Is it the death knell for the combustion engine?

[Jayg]

The problem is "clean energy" isn't that clean. Littering the countryside with thousands of enormous reinforced concrete turbine bases, and having to cut up the thousands of colossal fibreglass turbine blades and burying them when their useful life is over - is that really "clean". Every form of energy production has a cost to the environment.
The other downside is that it makes electricity very expensive - ignore the claims that wind and solar are comparable to coal and gas generation -thats only by fiddling the figures by artificially loading the fossil fuels with carbon taxes and subsidising the renewables. This has resulted in 2.5 million people in the UK now living in fuel poverty and subsequently an estimated 17,000 deaths from the resulting cold. Quite a downside if you are one of them!
The crazy thing is that the air has never been cleaner. Taking London as the extreme, the SPM - Suspended Particulate Matter ( soot, dust, pollen) in micro grams per cubic meter, was 250 in pre-industrial times (1700), peaked at 621 in 1890 and has been falling ever since - by 1980 it was 82, by 2000 25, by 2010 20, and by 2016 just 16. Not sure where the problem is.... we are already in a clean energy society.

Whilst I agree that turbines do require an anchor on land or at Sea.

Turbines and solar have been funded publicly in the past.

The latest development in my area ( turbines) are going ahead without additional funding, will stand on its own, profit or loss.

These ways of producing electricity, green energy is the way forward.

using sunlight produced millions of years ago is not the way forward ( fossil fuels) think of the term we use to describe them!

Whilst I do accept that the path to the future is littered with inconsistencies, our future must be based on consuming less of all the resources that are finite.

As we are not 100% sure of the science being given to us, the prudent way forward it caution, as that is the safest way.

Unless you all think carrying on being consumers, and letting the rest of the population of the world reaching our level is the Better way forward?

 

[Asterix]

Whilst I agree that turbines do require an anchor on land or at Sea.

Turbines and solar have been funded publicly in the past.

The latest development in my area ( turbines) are going ahead without additional funding, will stand on its own, profit or loss.

These ways of producing electricity, green energy is the way forward.

using sunlight produced millions of years ago is not the way forward ( fossil fuels) think of the term we use to describe them!

Whilst I do accept that the path to the future is littered with inconsistencies, our future must be based on consuming less of all the resources that are finite.

As we are not 100% sure of the science being given to us, the prudent way forward it caution, as that is the safest way.

Unless you all think carrying on being consumers, and letting the rest of the population of the world reaching our level is the Better way forward?

World’s Largest Floating Wind Turbine Begins Generating Power

The first of three 8.4-megawatt turbines starts spinning as WindFloat Atlantic joins the growing fleet of floating offshore pilots.

www.greentechmedia.com

 

[Jayg]

Ballast also need containing.

it does not stay upright by inertia.

 

[trevskoda]

No you wouldn't. A large suitcase gennie will give up to 3KW which is ample to do a slow charge. If you can leave it running a few hours, that'll do. However, generators are heavy on fuel. Might be cheaper to find somewhere to plug in.

Here is the info

 

[davef]

Unless sufficient electricity can affordably be stored to supply the grid for periods of low sunlight - probably 4 months of the winter, a or periods of low wind speeds - probably several weeks, both solar and wind power are not viable power sources. The annual renewable subsidy is £10 billion.
Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace and a former director of Greenpeace Intl. gave a very interesting talk on climate change and the importance of CO2. Unusually for an environmentalist he is also a scientist. Here is a link to his speech given to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which is well worth reading https://www.technocracy.news/former...RXkoEFNX84R1fM6Wg_1LIGjVZZfVeqKEPXgJ_aW8ZiKBI

 

[Fisherman]

Unless sufficient electricity can affordably be stored to supply the grid for periods of low sunlight - probably 4 months of the winter, a or periods of low wind speeds - probably several weeks, both solar and wind power are not viable power sources. The annual renewable subsidy is £10 billion.
Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace and a former director of Greenpeace Intl. gave a very interesting talk on climate change and the importance of CO2. Unusually for an environmentalist he is also a scientist. Here is a link to his speech given to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which is well worth reading https://www.technocracy.news/former...RXkoEFNX84R1fM6Wg_1LIGjVZZfVeqKEPXgJ_aW8ZiKBI

The possibility of human induced global warming is not there to be “torn to shreads” neither is the counter argument.
What Patrick Moore states that there is no conclusive evidence of human induced global warming is factually correct, but it ignores completely the possibility that CO2 levels are the cause. Also he writes of small changes in temperature as if they will have little effect on life on this planet of ours. But most environmental scientists would counter that with valid proven arguments that small changes in temperature can have dramatic even catastrophic changes to life on Earth. Life on Earth is fragile and depends heavily on a balance of environmental factors with little latitude for change.

To ignore the possibility of human induced global warming and its consequences is wreck less in the extreme.
What’s required is not extremist views from either side such as extinction rebellion who have severely damaged the argument for human induced global warming, or arguments like this. What’s required is a reasoned approach taking cognicence of all arguments. Extreme views from either side are completely counter productive.

We also have to carry out these changes in a balanced manner in order to try and maintain the current equilibriums in our society. Because if we don’t we threaten to damage severely our civilisation, through damage to our fragile interconnected economies. This is what extinction rebellion refuse to consider. They are hell bent on measures that if carried out to soon could lead to catastrophic events for us all. But equally we must realise that human induced global warming is a possibility.

We pay out for insurance each year for our homes to negate the possible effects of fire, flood, theft or damage. We do this with the expectation that we will not require to make a claim. But we do this because we accept the possibility. Not to insure our home would be wreck less, and ignoring the possibility of human induced global warming is even more wreck less.

 

[ricc]

whether or not an individual agrees with the concept of man made global warming it is certain that one day we will run out of fossil fuels, before the final crunch they will become more difficult to access and hence more expensive.
electricity does seem to be the way forward both for renewable generation and for what you can do with it after youve got it.
personally i dont like the concept of nucleur both from the accident standpoint and what the hell do you do with the normal radioactive waste both from generation and end of life plant.
if we go with renewables from solar and wind we have to think about storage and evening out fluctuations of supply, that may mean changing lifestyles and work practices to match demand to supply. or could be simple chemical or physical storage.... batteries, generating hydrogen that can be stored, or even pumping water from sea level upto mountain lakes for hydro power on demand.

in this neck of the woods a bristol channel tidal scheme that would give reliable renewable power was proposed years ago but killed because it would change the wild birds habitat....can we be that considerate of the birds in the future? .... personally if the choice was a tidal barrage or hinckley point c nuclear ...and hinckley is going to raise the channel water temp anyway,,, id rather have the tidal

 

[Fazerloz]

E10 petrol.

E10 petrol explained: checker tool, UK prices and is it OK for your car? | Auto Express

What is E10 fuel and will your car run on it? Here’s everything you need to know about E10...

www.autoexpress.co.uk

 

[trevskoda]

Back to a 2 stroke engine as they will run on paraffin ,i have two old white yam paraffin outboards in the garage and i remember running a NSU quickly on a petrol paraffin mix in the old days.

 

[Tonybvi]

Here is the infoView attachment 77166

Some real facts from somebody who has an EV. My battery is 100Kw - at the moment I think that is the largest on offer in the market but some of the smaller city cars have considerably smaller batteries, down to 40Kw or so. The maths should be simple, simply divide the size of the battery by the power of the charger and that will be how long a charge from 0% to 100% takes. i.e. a 100Kw battery on a super fast 150Kw DC charger will take 40 minutes, the same battery on a 7Kw AC home charger will take over 14 hours. But only a fool would let his battery run down to 0%, most folk panic at 10% or so. It harms the battery to regularly charge to 100% and leave it standing fully charged so 90% or less is best. When a battery is cold it cannot take a heavy charge, when a battery is nearing 100% charging slows completely. As a general rule on a Tesla 20 to 70% takes roughly the same time as 70 to 90%,and 90 to 100% takes even longer.
All this to say the figures given in the quote referred to above can be taken with a huge pinch of salt!

 

[Fazerloz]

Global warming mmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Fazerloz]

The possibility of human induced global warming is not there to be “torn to shreads” neither is the counter argument.
What Patrick Moore states that there is no conclusive evidence of human induced global warming is factually correct, but it ignores completely the possibility that CO2 levels are the cause. Also he writes of small changes in temperature as if they will have little effect on life on this planet of ours. But most environmental scientists would counter that with valid proven arguments that small changes in temperature can have dramatic even catastrophic changes to life on Earth. Life on Earth is fragile and depends heavily on a balance of environmental factors with little latitude for change.

Don't we just want the truth to be told and not to be manipulated for whatever reasons.
Who/ What can you trust. Then look at the link below the vid.

polarbearscience

Polar bear science - past and present

polarbearscience.com

 

[Fisherman]

Don't we just want the truth to be told and not to be manipulated for whatever reasons.
Who/ What can you trust. Then look at the link below the vid.

polarbearscience

Polar bear science - past and present

polarbearscience.com

Sorry I don't feel the least bit manipulated Faze, and scientists are attempting to advise as best they can a very complex issue.
As I have said repeatedly I don't sit in any of the two extreme camps.
I am neither a global warming denier, nor a follower of a lunatic fringe like extinction rebellion Faze.
I sit somewhere in the middle, and as such I reckon that the science may have some credence.
For me completely ignoring the warnings is simply not an option.
As for the truth, the truth is we are not 100% certain either way.

 

[Jayg]

Despite all the, I Believe, or I Don’t Believe arguments posted so far.

What do we loose by adopting a low carbon society?

If we did adapt to using none Fossil fuels as a source of power, the technology would improve by leaps and bounds.

Look into history at the first steam train “Stephenson rocket” compared with the “Flying Scotsman “ similar/ same technology.

If we adopt this approach to clean energy, in one or two decades where will we be?

Not photoelectric cells , but inferred cells

Not nuclear reactors , fusion reactors.

Thick back to when we faced adversity, and the solutions we allowed to come forward.

So what do we have to fear from a clean energy society?

Just your shares in old fossil fuels companies?

 

[Fisherman]

Despite all the, I Believe, or I Don’t Believe arguments posted so far.

What do we loose by adopting a low carbon society?

If we did adapt to using none Fossil fuels as a source of power, the technology would improve by leaps and bounds.

Look into history at the first steam train “Stephenson rocket” compared with the “Flying Scotsman “ similar/ same technology.

If we adopt this approach to clean energy, in one or two decades where will we be?

Not photoelectric cells , but inferred cells

Not nuclear reactors , fusion reactors.

Thick back to when we faced adversity, and the solutions we allowed to come forward.

So what do we have to fear from a clean energy society?

Just your shares in old fossil fuels companies?

Nuclear fusion will transform everything, but it’s probably not going to be with us for several decades. Just think safe nuclear power, with no radiation, with power stations costing a fraction of current nuclear power stations producing 50 to 100 times more power. And they will not last for decades, but hundreds of years.
and when they are finished no nuclear waste to dispose of.
Now that’s the future and it will happen this century, and when it does it will be the game changer we are all waiting for.

 

[Fazerloz]

Despite all the, I Believe, or I Don’t Believe arguments posted so far.

What do we loose by adopting a low carbon society?

If we did adapt to using none Fossil fuels as a source of power, the technology would improve by leaps and bounds.

Look into history at the first steam train “Stephenson rocket” compared with the “Flying Scotsman “ similar/ same technology.

If we adopt this approach to clean energy, in one or two decades where will we be?

Not photoelectric cells , but inferred cells

Not nuclear reactors , fusion reactors.

Thick back to when we faced adversity, and the solutions we allowed to come forward.

So what do we have to fear from a clean energy society?

Just your shares in old fossil fuels companies?

What do we have to lose, only a unbelievable amount of money as a country, that could be better spent.

 

[colinm]

The OP is about vehicle emission's, in the UK it is estimated 38,000 people per year die early due Deisel emissions, about the same as the very worst case scenario for Corvid 19.

 

[Fisherman]

What do we have to lose, only a unbelievable amount of money as a country, that could be better spent.

possibly 40,000 not dying from diesel fumes every year alone makes it all worth while.

 

[davef]

The OP is about vehicle emission's, in the UK it is estimated 38,000 people per year die early due Deisel emissions, about the same as the very worst case scenario for Corvid 19.

There is absolutely no basis in facts for that figure. Like the projected temperature increase it is just based on computer models, with the opinion that if there were no diesel emissions people might live for an extra day or two - with that being added up to give some such arbitrary figure. Computer models just confirm the bias you put into them. In actuality the air has never been cleaner.

 

[Robmac]

possibly 40,000 not dying from diesel fumes every year alone makes it all worth while.

I respect the sentiment, but suspect that you are driving a diesel motorhome? (apologies if I'm wrong on that).

However, if you really think that you are contributing to the massacre of 40,000 people per year, surely you would give up motorhoming in a heartbeat? Or am I being too simplistic.