The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[wilber]

The attitude changes significantly once you get a bit further away, partly because of lack of knowledge about nuclear, and largely because they don't get the employment benefits and financial 'sweeteners' that get given to a lot of local causes.

It's the same with wind turbines too, they are doing good things for our local economy, jobs and much needed financial benefit to local business's, new primary school, new 4G rugby pitch, improvements and funding to community centre's which without the funding would of been torn down. The ones against and with the loudest voice here though are the retirees and good lifers who have moved into the area, they dont give two sh1!s about anything besides their own little bubble, they are the ones causing local house price inflation and straining our local NHS as theyve moved here to die, that above all else boils my pee.

 

[phillipe]

Why do you not like wind farms?
This is a non judging question as we don't have any around us.
But I do live in a village that used to have 3 windmills that ground local grain for the village which I am sure were not universally loved either.....

Me personaly if I had a choice between, the 2 ugly rows of pillons that run within a mile of our village from one horizon to the other and the power stations doted around the view with there piles of fuel and all that they entail, put against wind and solar, and massive battery storage. It's no contest and that's not including nuclear power which no one wants on their door step......
When you look at the long term benefits of green energy like solar and wind, factor in costs from current production methods it's clear long term they are going to cost a fraction of the price to produce the same kw/hr that the coal or gas or wood fire power station they replace with zero pollution, now if you think they pollute when you make the wind turbine or solar panel we'll so do power plants they come with environmental cost to build as well as running costs and materials to do so, including the road or rail haulage that supply them. In my opinion wind turbines can be forgiven some ugliness by being the lesser evil to some of the modern power infrastructure we have now, now if it's noise this I cannot judge, but for me unless they are incredibly noisy (I can sleep quite happily with a fan running in my room) I would prefer them to the power stations in my view.

Now if you still cannot bring yourself to like wind turbines which you may have good reason not to, if centralised power supplies started to get replaced by more local systems and you had to have some form of power production within eye site i.e. 20 miles of your house what would you have if not wind. Let's say extra solar is not an option.

As a general comment, I will say if we get every roof in the uk converted to a tesla solar roof which look great compared with current solar roofs ( quite ulgy) and plenty of battery storage, throw in wind in areas on land that people can except, and in the sea. Throw in a few reserve power stations gas or straw or wood fired, we will see cleaner air, mix that with cheap electric which it will all lead to, running our cars on this electric, we end up with quite pollution free country including cities, what would cities be like with no pollution from traffic or engine noise.......now that's a world I want my children to grow up in.

If that moves us out of the cancer age by default as well, including reducing the chances of man made pollution effecting the worlds weather..... double great.
I see no down side other than cost, but standing still will most likely cost more in the long run.
when you realise that renewable energy requires no digging out the ground, drilling or pumping or refining cost nothing to transport, is produced entirely by the sun (wind is created by sun) can be produced with solar cells that have no moving parts you start to see how much cheaper energy is going to cost, and how great the world will be when we make the change.
It's almost unimportant why we are doing it (climate change) in the unlikly event we are not experiencing man made climate change I would still not change my vision for the worlds future, because it's so great. Just from the reduction in pollution from cars is worth the short term cost, throw in reducing prices in the future for every thing (energy cost is the backbone of all costs) its win win.

I will say to the people sitting on the fence about climate change or just don't belive, this is still no reason not to embrace renewable energy, when you realise this, then what's the actual problem with us wanting to belive climate change is real, why deny it, if the road we are traveling on is the same regardles of motivation. Ours is stopping climate change by increasing our use of renewables, yours is use more renewables because it's going to make the world better......there is no reason to cling to fossil fuels they offer no solutions long term only to risk more polluted cities and more control by big corporations producing our power. Compaired with producing your own.....with no pollution....at little cost. If that doesn't cut it what will.

I agree with a lot of your post ,but me I think it will come down to our own personal generation of power ,as soon a storage becomes a more viable option and I mean cost effective,then personal power stations will be a go .Also I think that battery cars are a fad,and hydrogen power is the way to go

 

[Dave645]

I agree with a lot of your post ,but me I think it will come down to our own personal generation of power ,as soon a storage becomes a more viable option and I mean cost effective,then personal power stations will be a go .Also I think that battery cars are a fad,and hydrogen power is the way to go

Hydrogen is promising, but from what I have read and looked into it, it comes down to energy density and storage and distribution, all which are not problems with batteries.

First even pure hydrogen in a compressed form is not actually that energy dense. Second it's needs a lot of electricity to make it from water, and third it has a tendency to escape.

the current gas distribution the uk has is just not suitable far to much would leak out, if you need more info Google it, it is an interesting read.
Because your not using energy in it's pure form, the solar energy your making, your using your solar energy to turn water into hydrogen, it's just less efficient. And making an extra step to usable power which is always less efficient.
But I agree it cannot be ruled out yet.

 

[bovrill]

the current gas distribution the uk has is just not suitable far to much would leak out, if you need more info Google it, it is an interesting read.
Because your not using energy in it's pure form, the solar energy your making, your using your solar energy to turn water into hydrogen, it's just less efficient. And making an extra step to usable power which is always less efficient.
But I agree it cannot be ruled out yet.

I can see agriculture going down the hydrogen route. New Holland certainly thought so a few years ago.
Solar and wind generation in remote areas producing hydrogen 365 days of the year, and storing it at the point of production ready for use in tractors etc when required. Yes there's energy losses on each conversion, but without having to transport it, the storage can be more efficient than batteries.
Regulation of a volatile explosive gas in large quantities might be the thing which stops it though.

 

[phillipe]

Hydrogen is promising, but from what I have read and looked into it, it comes down to energy density and storage and distribution, all which are not problems with batteries.

First even pure hydrogen in a compressed form is not actually that energy dense. Second it's needs a lot of electricity to make it from water, and third it has a tendency to escape.

the current gas distribution the uk has is just not suitable far to much would leak out, if you need more info Google it, it is an interesting read.
Because your not using energy in it's pure form, the solar energy your making, your using your solar energy to turn water into hydrogen, it's just less efficient. And making an extra step to usable power which is always less efficient.
But I agree it cannot be ruled out yet.

I read the other theyvare doing a trial in cardiff i think ,with 30 cars,plus lithium is one of the ungreenest dirtiest production in the world today

 

[phillipe]

I can see agriculture going down the hydrogen route. New Holland certainly thought so a few years ago.
Solar and wind generation in remote areas producing hydrogen 365 days of the year, and storing it at the point of production ready for use in tractors etc when required. Yes there's energy losses on each conversion, but without having to transport it, the storage can be more efficient than batteries.
Regulation of a volatile explosive gas in large quantities might be the thing which stops it though.

Got lpg gas in a storage tank in me garden ,you have diesel tanks ,whats the problem

 

[bovrill]

Got lpg gas in a storage tank in me garden ,you have diesel tanks ,whats the problem

Hydrogen isn't as easy to contain as the heavier gases. Given time it will actually leak through the molecules of a lot of conventional tanks.
And I can guarantee you that the moment someone wants to go commercial with it, the pictures of the Hindenburg crash will be everywhere!

 

[Robigus]

 

[Pond digger]

Yes, I don't see how anyone can look at that and think everything's ok.

 

[Gong Farmer]

The solid line is the only 'known data'?

So everything before and after is guesswork. what a waste of pixels.

 

[Dave645]

The solid line is the only 'known data'?

So everything before and after is guesswork. what a waste of pixels.

It's actually a reconstruction from ice core data, so not guesswork at all, it's doted because it's a smoothed line as explained on the picture, if you want the raw ice core data just google it.

 

[Robigus]

The solid line is the only 'known data'?

So everything before and after is guesswork. what a waste of pixels.

The references are given if you bothered to look.

 

[Robigus]

 

[lazy farmer]

i agree with you over GW but an eclipse is an absolute it happens no denying it. however some of other the other things mentioned are not.

 

[Gong Farmer]

Also scientists are unanimous on the eclipse, not so on 'global warming'.

 

[Robigus]

Also scientists are unanimous on the eclipse, not so on 'global warming'.

You say man made climate change isn't happening because you saw something on the Internet that was part of a multi billion dollar smoke screen paid for by the petrochemical industry.

Stephen Hawkins and 98% of the scientific community say it is happening.

Forgive me if I don't take your opinions too seriously.

 

[Robigus]

i agree with you over GW but an eclipse is an absolute it happens no denying it. however some of other the other things mentioned are not.

There really are a few flat earthers out there who claim the eclipse is not what it seems. The scientific community think they also are ill informed idiots.

 

[Gong Farmer]

Forgive me if I don't take your opinions too seriously.

No problem. Likewise.

 

[phillipe]

Doesnt matter what any body says on here ,or does ,because its not going to make one iota of difference ,in a short while the worlds population will hit 10 billion,then you can can buy as many wind turbines ,solar panels eco /battery cars ,lightbulbs that you cant see by and pay tax on them,because it will be too late the planet will not sustain 10 billion,sorry but lights out for the human race is doomed.have a nice day

 

[Dave645]

While I agree about the 10-12 billion that's predicted as the population max currently predicted, it doesn't make measures pointless it makes them more urgent, if govermants of the world find it hard to implement semi unpopular and they had been expensive, climate change policy's, how do you think a limit on people having children would go down...... and when you look where the population growth is greatest, that's likely to push us up to 10-12 billion it tends to be in the areas that can lease sustain it.....and that only gets worse if climate change is left unchecked, if we leave it another 20 years before we do something, then ignoring us crack pots with 98% of scientist behind us and continuing as if nothing is happening will lead to a total disaster, that's not to say a disaster will happen in 20 years but we would be further down the hill at greater speed, I for one would like to apply the brakes even if it's only a little, and not as much as I would like.

I personaly think from the evidence I have seen, I think we are doing far to little far to late, we are going to see history repeat it's self, I have posted a YouTube doc on the subject in this thread (sea people)if you look back. It wasn't good. As far as population control goes you will have less luck getting anyone to agree to do anything about it than, implementing a move from fossil fuels, over night.......zero chance.....
People tend to only react and push unpopular policy when the writing is on the wall and everyone with half a brain can see it's true. It's the only way to push unpopular changes, when the majority of people effected can see the need even if they don't like it.