Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rods2]

An interesting short video on what is happening with the sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sh_nlz43Pc&feature=youtu.be

[Sir Tigger KC]

That's alright then, now we can go on polluting the planet with impunity! 

[Rods2]

CO2 is not a pollutant, we naturally breathe it out. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, none of us would be here and in the Cambrian period of the Earth when there was an explosion of plant and animal life CO2 levels were about x10 more than now. The current relatively cold era is characterized as a low CO2 period probably due to the earth's relatively low temperature.

All fossil fuels have been created by the carbon gained from CO2 by plants and animals, which in turn when they die they gradually get buried in the earth's crust and with heat and pressure they are transformed into coal, gas and oil.  The pollution comes from our use of them. From our industrialized harvesting and processing of these fuels and also the pollution from the inefficient burning of them.

Of course, the industrialized production of wind turbines (especially their rare earth magnets) and the production of pure silicon are the reverse of fossil fuels, where it is the manufacturing part which is the high energy, industrial waste very polluting part with the wind and sunlight being the less polluting part. Why only the less polluting part? Because their intermittent nature means fossil fuel power stations are usually the cheapest substitute of choice, for when the wind stops blowing or the sun suffers cloud cover. This also makes renewable energy EROEI very difficult to calculate and is normally massively flattered by tree huggers by taking the theoretical best case conditions.

[Bigron]

We are on the same page here, Rods2, as I have voiced similar views on here before, but may I just add that without co2 so generously and majorly provided by us when we breathe out, there would not be any plant life at all - the planet needs CO2 for survival.

Ron.

[Sir Tigger KC]

That's all very well but burning fossil fuels emit other harmful toxins as well. 

So as well as Carbon Dioxide, a coal fired power station emits Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Mercury and other particulate matters.  All of which cause acid rain which damages plants, trees and forests and smog which is a major cause of respiratory problems.   

In addition the mercury released into the environment works it's way up the food chain and high concentrations of mercury have been found in fish worldwide.  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin which affects the brain and nervous system!   

Never mind lets just keep our heads in the sand, keep on nay saying and pretend there's no problems! 

Think of the poor little children.....   

[grifter]

Pollution now is nothing like it was 50 or 60 years ago, well except from my rear end! The recent 40k deaths a year from traffic pollution was shown to be a total fudge used by government to reignite the pollution "problem" since they are loosing the co2 argument. Government always needs a problem so they can tax us more, nothing new under the sun.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Pollution now is nothing like it was 50 or 60 years ago, well except from my rear end! The recent 40k deaths a year from traffic pollution was shown to be a total fudge used by government to reignite the pollution "problem" since they are loosing the co2 argument. Government always needs a problem so they can tax us more, nothing new under the sun.

Maybe not in terms of heavy industry belching out filthy smoke from huge smoke stacks around the country, but we now have millions more cars, buses and trucks on the road all making contributions to pollution. 

To be honest I am slightly sceptical about man made climate change as there has always been climate change, but nobody can deny that the worlds climate is changing or that mans activity has no affect on our planet. 

CO2 or no CO2, clean energy generation is a good ambition IMHO. 

[Kevin Wood]

That's all very well but burning fossil fuels emit other harmful toxins as well. 

So as well as Carbon Dioxide, a coal fired power station emits Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Mercury and other particulate matters.  All of which cause acid rain which damages plants, trees and forests and smog which is a major cause of respiratory problems.   

...

I know Didcot was one of the dirtier coal powered stations forced to close, but I used to find it a useful thermal source in the glider. You could tell which thermal was being kicked off by the power station by its distinctive nicotine coloured cumulus cloud. The smell of sulphur when climbing in said thermal was almost overpowering!

The CCGT plant that's left there doesn't make any nasty niffs, nor generate any significant thermals.

[aaronjb]

Think of the poor little children.....   

What if I hate children?

[Sir Tigger KC]

Think of the poor little children.....   

What if I hate children?

Think hateful thoughts.... 

[aaronjb]

Think of the poor little children.....   

What if I hate children?

Think hateful thoughts.... 

 

[Viral_Jim]

Of course, the industrialized production of wind turbines (especially their rare earth magnets) and the production of pure silicon are the reverse of fossil fuels, where it is the manufacturing part which is the high energy, industrial waste very polluting part with the wind and sunlight being the less polluting part.

Implicit in that statement is that fossil fuel stations produce significantly less waste in their creation. Is that likely to be the case? Thinking through the large amounts of concrete (whose manufacture is a significant source of pollution) required, not to mention the additional infrastructure required to transport the fuel to said powerstation.

Even if wind turbines and solar panels are more environmentally damaging to construct compared to fossil stations and their associated infrastructure (which I am somewhat sceptical of), the comparison is still flawed because once the steel and other elements are out of the ground they can be recycled when the units' useful economic lives are up. In contrast, the fossil fuels burned are not recyclable, other than by the process that made them, which takes many thousands (millions?) of years.

Why only the less polluting part? Because their intermittent nature means fossil fuel power stations are usually the cheapest substitute of choice, for when the wind stops blowing or the sun suffers cloud cover.

My understanding is that the problem is going to be more with over than under production, hence Germany's recent issues with negative electricity pricing. However, pilots are underway to use that excess electricity to generate hydrogen (Shetland) or run other forms of large scale power storage (Germany). Surely that's got to be better than paying subsidies to fossil power stations to not produce electricity?

[grifter]

Pollution now is nothing like it was 50 or 60 years ago, well except from my rear end! The recent 40k deaths a year from traffic pollution was shown to be a total fudge used by government to reignite the pollution "problem" since they are loosing the co2 argument. Government always needs a problem so they can tax us more, nothing new under the sun.

Maybe not in terms of heavy industry belching out filthy smoke from huge smoke stacks around the country, but we now have millions more cars, buses and trucks on the road all making contributions to pollution. 

To be honest I am slightly sceptical about man made climate change as there has always been climate change, but nobody can deny that the worlds climate is changing or that mans activity has no affect on our planet. 

CO2 or no CO2, clean energy generation is a good ambition IMHO. 

There is actually no evidence Man-Made CO2 is causing global warming, it's just a theory, a very big scary theory which can make a lot of people very rich like Al Gore with his beach front properties (rising seal-levels anyone?) and make governments oodles of extra tax plus control.

CO2 is a product of temperature change not the other way around, when Oceans warm they emit it and absorb it when they cool. We may well be emitting what seems a lot of CO2 but out of all CO2 in the atmosphere, about 2-3% of all atmospheric gases, we are emitting about 3.7 % of those CO2 gases. So 3.7% of that original 2-3%.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Pollution now is nothing like it was 50 or 60 years ago, well except from my rear end! The recent 40k deaths a year from traffic pollution was shown to be a total fudge used by government to reignite the pollution "problem" since they are loosing the co2 argument. Government always needs a problem so they can tax us more, nothing new under the sun.

Maybe not in terms of heavy industry belching out filthy smoke from huge smoke stacks around the country, but we now have millions more cars, buses and trucks on the road all making contributions to pollution. 

To be honest I am slightly sceptical about man made climate change as there has always been climate change, but nobody can deny that the worlds climate is changing or that mans activity has no affect on our planet. 

CO2 or no CO2, clean energy generation is a good ambition IMHO. 

There is actually no evidence Man-Made CO2 is causing global warming, it's just a theory, a very big scary theory which can make a lot of people very rich like Al Gore with his beach front properties (rising seal-levels anyone?) and make governments oodles of extra tax plus control.

CO2 is a product of temperature change not the other way around, when Oceans warm they emit it and absorb it when they cool. We may well be emitting what seems a lot of CO2 but out of all CO2 in the atmosphere, about 2-3% of all atmospheric gases, we are emitting about 3.7 % of those CO2 gases. So 3.7% of that original 2-3%.

I never said there was or there wasn't.    But by bringing it up you've proved how brainwashed people are about CO2.   

Rods did it as well.  As soon as I mention pollution, you all start whittering on about CO2!   

[grifter]

Pollution now is nothing like it was 50 or 60 years ago, well except from my rear end! The recent 40k deaths a year from traffic pollution was shown to be a total fudge used by government to reignite the pollution "problem" since they are loosing the co2 argument. Government always needs a problem so they can tax us more, nothing new under the sun.

Maybe not in terms of heavy industry belching out filthy smoke from huge smoke stacks around the country, but we now have millions more cars, buses and trucks on the road all making contributions to pollution. 

To be honest I am slightly sceptical about man made climate change as there has always been climate change, but nobody can deny that the worlds climate is changing or that mans activity has no affect on our planet. 

CO2 or no CO2, clean energy generation is a good ambition IMHO. 

There is actually no evidence Man-Made CO2 is causing global warming, it's just a theory, a very big scary theory which can make a lot of people very rich like Al Gore with his beach front properties (rising seal-levels anyone?) and make governments oodles of extra tax plus control.

CO2 is a product of temperature change not the other way around, when Oceans warm they emit it and absorb it when they cool. We may well be emitting what seems a lot of CO2 but out of all CO2 in the atmosphere, about 2-3% of all atmospheric gases, we are emitting about 3.7 % of those CO2 gases. So 3.7% of that original 2-3%.

I never said there was or there wasn't.    But by bringing it up you've proved how brainwashed people are about CO2.   

Rods did it as well.  As soon as I mention pollution, you all start whittering on about CO2!   

There was and still is a big push to class CO2 as a pollutant, I suppose you could call anything a pollutant, even oxygen if there was too much and it was making us a light-headed! I know you aren't saying that either

It's not that I am sceptial or not sure about CO2, I just don't see any proper scientific evidence for it apart from circumstantial, which is about a 0.7oC warming in the last 150 years (from the little ice age in the 1800s no less), very stable when you look at past sudden climate changes. I do agree pollution is a big problem and we are causing havoc in some places with industrial waste, emission pollution like diesel in cities where high concentration of transport plus people is going to cause obvious problems, just like horse and cart shit caused in old London. Don't think we can ever have a functioning modern society without some form of emission, in that case ban curries - no more wind and methane!