Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

[Tommy Cookers]

bizarre for the UK to do so much more than its share within Europe
bizarre for Europe to do so much more than its share within the world

bizarre because it was a staggering mistake at the most basic level
thinking they were agreeing carbon reduction from electricity when they actually agreed to reduction from total energy including heat
(the UK being apparently well-equipped to be generous due to its takeup of indigenous gas)

every second of the day the EU system forces that conflation, apparently to confuse all citizens, not just Mr Blair
pretending that electricity and energy are interchangeable terms
concealing the fact that the great energy need is for heat, and burning fuel for heat is very efficient (and the only practicable way)
and pretending that 'renewable' means 'low carbon or zero carbon'

this vanity project will take our (UK) debt beyond $3000000000
and our carbon reduction from biomass generation works no better than gas-fuelled generation would ? (but costs more)

[Andres125sx]

bizarre for the UK to do so much more than its share within Europe
bizarre for Europe to do so much more than its share within the world

Leading the change is not bizarre IMO

bizarre because it was a staggering mistake at the most basic level
thinking they were agreeing carbon reduction from electricity when they actually agreed to reduction from total energy including heat
(the UK being apparently well-equipped to be generous due to its takeup of indigenous gas)

That´s true, big mistake there

every second of the day the EU system forces that conflation, apparently to confuse all citizens, not just Mr Blair pretending that electricity and energy are interchangeable terms concealing the fact that the great energy need is for heat, and burning fuel for heat is very efficient (and the only practicable way)

Very efficient, true, but not the only practicable way, there are a lot more ways (geothermal, aerothermal, solar...)

[autogyro]

The practicality of waste fuel and alternative energy sources like solar wind and wave is not calculated solely on conversion source efficiency alone.
This is the oil and nuclear lobbies biggest con trick to the public.

[Tommy Cookers]

aerothermal and solar heating are not so good in many places eg the UK

wave energy - how's it doing ?
isn't there's a whiff of fraud about it ?

Salter's claims were based on test models of his machine using purpose-made waves that exaggerated the machine's capability
ie he did not present model tests using realistic waves
this information was in the public domain
(but may be witheld from modern information media by those with ecofascistic motivation)

given the view that storm energies (that's what makes waves) will increase with climate change
only a mad person would fund wave energy
one storm could wipe out all your wave machines

[autogyro]

aerothermal and solar heating are not so good in many places eg the UK

wave energy - how's it doing ?
isn't there's a whiff of fraud about it ?

Salter's claims were based on test models of his machine using purpose-made waves that exaggerated the machine's capability
ie he did not present model tests using realistic waves
this information was in the public domain
(but may be witheld from modern information media by those with ecofascistic motivation)

given the view that storm energies (that's what makes waves) will increase with climate change
only a mad person would fund wave energy
one storm could wipe out all your wave machines

There is more than a wiff of fraud in all energy production.
I agree that wave power has many potential problems in reality way above the theory.
Perhaps I should have said tidal.

[Tommy Cookers]

it seems that the UK is to mandate an increase in biofuel content of motor fuel to 10% from 2020
yesterday Vivergo (their huge Hull plant makes ethanol from low-grade wheat) started campaigning for this to be applied immediately

Vivergo claim a 53% (maybe 63%) reduction in carbon
(but they discount the takeup of poor fallow or grazing land, this releases carbon stored in the soil)

going from 5% to 10% ethanol reduces the fuel's energy/litre by another 2%, so that's another hidden 2% increase in the tax take
plus the extra cost of the ethanol, plus the extra Value Added Tax generated by this extra cost

this policy anyway contributes to lower fuel prices globally so that oil use increases elsewhere in the world

interestingly BP Butamax seems to have a pilot ? biobutanol plant in Hull
biobutanol (the biofuel content in F1) has a much better energy value and higher boiling point than ethanol
so less is needed for a given carbon benefit, and there's less problem (eg water absorbtion) to the occasional-use car owner
and if it's made from cellulosic material eg grass the carbon benefit may be real, not just a convenient fiction


btw
the UK has finally recognised the scope for decarbonising heat energy ! (ie not just electrical energy)

eg it introduced in 2014 the (Domestic) Renewable Heat Incentive programme, and has just terminated it as complete
the taxpayer spent $1000000000 replacing free of charge privately owned old 'oil' (kerosene) heating with wood pellet fuel heating
possibly reducing carbon emission, but increasing particulate atmospheric pollution, now officially recognised as life-shortening

btw btw
the biggest global problem is not warming, it's declining water resources
an ever-increasing proportion of our food is grown by irrigation using non-renewable water (pumped from below ground)
irrigation has inherent salinisation problems (losing 2000 hectares daily), treatable only by further increasing water throughput

the good news is that some important crops are now available in salt-resistant versions
these may be commercially attractive as the salt-resistance is obtained via increased sugar content

[Tommy Cookers]

Saudi Arabia has announced that is to stop growing wheat with immediate effect (it has been major grower and exporter)
otherwise non-renewable water will run out

but let's keep on worrying that we have only 1000-2000 years of fossil fuels (counting the methane clathrates)

[Andres125sx]

but let's keep on worrying that we have only 1000-2000 years of fossil fuels (counting the methane clathrates)

Source?

I had read about not even a tenth of that

[Tommy Cookers]

my main point was that the world is running out of water ie much current agriculture is non-renewable
but let's all shout about global warming instead !
(blame so-called developed countries and avoid mentioning the countries cheating their own people via non-renewable agriculture)

known oil reserves are designated by (commercial) law and are not actually what they seem....
known oil reserves are only the amount of oil that is viable at current oil prices
actual oil reserves (OOIP - Original Oil in Place) are far greater than this amount

Canadian and Venezuelan etc 'tar sands' contain about 500 billion barrels known oil, twice the known conventional oil reserves
tar sands actual ('Original Oil in Place') is 4 trillion barrels (conventional oil is about 1.3 trillion barrels OOIP)
plus there's shale oil (and gas) which is rather well known now
and oil shale, a different and more difficult thing but at least 8 trillion OOIP including China

undersea at medium depth is methane 'ice' clathrate (we now know their extent) in about the same quantity as conventional oil
and under the clathrate is often gaseous methane

global oil consumption is around 18 billion barrels/year
so we're not about to run out of fossil fuels, anyway
(the experts told my generation that oil would be finished by the year 2000)

truly I am distressed that young people (who traditionally are sceptical of everything they are told) ......
now believe everything pessimistic and defeatist they are told (by people whose power depends on being believed)
notorious socio-political episodes of the 20th century all started this way (lies, at the time apparently justified by 'the cause')

this (greenist alarmism) seems in large part a 21st century substitute for religion
but technological policy is too important to be such a political football
the world is more likely to be saved by good technological policies than by fashionable technological policies

[Andres125sx]

truly I am distressed that young people (who traditionally are sceptical of everything they are told) ......
now believe everything pessimistic and defeatist they are told (by people whose power depends on being believed)
notorious socio-political episodes of the 20th century all started this way (lies, at the time apparently justified by 'the cause')

That´s the problem, nowadays people know people in charge always have hidden interests wich don´t usually serve common interests, so you can´t rely on them. But those pessimistics and defeatists you´re talking about are not that same people in charge, but different people with not so obvious hidden interests, wich means their credibility is way higher, ergo most people believe those pessimistic and defeatists theories.

Specially when you see the climate change yourself, you read reports all around about how fast ice on poles is defrosting, or how fast forests or Amazon are dissapearing, or how harmful is air on cities due to fossil fuels.

Theories stop being theories when someone prove it in real world, and we all are seeing how those pessimistic and defeatists theories are becoming real. Poles defrosting, forests dissapearing, air becoming harmful, climate becoming most extreme each year... those are not theories anymore


Now add even people in charge agree we should do something asap
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... g-day-live

[autogyro]

The world saved???
I think you are way over simplifying these issues Tommy.
The world does not give a damn about you me or any other life form.

Humanity may or may not survive environmental change or the greed wars of global energy economics.
If it survives it will be using nothing like the idiotic system it does today.

[mzivtins]

It's quite simple that nature is purely nonsense, life is a freak of chance that defies that nonsense. As humans we build, consume and create constantly against nature otherwise we will be returned to simply nonsense in the grand ol' universe.

If this planet cannot support our needs to grow and evolve through technology, then we must simply find another.

Nuclear energy should be throughout the entire world, it is the greatest source of energy, only second the living organisms that output many thousands of time the energy than the equivalent volume of the sun.

Of course this is just my opinion.

Electric vehicles only serve to move what the IC engine does, further up the chain, as in: Generate energy. (Apart from regenerative devices)

I am all for nuclear power, if burning fossil fuels will destroy the world then what is bad about nuclear power? surely a nuclear disaster that renders an area in-hospitable for 1000 years is minuscule in comparison.

Plus it is a frontier of science,great human understanding and achievement (nuclear science) and moving the human race forward outweighs any counter argument or pathetically compassionate response to the well-being of this planet.

Through science we will outlive this planet, through illogical compassion and stupidity we wont last past the fossil fuel age.

[Andres125sx]

If this planet cannot support our needs to grow and evolve through technology, then we must simply find another.

[mzivtins]

Referring too one of two schools of though, one being that the planet will bounce back and be able to with-stand anything that is thrown at it in the way of climate change etc... the other being that apparently continuing the way we are will result in the end of the woooorrrlllddd.

[Andres125sx]

So you didn´t consider the third one, humankind must adapt to what we already know is sustainable to stop the planet degradation

http://www.cop21paris.org/