is almost like they are shooting themselves in foot so much that it is backfiring against them.
Proven by that exact video insofar that those politicians couldn’t answer a simple question correctly.
Actually guessing at a figure that was in fact between 120 and 200 times the actual figure!
This just says it all.
It’s like saying we are not in the year 2023, but the year 242,760 to 404,600.
Or that a day is not 24 hours long, but 2,880 to 4,800 hours long!
This is becoming an obsession now and seems like nothing more than a money making exercise for certain company's.
Ssen are about to wipe parts of the Highlands off the map with 60 acre substations and 60m pylons, untold devastation to peatland, habitat, and the enviroment.
Complete sham
Ssen are about to wipe parts of the Highlands off the map with 60 acre substations and 60m pylons, untold devastation to peatland, habitat, and the enviroment.
Complete sham
As they turned off their nuclear I believe they turned ON the import of French nucular (not too old for the Simpsons)
Populations ARE dropping across the world, so that will be one problem resolved.....
I am sure another one will come along...
toquark
Member
Exactly this. The more they go on, the more ridiculous and outlandish claims they make, the less inclined I am to play along.
I'd be a little more inclined to play along if there was a concerted effort to eliminate petrochemicals in food packaging, textiles, toys and other tat . It's not like there's no ready alternatives. Save the oil and gas for transport and power until there is a viable alternative.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I wonder how many of those trying to implement SFI could actually give us the correct %age of CO2 in the atmosphere without looking it up.
spider mike
Member
I saw a presentation the other day comparing a standard car that will do 400 miles to a tank of fuel, an electric one where the range was less than 200 miles and an electric one with a range of 400miles.
This was total emissions including manufacturing everything that was needed to get each vehicle to 120000 miles on the clock. The 200 mile electric car only became beneficial to the environment with reduced co2 emissions after all vehicles covered 85000 miles whilst the one that had more batteries would need to cover 150000 miles to start to produce lower co2 than a conventional car.
It's all about manufacturing emissions of the batteries
This was total emissions including manufacturing everything that was needed to get each vehicle to 120000 miles on the clock. The 200 mile electric car only became beneficial to the environment with reduced co2 emissions after all vehicles covered 85000 miles whilst the one that had more batteries would need to cover 150000 miles to start to produce lower co2 than a conventional car.
It's all about manufacturing emissions of the batteries
ollie989898
Member
A lot of the mining processes are already electrified- fixed or semi-mobile plant is already powered by electric, not least because it is far cheaper to operate than burning diesel and far more reliable. You can get cable powered excavators and the like but these do not move that much or over long distances.
Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
Was the guy in that video posted up thread right in what he said?
Whilst watching it I was fairly confident the correct answer was 0.4% co2 in the atmosphere but I’m sure he said 0.04%
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
0.04% is correct. That's why you'll rarely see it presented as a percentage. The doomists prefer to use parts per million, as 400PPM sounds a lot more than 0.04% does.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I worked out how many days that is since the year 0001 began. There was no year 0000 as we jumped from the year 1BC to 1AD.
As of today 17/04/23 there have been 739,007 days since 01/01/00, the first day AD.
0.04% of 739,007 days takes us to 22nd October 0001, which is day 273 of that first year AD.
In other words 0.04% or 400 PPM is very, very small indeed!
I think there was a HUGE error in that video where the guy said it was 0.03% two decades ago.
Sticky speaking it was 0.0375% two decades ago.
It all counts!
Even though it is Feck All.
A bit like this:
“From David Niven's autobiography, Bring on the Empty Horses. Director Mike Curtiz to David Niven & Errol Flynn: "You lousy bums, you and your stinking language, you think I know f**k nothing, well let me tell you— I know f**k ALL!”
― David Niven