You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It's not that complicated - LH2 vs LNG is about 2.5:1 in volume for equivalent energy.
The UK currently uses around 7.5bn ft^3/day, which is around 0.2bn m^3. so for LH2 at current uses, you'd need 0.5bn m^3/day. The UK is currently capable of storing 9>15 days of gas in existing storage., so that's maybe 6 days of LH2 in terms of equivalent land use. So you'd need to quadruple the storage area.
BUT, all of that assumes that we'd still need the same amount of use/day. Would we? With everything insulated and everything micro generating and almost 90GW (average) of offshore wind...would we?
Simple back of a napkin - my home electricity use is now less than 30% of what it was through use of solar - by next year, it'll be down to around 15%. My oil use (for heating and HW) will be down to around 1/2 at most. Now my house is exposed, but detached, so applicable to only maybe 30-40% of proerties in terms of roof area, but substantially more wall area than a terrace. so assume that my model is applicable to maybe 50-60% average of houses and users in terms of percentage reduction. that would reduce the amount of gas required for heating and electricity by around 60% average... so your required month of LH2 Storage is now more like 50-75% more land area for LH2 storage - call it double as hydrogen has specific requirements that will increase it's footprint.
But all of this is worst case scenario - needing a month of gas, pessimistic figures for microgeneration/insulation efficiency improvements.
Electrical losses in transmission are 9% and are apparently dropping. Trust me, you'd lose far more than that in hydrogen piping and it would be FAR worse for the environment.
Fuel cells are a problem as they currently stand as they're not very efficient - 60% at most. NOx is an issue, but is less of an issue for pure H2 burn than for mixed gas/H2. Studies are ongoing, especially between aerospace and engine manufactureres.
Molgrips
No, not really, it’s not comforting at all it’s horrific. And yes, I know what’s required, but I don’t know how to get everyone to do what’s required. Do you?
You are asking the wrong people.
"What is required" that doesn't involve culling vast numbers of humans one way or another is unacceptable to their religion.
Their dogma is what has put us in this position to start with and their FUD is what keeps us in it.
You blame bad government and I don't disagree but that is because of populist FUD spread by the "green movement".
Well the economy is what buys us food and shelter. So you’re saying we need to simply destroy everything so that we don’t.. destroy everything..? I think in your scenario everything gets destroyed either way. A global economy 30% of its current size isn’t going to be able to solve anything.
At its most basic but the "economy" is also what provides a world in which we have medicine and a whole host of other things they EITHER take for granted or like to pretend** are not going to be unavailable. (**Either to themselves or wider)
We can have as much hydrogen as we like pretty much for free and with virtually** no CO2 ... except they don't want that because it involves nuclear. (Or if you want to play by their rules then CO2 free - it's not of course as you need to build the plants and create and supply fuel but they like to ignore that)
Lets take Fukushima - 1 direct death from radiation, 16 with physical injuries due to hydrogen explosions, 2 workers taken to hospital with possible radiation burns AND a big mess and probably a few more deaths over the years.
This was caused by a M9 earthquake ... a rather unlikely thing to hit the UK, out there with a reactor being struck by a meteorite. Yes its not ideal but its also not what the greens want us to think because they are ideologically opposed to nuclear.
Since then Japan closed down a big percentage of reactors and just started burning COAL.... increased petroluem and LPG consumption.
However, Japan is also at the forefront of HTGR ... which has the advantage of running at temperatures that can be used direct for steel making etc. and it's virtually impossible to have a meltdown by accident due to the casing around the fuel source... (its been tested in real life for 1 WEEK - no moderation or interventions) and can be used for zero greenhouse hydrogen production (HTSE or IS generated)
https://www.jaea.go.jp/04/o-arai/nhc/en/faq/
Get rid of the Green FUD and we can be using these in 3 years... which is the other big lie the greens want you to believe. They love saying how it takes decades to build a nuclear plant but then pretend that's not because they make it so.
Japan has an average of 3-5 yrs to build a new reactor, South Korea 6 yr... UK/Germany spend 15+ years due to protesting greens.
If the greens would just STFU we wouldn't be in this situation that populist governments are just going along with and we'd be using the money to invest in more expensive breeder reactors to process the spent fuel.
To put this in a different context it's like taking the 10 commandments ..
As an atheist I can just ignore the first 3 - days off are good - and I'll go along with 5-10 as generally good shit.
1) You shall have no other gods before Me.
2) You shall not make idols.
3) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5) Honor your father and your mother.
6) You shall not murder.
7) You shall not commit adultery.
8) You shall not steal.
9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10) You shall not covet.
The greens just get hung up on their first commandment "Thou shalt not use nuclear" and second "anything to do with fossil fuels is bad" and third "thou shalt not use the words sustainable or renewable in vain"
A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.
"Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast."
"No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me."
Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.
"Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute."
Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through."
After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone.
"Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance."
Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him.
And, predictably, he drowns.
A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?"
God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."
Ta Daffy. More plausible than I thought then. Is there not a missing bit tho - comparing gas usage to total energy usage? so maybe another 4 times the storage required?
I'm not sure what you mean, but my figures for storage are just LNG vs LH2 and average daily gas usage in late 2021.
Total energy use is MUCH harder to quantify these days with so much microgeneration going on. Those charts which show energy from renewables as part of the grid energy mix and always peg solar as a tiny fraction fail to account for how much energy is NOT being used by households which're currently running purely on solar or are storing energy for later use using batteries. It's probably sort of captured in that there's reduced demand, but everything I've seen recently has placed reduced demand around efficiency in homes/devices/transmission rather than microgen.
TJ, the point is not everyone in the UK let alone globally can.
They can, but most of them just don't want to.
Daffy - we would need to convert the whole of the UK energy usage to hydrogen so the storage needed would be much more than the amount of LPG stored.
Edit - but from your numbers it looks more possible than I had gathered from previous conversations on here. To me its a good solution but only a partial one given it would need a massive expansion of both solar and wind which is not without its own issues
Steve – I have done what I can over my adult life. I consume far less than most in the west. I understand that solutions need to be worldwide and that the solutions need to be radical
I have never commuted by car. I owned a car for a few weeks when I was 17.
I have never bought any: New furniture, crockery, cutlery, TVs, soft furnishing etc etc. 2 new computers in my life. Almost all my consumer electronics ( of which I have far less than most westerners) are second hand. I have owned 2 new bikes in my life
I have spent well over £10 000 on insulating my flat. Similar on my rental flat – I will never get that money back. I fly very rarely.
But yes – even if everyone on the planet had my lifestyle its still unsustainable and my lifestyle has far less impact than most in the west
TJ, the point is not everyone in the UK let alone globally can.
configuration
They can, but most of them just don’t want to.
So just explain how this works then ...
I have never bought any: New furniture, crockery, cutlery, TVs, soft furnishing etc etc. 2 new computers in my life. Almost all my consumer electronics ( of which I have far less than most westerners) are second hand. I have owned 2 new bikes in my life
Where do these second hand items come from if noone on the entire earth buys new?
They can, but most of them just don’t want to.
Thats the point. People will not accept solutions that require lifestyle change and IMO without massive lifestyle change in the west then no solution is actually going to do enough
It's worth noting that almost off this could be done now with significant funding and approval. The initial result - burning a mix of LH2 and LNG is not ideal, but it would still reduce C02 emissions for power generation quite substantially. Scaling up solar is easy and infact we can see from "The Solar Thread" that it is popular and would be more so if it were cheaper. Community solar (Solar Together?) has also proven popular due to reductions in cost and ease of access. Gas storage infrastructure isn't nearly so problematic as nuclear and isn't as publicly unpopular. And as for electrolysis - it's 19th century chemistry and for once we have an advantage over many others...we have access to a lot of fresh water in the months when we need it most, the winters when solar isn't generating as much.
Even today, it's moderately sunny, not too windy, Hornsea is only 30% complete and Dogger has yet to start, but despite all that, almost 36% of energy is being provided by renewables and that doesn't even include microgen use in homes. For the last week, renewables provided more than 60% of the power for the grid...! That's bloody awesome!
Molgrips – sorry dude but you do. You will not accept any solution that requires significant changes in lifestyle.
Mate, I'm standing here telling you directly that I do accept we need massive change. And you're telling me that I don't. What the actual ****? What kind of a way to discuss anything is that? It's incredibly rude for a start.
That thread you posted a while back - "Is it just me?" - this is exactly what we were talking about. I'm fuming because you are trying tell me what I think, in direct contradiction of what I'm saying.
Molgrips - its because every solution suggested you reject out of hand because it requires lifestyle change
Transport is 36% of UK energy usuage. Its one area to make energy savings. this means moving people and goods around less.
My idea of using ratcheting cost increases you completely ignore the " use the money raised to support alternatives" just jumping straight in with "its unfair on the rural poor" completely ignoring I addressed that
When fuel duty goes up, what do you think will happen to the poor people in rural areas who need petrol to get around? Are you going to give them allowances? Rich people will be far less affected by this than the poor, so it’s a regressive policy and I don’t like those. Environmental solutions should not penalise the poor. This is what I want to discuss. Headline policies are no good without implementation details. Again – this isn’t rhetoric, these are actual real questions I want to see answers to.
When in the post you are referring to I had addressed that and have done so many times before in previous conversations and every time you ignore it.
You and I do not have good text conversations - its not just me tho I will accept part of it. another poster even spotted that you had not read and understood my post before jumping in saying " it will not work"
Dagnammit. I came back into this because there were some interesting points being made. I wish I hadn't.
Daffy – we would need to convert the whole of the UK energy usage to hydrogen so the storage needed would be much more than the amount of LPG stored.
No - at least not really. In the short term, it would be 30% at most hydrogen - in the long term it would be wind and solar scaled to 150% of demand with Hydrogen burning as, essentially, the UPS for when wind and solar can't meet demand. BUT, if every home had a battery, the massive spikes in demand at 07:00 and 17:00 would disappear. At no prolonged period in the last year did renewables contribute less than 5GW of the 27GW demand. In the next 3 years, that capability will triple! That leaves us with 12-15GW to fill. Dogger bank will contribute almost 3.6GW at average load from only 290 turbines, coupled with Hornsea B+C that'll be closer to 6GW of additional generation... build 10 more. Even assuming that they're operating at only 25% capacity, you'll have almost 17GW of capacity from wind alone. Solar is currently installed in less than 3% of the UKs homes. Scale it to 75% and the amount of energy demanded from the grid will drop by over 1/3rd at normal times and by 80% (assuming batteries are installed) at peak times.
This is all doable and can be done with existing technology and methods and is scaleable to the the UK. There will be a cost, a financial cost. either through tax or through market perception/material cost, but it's not a devastating cost, it's one which can be accomodated if a long term (10-20y view) is taken.
solar in the worlds biggest deserts, big cables to connect them all.
That's happening, the cables are to be built next door to my work. Supposed to go from the UK to Morocco.
@tjagain I have no idea, off the top of my head, what hydrogen figures would look like. I'll have a look at the books later and see if I can find a realistic answer.
The biggest thing about hydrogen is its only useful if you have a surplus of energy. Like a huge surplus. There are other technical solutions that do away with the conversion losses and just compress air to a cryogenic state. No idea how well they work in the real world but that was another proposal for next door.
TJAgain
Molgrips – its because every solution suggested you reject out of hand because it requires lifestyle change
Transport is 36% of UK energy usuage. Its one area to make energy savings. this means moving people and goods around less.
This is a change you propose.... however why? It's one you find acceptable but its not the only change and you haven't said what for EXACTLY? (Is this strictly for climate change or is there another reason?)
Guess what? Molgrips is willing to change lots... he's asking how to SELL this.
You might be f***ing amazed but as Molgrips has pointed out "don't we want the same things?"
The HUGE difference is you are trying to UPSELL... you're trying to UPSELL sustainable or renewable alongside the "not dying from climate change" and your total non acceptance of nuclear or limited used of natural gas.
this means moving people and goods around less.
Not for climate change, that is just ONE option... we can also move people and goods around using zero and near zero greenhouse technology OR even better we do both.
I don't know how you think its going to play out in 5-10 yrs when Japan is moving people about on trains and ships and moving goods on trucks using red hydrogen... (and if their plan works hydrogen powered cars, and if not using EV's) with power generated by nuclear, made in factories powered by nuclear and using steel produced by nuclear.
AND
We still have devastating climate change because your idyllic dream never got adopted.
every solution suggested you reject out of hand because it requires
NUCLEAR
The biggest thing about hydrogen is its only useful if you have a surplus of energy. Like a huge surplus.
Wow, where could we get that? HTGR ??
That’s happening, the cables are to be built next door to my work. Supposed to go from the UK to Morocco.
It needs to be global and a much bigger scale. It's not really happening, and what is happening isn't happening at the pace we need it to happen.
AAaanyway, back on topic.
Looking at the heating thread, some people are paying huge amounts. This represents a huge waste of energy and let's face it, that's a national strategic resource as we've recently found out.
Not only that but the government is having to inject money into the economy anyway. So why don't the government just pay people to produce and install insulation into people's houses on a massive scale? Yes, it's a lot of work, but that'd go straight into the pockets of manufacturers and working people, and reduce gas prices which would help the economy.
Seems like a no-brainer to me - what am I missing?
Sheep wool loft insulation from UK based sheep.
Seems like a no-brainer to me – what am I missing?
You're missing that the vast majority don't give a shit.
There have been very loud calls for an inulation programme since the early 90's at a government level. The media has largely ignored it.
The decades of inaction has led to such frustration that direct action groups - like insulate britain - have formed to force people to listen to the message and force media focus - and has been very successful.
Of course - a big response has been to denigrate insuate britain and to say "the way they're going about it isn't 'bringing the public with them'" - but I wish these people would walk into the sea. We're going extinct by our own hand anyway - so it'd be a good head start to get ride of this trance of idiots first.
So, despite insulating the 'worst housing stock in europe' being the single most effective act we can take - it's fast, cheap, easy and long lasting - there is STILL no programme of insulation and no government policy to start one.
Meanwhile - there's a lot of talk about insulate britain beimg made up of idiots. I disagree - they're too nice. They should start up a suffragettes and mandela-style campaign - targetting key industries and politicians.
Many of them would be jailed or killed. But they'd get results...
They should start up a suffragettes and mandela-style campaign – targetting key industries and politicians.
Not going to work.
You keep referencing Suffragettes but I don't think the situation is the same.
You’re missing that the vast majority don’t give a shit.
I should have been more specific. I think the plan itself is a no brainer - does anyone disagree? - the hard part is getting people to accept it and politicians to want to do it. Which is the same thing that you are saying. But I don't think violence will help.
I don’t think violence will help.
I recall reading in an edition of new scientist oh, about a decade or so ago, someone had done the analysis.
They'd looked at all the crises where people had peacefully protested (large ones - like the 2.4m people on the Iraq war marches, and the myriad small ones) - and the ones where people had got violent (e.g. Mandela, Suffragettes, anti-animal-cruelty protesters).
Peaceful protest is ignored. Violent protest brings about change.
Anyway- just to add to our woes:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/05/megathreats-global-leaders-disaster-world
Many of them would be jailed or killed. But they’d get results…
Once again, feel free to lead by example.
Life's cheap when it's someone else's eh?
@squirrelking - like I've said many times previously - I've no oar in this pond. No kids.
If you give a shizzle about the lives of your grandkids then you need to fight. - put your own life on the line for their future - because right now they don't have one.
They're definitely going to suffer and they are highly likely to die - whether from malnutrition, or the coming wars when mass migration - I mean *really* mass migration kicks off in earnest because of desertification and loss of water. Or one of the numerous other things (more of which we're finding out about all the time) that could and likely will do for them if people don't act now, act fast, and act decisively.
Me, I'm perfectly alright jack. You can shoot the messenger if you like - but I'll be fine.
In the meantime, mince about on forums, or get busy doing something meaningful. That's the choice for you lot who have kids if you really, actually, give two hoots about them.
So what you're saying is you're happy to see people die as long as it's not you.
Spoken like a true back seat general.
You really are the worst sort of scum.
Don't put words in my mouth @squirrelking.
I'm clearly concerned for the future of mankind. My life is ordered, and has been since I left home, ecologically - I don't just preach this shit, I live it. Cold hard cash on insulation, energy efficiency, self-sustaining low-consumption. I'm absolutely nailing it and I don't care if people find me a preachy asshat - because I'm doing it and they just ain't.
I really think the worst sort of scum are those who won't lift a finger and make serious drastic changes to their lifestyles to save their own children.
They're just the worst.
The “Renewable Energy Foundation” is a campaign group started by Noel Edmonds and CALOR GAS. – the “organisation” exists to spread lies. And you’ve been suckered in.
In reality – wind providers bid for contracts for difference – the amount they’ll get paid to generate power. Despite no subsidy they still produce the cheapest energy we can produce (offshore wind).
New wind farms are on CfDs. Though several recent ones have opted to sell at higher marker prices instead.
Older wind farms are still subsidised on inflation linked deals.
In 2020/21 the cost of renewables subsidies was forecast to reach £9Bn. Or is the govt not a reliable source?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/controlling-the-cost-of-renewable-energy
The old subsidies were granted up to 2017 so we are paying for them until 2037.
https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
a) Persuade the pension funds to invest in public transport.
It’s not as guaranteed a return as mortgages, but safer than investing in Bolivian tin mines.
b) Go back to a time when hemp was (legally), the number one cash crop. When nearly all our clothes were made from it.
Wool may make for nicer clothes and building insulation, but at the cost of intense denudation.
Every time you grow a patch of hemp, you suck carbon out of the atmosphere, and improve the quality of the soil too.
Press releases from 2015 don't make an argument @irc.
With CfD's the government is creating price stability for wind farm developers - and offshore wind is the cheapest form of energy right now - by some margin.
They are guaranteed a minimum "strike price" for the electricty they produce and sell. (The strike price for the last round of offshore wind sales was £39/MwH - for comparison Nuclear's strike price is about £96 and cost for sizewell C (which we'll pick a big portion up of) has gone from £15bn to 30bn pretty rapidly.
However - renewable energy generators have to pay back excess profit when the price for wholesale electricity is high - so they do not take the gains during record-high prices.
Who does take the gains right now tho? Oh, the gas and oil suppliers. They're rinsing us - and getting absolutely massive tax breaks that mean they offset any "windfall tax" (Shell just posted record profits of more than 9bn in the last 3 months and paid ZERO windfall tax).
So right now far from being "subsidised" - because of the massive price of wholesale electricity our renewable energy generators (who arent dependent on fuel) are paying back more to the UK government than they're making.
That's right. Wind generation is making US money right now. Money Sunak has simply given to big oil and gas in tax breaks.
BTW - nuclear "disposal" costs have gone from oh, 67bn in 2013 to 117.4bn in 2018 and is rising fast - we're looking at a bill that could easily go to £260 billion. And it will keep rising - because we've no idea how to dispose of it. WE have to foot the bill for all of this because no private company would take on that sort of liability - so we "subsidise" for the next 100,000 years because we don't know how to beat physics.
THAT is what a "subsidy" looks like.
Not posting nonsense on a website?
I wonder what the collective energy use of all the forums and Twitters and Facebooks actually is now
I work for a large retail company who specialise in screw based products
It has taken a massive hike in electricity prices to encourage people to buy led lamps.
We are selling hundreds a week, 1 shop of 800
Ditto insulation, pipe laghing, foil wrap etc.
If we can reduce our consumption substantialy then the need for hydrogen, lng, nuclear is also reduced.
We look at it the wrong way round imo.
Spend billions on a nuclear power station, but not even millilns in a really good government backed loan scheme to insulate homes or supply solar or wind generation.
I wonder what the collective energy use of all the forums and Twitters and Facebooks actually is now
It's huge, along with the rest of the internet. That said, it's difficult to offset against other things that might not need to be done now we have good internet facilities.
bill gates, terrapower, and the twr reactor: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916301527
it uses a very small amount of enriched material as a starter and then can consume materials considered waste radioactive material of which we have quite a lot. it also gets around the problem of routine enrichment of material for fuel being diverted to make big explody things.
it would be nice to think that society can change sufficiently and that we don't just continue in the same vein as we have up until now however it's also important that we don't make 'perfect' solutions the enemy of good.
At the weekend I was at a party and saw something new to me. Folk drinking spirits with mixers had brought along sodastreams so as not to use single use plastic. I wonder what the break even point is and if its actually any saving given you need CO2 bottles and its another gadget. thoughts?
"Spend billions on a nuclear power station, but not even millilns in a really good government backed loan scheme to insulate homes or supply solar or wind generation."
Depressing but true. We don't need a remit from cop twenty whatever to do something about this. Living 7 floors up on the edge of a city centre I look over literally thousands of roof tops but can't see a single solar panel.
Ditto decent levels of insulation, decent materials, provision of grey water tanks for new builds (a legal requirement for decades in many cointries) etc.
The massive building boom in England has been done without any consideration for energy efficiency,the building regulations are shocking and all leveraged in favour of developers quick profits.
Molgrips
Seems like a no-brainer to me – what am I missing?
focus and agreement on what is actually MOST important...
Same story, this is confusing ecological solutions and climate change to the majority of people.
Insulate Britain is sending one message that is "fully fund and take responsibility for the full low-energy and low-carbon whole-house retrofit" whilst just stop oil is against using petroleum based insulation whilst some other group refuse to use animal products whilst Insulate Britain has a page Header for Just Stop Oil sending a message that petroleum based insulation is not acceptable either.
Meanwhile number 1 demand
That the UK government immediately promises to fully fund and take responsibility for the insulation of all social housing in Britain by 2025.
A lot of people may believe that Insulate Britain is more concerned with getting THEIR stuff for FREE.
Let alone what they mean by "insulation" of existing homes. If that means (as it will to them) the equivalent of the PassiveHaus standards then it's just not possible and not even close to achievable without using petroleum based insulation.
Meanwhile the stuff we could ACTUALLY do is written off.
Ditto insulation, pipe laghing, foil wrap etc.
If we can reduce our consumption substantialy then the need for hydrogen, lng, nuclear is also reduced.
So yeah your petroleum free pipe lagging and kingspan alternatives and ignore nuclear and associated hydrogen because the greens don't like it on principal?
TJAgain
At the weekend I was at a party and saw something new to me. Folk drinking spirits with mixers had brought along sodastreams so as not to use single use plastic. I wonder what the break even point is and if its actually any saving given you need CO2 bottles and its another gadget.
If they wanted to REALLY not use SUP then mixers are available in bottles and cans. (OK can's have a lining)
thoughts?
Well, thoughts are good ... but what do you mean by break even point because thoughts only count for virtue signalling ?
Where on the TJ scale of ecology is the conversion of SUP to CO2/greenhouse gases ?
Intrinsically the idea of capturing CO2 to put into metal containers that have to be manufactured and transported just to release into the atmosphere simply for fun seems a bit wrong to me but that depends if you REALLY give a toss about climate change or want to believe the use of plastics is a bigger problem.
Publicising this as "eco" or "green" without the numbers to back it up is the exact sort of thing I'd make not only illegal but with mandatory custodial sentencing. Of course better it's aimed higher at for example councils who build skyscapers with zero carbon in their area hence claim to be carbin free that then get a tree planted in a square and claim to be "eco friendly"
but what do you mean by break even point
Its a pretty basic concept. Break even point is the point at which (in this case) the use of a sodastream has less greenhouse gas emissions than using single use plastic.
brought along sodastreams so as not to use single use plastic.
There was a viral ad campaign by soda stream a few years ago that was pretty much along the lines of "single use bottled water is doing huge amounts of environmental harm" that so worried the likes of Coca-Cola and Nestle that they produced a cease and desist demand through their "spokes-puppet" the IBWA (the International Bottled water association) Who knew such a advocacy group existed, eh? At the very least their Co2 cannisters are refillable and reusable.
On the other hand, Soda stream manufacture in Palestine which has some of the unsafest tap water, and pays very low wages, so isn't ethically clean itself.
TJAgain
Its a pretty basic concept. Break even point is the point at which (in this case) the use of a sodastream has less greenhouse gas emissions than using single use plastic.
No it isn't because many people want to see a total ban of SUP regardless** of how much more greenhouse emissions are produced. Hence why I'm asking.
Don't get me wrong I'm REALLY REALLY pleased you ask the question.
**The whole point here being so many people don't know, don't want to know or just don't care because they see other issues relating to the ecology as more important than climate change.
What you wrote is:
At the weekend I was at a party and saw something new to me. Folk drinking spirits with mixers had brought along sodastreams so as not to use single use plastic.
You didn't mention the greenhouse gas footprint at all.
My whole point is what did the people with the sodastreams think? What happened to the spent cartridges ? Did they actually stop and consider the irony of deliberately taking captured CO2 to release into the air just for their amusement? Did they stop and think that the CO2 cartridge itself contains SUP and unless its reused (I doubt the fate of these) it end up in recycling and that plastic being burned ?
Did anyone actually have figures for how that relates strictly in terms of greenhouse gases to getting mixers in reused glass bottles?
I doubt either of us have these answers ... but I suspect this is simply virtue signalling and plenty of them consider they now "did their bit for the week" like those who buy the product with the most recyclable material so they can fill their recycling bin with needless packaging.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a reduction in things like SUP's, NoX in the air ... I just don't see this as anywhere near as urgent as reducing greenhouse gases.
nickc
There was a viral ad campaign by soda stream a few years ago that was pretty much along the lines of “single use bottled water is doing huge amounts of environmental harm”
Of course it is ... the SHORT TERM question for me though is not is it doing environmental harm but is it contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
We are WAY WAY past the point of lets just do the nicest thing.... and we are into the "it's a terrible thing for the ecology to have to do but .."
I really don't understand all the hate for stand-up paddle boards...
Steve. break even point IS a basic concept. Perhaps you need to look into things a little then you might not make such bizzare comments
Steve. break even point IS a basic concept. Perhaps you need to look into things a little then you might not make such bizzare comments
Really, so why don't you pop out into the street and ask 100 people?
It means nothing to anyone but those who want to piggy back on top of climate change to sell their pet projects.
So, the IPCC, the UN and all climate scientists say we need to leave most of the oil and gas we already know about in the ground yet the UK is licencing to open 100+ more wells in the North Sea (and despite what they say, we're dirty extractors with low standards).
So how many of you have donated to just stop oil?
How many of you HATE this whiny emo girl for "not bringing the public along"?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CK1QKZwMIZ8&feature=emb_logo
How many of you with kids are actual activists?
Or are you just a bunch of do-nothing hypocrites?
Steve. break even point IS a basic concept. Perhaps you need to look into things a little then you might not make such bizzare comments
@tjagain if you just ignore the troll your life will be much simpler. FWIW I am still to look up your hydrogen stats, I've not forgotten, just been absolutely knackered every night thanks to Covid.
Been there, done that, over it.
squirrelking
@tjagain if you just ignore the troll your life will be much simpler.
LOL, what irony...
and exactly how we ended up so screwed... just ignore anyone that wants to explore more acceptable options and if they keep asking then call them a troll.
Exactly why we need proper custodial sentences for spreading eco misinformation.
Or are you just a bunch of do-nothing hypocrites?
A hyprocrite is just someone wants to ban hydrocarbons whilst insulating their home with hydrocarbons.
A hyprocrite is just someone wants to ban hydrocarbons whilst insulating their home with hydrocarbons.
Even you can surely see there's a massive difference between burning hydrocarbons and using them to reduce the need to burn more hydrocarbons? Both the good and bad thing about plastics is they last a really long time.
Nope - he's been banging that drum since the early parts of the thread WRT EVs, Wind Turbines, Battery Storage - everything!
This is despite the fact that other and myself have repeatedly stated that the breakeven point for Co2 is usually in the 3-5 years and in some cases happens much sooner.
Lifecycle emissions are important, but in use emissions for practically anything which BURNS fossil fuels far outstrip any production costs over the lifecycle.
Where it is important is for contrasting different infrastructure (CO2) costs. Hinkley point - 44m tones of CO2 form the concrete alone. Dogger Bank Wind Farm - 400k tonnes including the copper mining smelting and transportation and full assembly...They produce the same power and have similar life spans...
I am basically squirrellking.
Well I was all interested in talking about solutions, maybe I'd be inspired to do see what I could do, but Chevychase and TJ have turned the thread into a shit slinging festival which has completely put me off.
Maybe go and glue yourself to a motorway or something, and leave the actual problem solving to others?
FIT tarrifs. These need investigating much more closely.
2p per kwh or whatever it is atm is an insult.
The initial rate was way too high. It benefited the rich monetarily, who generate more co2 than poor people.
Again, the ukgov. Instead of spending millions or billions on more power stations underwite the pv generation tariffs and loam schemes for batteries.
Make it viable to everyone with a roof to put panels on, then if you charge your car for free more people would switch quicker.
Problems are the tories, they are mates with the big dogs at shell, Bp etc
Dino juice companies are looking at £100billion im profits this year, and no windfall tax, so far.
Tax them, use the tax to fund pv and invest in ways to utilise the pv generated electricity so everyone and the planet benefit
TJ have turned the thread into a shit slinging festival which has completely put me off.
I didn't contribute for several days after you blew up at me because you didn't understand what I was saying.
I gave one major solution and one for transport and you attacked me personally because you totally missed the point.
Ok - Im off again
We already have the solutions @molgrips - we're just not implementing them.
So if you want to do something useful your action is clear - join the protestors.
Or do what you're doing - nothing. Just mugging your own ego off on forums talking about "solutions" when you could be attempting to force government into action.
I gave one major solution and one for transport and you attacked me personally because you totally missed the point.
Ok so I thought I could see an issue with your proposal, and I brought it up. I think that's how discussion is meant to work, isn't it? You should be able to defend your proposal or modify it, surely?
I got annoyed because I was trying to explain my thoughts on the subject and you were contradicting me, attempting to tell me what my own thoughts are. Which is a bit of a ridiculous way to run a discussion, don't you think? How could that ever end well?
I'll re-iterate. I think that if you simply ramp up fuel duty you will cause severe hardship to the less well-off, particularly in rural communities. I do think that we need to hugely restrict car usage, but I don't think that ramping fuel duty is a good way of doing it because of the economic problems it will cause.
Gribs
Even you can surely see there’s a massive difference between burning hydrocarbons and using them to reduce the need to burn more hydrocarbons? Both the good and bad thing about plastics is they last a really long time.
Absolutely but Just Stop Oil etc. can't or that's certainly not the message I and the general public see.
It's the same for solutions, we have had the anti-nuclear lobby nay-saying for decades when we could have been building power that isn't contributing to climate change.
Now the excuse is "it's too late" ... and unless things change it will still be "too late" in 5/10yrs
we’re just not implementing them
Exactly. And how do we get them implemented? Not by throwing soup at paintings. When I figure out what I can do to actually help (besides cutting my own consumption) then I will. But I am always thinking about it.
For now I think that the most important thing we need to get things moving in the UK is electoral reform. Fortunately this looks like happening to some extent. But it's not going to be anywhere near enough, it's just one tiny piece of the huge puzzle.
The problem is that the only mechanism we currently have to effect large scale change in the world is via capitalism and economics. No-one has any idea how to get people to do things that don't involve money - which is absolutely shit. So the only solution on a global scale is to somehow move away from buying and selling things that require physical resource extraction and manufacturing, and buy and sell stuff that doesn't - or at least, not much.
Ok so I thought I could see an issue with your proposal, and I brought it up.
1) the issue was only there because you did not read what I had written
2) you leapt straight into personal attack based on your not reading
I lost patience because we have been round and round this before. You really do not seem to get that western lifestyles need to change dramatically.
go back and reread
I won't be opening this thread again
I think that if you simply ramp up fuel duty you will cause severe hardship to the less well-off, particularly in rural communities
Once again - you completely missed the bit I said about using the money raised to mitigate these effects and that western lifestyles have to change
Oh I did miss this bit, you're right:
My idea of using ratcheting cost increases you completely ignore the ” use the money raised to support alternatives”
What alternatives? That's what I am interested in. How to mitigate the effects?
@molgrips - this is intellectual cowardice:
And how do we get them implemented? Not by throwing soup at paintings. When I figure out what I can do to actually help (besides cutting my own consumption) then I will. But I am always thinking about it.
It requires government action. The tried and tested way to make a government take action is protest - serious, hard protest.
Talking about crap on an internet forum is doing bugger all - and never ever will achieve anything.
Get off your arse and ACT.
XR, Just Stop Oil, Beans on the Mona Lisa, all of these protestors have done more to force this into the limelight than the IPCC - which was formed in nineteen eighty eight.
We have the solutions. Government knows what to do. But they're doing the opposite.
What are you doing about that? You're waffling about "electoral reform". - i.e. you're doing bugger all.
PROTEST.
(or do nothing, this whole thread is people making themselves feel good about doing nothing)
What are you doing about that?
Nothing, because I don't see those things as effective.
Is this thread about discussing solutions or about how shit I am?
XR, Just Stop Oil, Beans on the Mona Lisa, all of these protestors have done more to force this into the limelight than the IPCC
Beans on the Mona Lisa was in the news because it was a shocking stunt, not because of anything to do with climate. What do you think the average viewer thought when they saw that item? Did they think "oh wow, I must join the struggle and we can force the goverment to act!" or did they think "what a bunch of ****ing tree hugging tossers" ?
I don't think you can independently assess the impact of such actions. The IPCC is in the news quite a lot though. Arguably, the members of XR and Stop Oil probably joined because of the IPCC and other publicity.
Only government can progress the issue. But a Tory government never will as it's anathema.
I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm not saying I endorse the status quo. I'm not saying I know how to fix this, but I don't think you do either. Yes, campaigning helps keep the issues in the news but that's still pissing in the wind.
Once I figure out what can actually be done and a way I can actually start to achieve it, I might actually do it. But I'm not getting involved in criminal damage.
or do nothing, this whole thread is people making themselves feel good about doing nothing
Not me. I don't feel good about any of it. You could argue that going on marches and protests is simply a way to make people feel good and think they are doing something.
Molgrips
Well I was all interested in talking about solutions, maybe I’d be inspired to do see what I could do, but Chevychase and TJ have turned the thread into a shit slinging festival which has completely put me off.
Maybe go and glue yourself to a motorway or something, and leave the actual problem solving to others?
Accept compromises in terms of a wider "eco" or "green" agenda... then push for climate change initiatives at EVERY level and don't accept greenwashing.
If your local council try and do some greenwashing, especially when it's something that negatively affects climate change call them out and ask how this will affect climate change.
Do you think the silly girl in the video realises the irony that none of her clothes, safety equipment or phone to record this on would exist if it wasnt for oil production? I presume she walked there as to not increase her carbon footprint. Then there is the carbon emissions of the server farms that YouTube have to store all these videos. She is, like most of these protestor a hypocrite, not willing to practice what she preaches.
You could argue that going on marches and protests is simply a way to make people feel good and think they are doing something.
You could also argue that the marches are hugely damaging to the environment and that the last people taking part should be eco activists. Can you imagine what the carbon footprint of people travelling from wherever to attend, to make the banners, many using oil based paints and products. Then there is the environmental cost of organising, policing the event and the increase pollution caused by the general disruption the cause.
She is, like most of these protestor a hypocrite, not willing to practice what she preaches.
Not necessarily, and I don't think that kind of rhetoric is positive either. You can justify making a small negative impact to avoid a larger one later.
Plague or Putin pressing the button. 50% of the current population gone from the world is what we need. P**** ing the wind otherwise.
Not necessarily, and I don’t think that kind of rhetoric is positive either. You can justify making a small negative impact to avoid a larger one later.
what makes you think that this sort of action is going to make any difference to the outcome? Anyone who can do anything about it we’ll ignore her and, as you said, she will annoy and dissuade way more than she attracts to her point of view.
The old argument that it’s ok to cause some pollution now to support your argument is at best hollow. I presume you are ok with the farce that is cop27 where billions of tonnes of pollution will r caused by groups turning up to lobby for all sides of the argument.
So, the IPCC, the UN and all climate scientists say we need to leave most of the oil and gas we already know about in the ground yet the UK is licencing to open 100+ more wells in the North Sea (and despite what they say, we’re dirty extractors with low standards).
You might want to check the number of oil and gas licences issued by Biden's administration. i.e. more than previous administration if I can recall.
what makes you think that this sort of action is going to make any difference to the outcome?
I have no idea if it will. I just pointed out that is probably how it can be justified. It means she's not a hypocrite because she's doing what chevychase is demanding we do.
Honestly this kind of bickering is making everything worse not better.
The old argument that it’s ok to cause some pollution now to support your argument is at best hollow.
Less hollow than saying no-one who campaigns for the environment is allowed to consume anything. That's nonsensical. You can only start from where you are. If you discount every argument from anyone who has consumed anything non-renewable then you'll spend your time shooting down every single person who's trying to help, and even less will get done.
It's like building wind turbines. Each turbine uses loads of concrete and materials to build, but subsequently it actually saves resources overall.
But ultimately it makes no difference if she is a hypocrite or not. If post saying that humans are consuming too much from my unheated shed in the woods, I am no more or less correct than if I post it from my private jet on the way to COP27, am I? Obviously it's not a good look, but the message is the same. It's not about who's telling you and how they are telling you.
Less hollow than saying no-one who campaigns for the environment is allowed to consume anything. That’s nonsensical. You can only start from where you are
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that protesting about the one substance that without your protest would not be e possible is hypocritical. Presumably someone bought the rope and safety gear to perform the protest. If she is anti oil why is every garment we can see made from the stuff? Should she not be setting the example about how you can dress and live without consuming oil rather than telling everyone else they shouldn’t but it ok for her to
Cop27 is going to release billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere!
Citation needed please.
Or did you just make it up to try to wrongly prove a point?
Yes, thousands of tons of extra co2 will be generated, but the world is round so everyone has to travel great distance to come together. Look each other in tje eye and say 'last year you declared you were going to do this, and actually you didn't'
You might want to check the number of oil and gas licences issued by Biden’s administration. i.e. more than previous administration if I can recall.
a) this is whatabouterry and b) if you've got a point to make about the number of licenses issued by Biden's administration it's on YOU to look it up. off you toddle.
Can't be bothered to look up the number of licenses (or if they have a chance of being productive) but Biden is releasing fuel from the federal stock piles to try and drive down the petrol price in the run up to the mid terms as inflation at 8% and rising energy prices are likely to cost him the election even if it isn't his fault.
All these people saying we have to act now otherwise billions will die. Well isn’t that just what’s needed?
If they really cared about the environment they’d be keeping a constant tyre fire going in the garden 🔥
@singletrackmind. According to the un 30,000 people are going plus media.
https://www.un.org/en/desa/cop27-what-you-need-know-about-year%E2%80%99s-big-un-climate-conference
Given there are about 200 world leaders and some from organisations like the un that leaves about 29,000 turning up who aren’t decision makers. So why do they need to be there? Have they not heard of video conferencing? Especially for simmering that is supposed to be saving the world
TBF Ed it's pretty nailed on he's going to loose at least one house but it's not the end of the world for Biden. he's used to making deals and he's had a decent run at it WRT having a free hand early in his term. anyway, we digress.