To get things back on topic a bit, I'm a lot more saddened by the trees being cut down or burnt in Brazil and SE Asia every day. Rather more of them too
To get things back on topic a bit, I'm a lot more saddened by the trees being cut down or burnt in Brazil and SE Asia every day. Rather more of them too
A single tree being cut down is a tragedy, a million being cut down is a statistic
There seems to be cross party assurances (at present) to back Rolls Royce's Small Modular Reactor technology.
In short 70% of these individual units can be factory built with the advantage that staff can be retained, expertise centralised and costs kept at a minimum as other units roll off the line.
One way or another we are going to need inexpensive power and this is an answer. However, recent wobbles by the government won't be filling RR with confidence - there won't be any shortage of takers from abroad if the UK don't put pen to paper.
i am nearly finished ‘The climate book’. Whilst it shows Greta Thunberg as the author it ks actually a series of essays by some of the top climate scientists throughout the world. It is worrying but also, in the main, optimistic in tone. Offers some insight into what can be done. It is not massively jargon heavy. I recommend a read of it.
Watched "Big Oil v the World" last night on iPlayer. For those who haven't seen it, it takes a look at how oil companies have tried to protect their own interests at the expense of the planet for over four decades since learning what they only now admit and accept to be true, that human activity is a causal factor in global warming/climate change.
Their planned reaction to it saw them casting uncertainty over the scientific findings that even their own researchers had arrived at, despite the fact that they were among the first to reach that conclusion by the way
Now the truth is undisputed by anyone credible, their protectionism policy has been adapted and goes more along the lines of ... well we can't make do without using fossil fuels, our dependency is too great, so we should focus more on developing the technology to remove the carbon we emit from the atmosphere rather than cutting it, and in so doing, not killing the goose that laid the golden egg (well they don't emphasize that last bit of course)
Watched "Big Oil v the World" last night on iPlayer. For those who haven't seen it, it takes a look at how oil companies have tried to protect their own interests at the expense of the planet for over four decades since learning what they only now admit and accept to be true, that human activity is a causal factor in global warming/climate change.
Their planned reaction to it saw them casting uncertainty over the scientific findings that even their own researchers had arrived at, despite the fact that they were among the first to reach that conclusion by the way
Now the truth is undisputed by anyone credible, their protectionism policy has been adapted and goes more along the lines of ... well we can't make do without using fossil fuels, our dependency is too great, so we should focus more on developing the technology to remove the carbon we emit from the atmosphere rather than cutting it, and in so doing, not killing the goose that laid the golden egg (well they don't emphasize that last bit of course)
We already have the “technology”. It’s called trees and plants but in true human tradition we’re getting rid of that tried and tested and free source of carbon dioxide removal.
Watched "Big Oil v the World" last night on iPlayer. For those who haven't seen it, it takes a look at how oil companies have tried to protect their own interests at the expense of the planet for over four decades since learning what they only now admit and accept to be true, that human activity is a causal factor in global warming/climate change.
Their planned reaction to it saw them casting uncertainty over the scientific findings that even their own researchers had arrived at, despite the fact that they were among the first to reach that conclusion by the way
Now the truth is undisputed by anyone credible, their protectionism policy has been adapted and goes more along the lines of ... well we can't make do without using fossil fuels, our dependency is too great, so we should focus more on developing the technology to remove the carbon we emit from the atmosphere rather than cutting it, and in so doing, not killing the goose that laid the golden egg (well they don't emphasize that last bit of course)
We already have the “technology”. It’s called trees and plants but in true human tradition we’re getting rid of that tried and tested and free source of carbon dioxide removal.
I know, but I think they're talking about the carbon sequestration (expensive) technology to store it deep underground. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the area of deforestation is still expanding at a greater rate than that of reforestation, so accelerating the effects of global warming.
The effects of releasing greater quantities of methane shouldn't be underestimate either, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. How fast is the permafrost thawing?
Trees and plants die, then release the carbon back into the atmosphere. So they merely store carbon in the short term.
CCS technology is the way ahead for longer storage. The UK is one of the 5 countries leading the way with this.
They capture carbon overall. Forests are carbon sinks, places that absorb more carbon than they release. Your post gives the impression that planting trees is a waste of time. It really isn't. Let's hope CCS saves the day, but you'd be very foolish to put all your eggs in that basket.
The technology has existed for some time, but will governments invest in it when it isn't profitable?
You have inferred something I didn't say. CCS is longer storage than trees. Not sure why you are arguing.
Maybe. But reading your post again, it looks like you’re saying re-forestation, for example, would be short-termist. And it’s not really clear if and when carbon capture is going to start tipping the balance away from climate crisis. Do you know what the current thinking is about this? Tbh, if it seemed genuinely feasible wouldn’t climate experts be less concerned about the future than they currently are?
The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world and the loss of bio-diversity is extremely worrying.
We should be planting a lot more trees, as they do remove carbon from the atmosphere. Planting trees is just one of the many solutions to reducing carbon dioxide. Unfortunately most of the new houses being built have such small gardens that people don't want trees. Paving, decking and plastic grass are all very detrimental to the planet.
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
8 Billion at present. An 8 fold increase since 1800 and predicted to be 10 Billion by 2050. A lot more mouths to feed and provide for. Can’t help feeling that something has to give at some point.
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
8 Billion at present. An 8 fold increase since 1800 and predicted to be 10 Billion by 2050. A lot more mouths to feed and provide for. Can’t help feeling that something has to give at some point.
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
8 Billion at present. An 8 fold increase since 1800 and predicted to be 10 Billion by 2050. A lot more mouths to feed and provide for. Can’t help feeling that something has to give at some point.
Exactly this. If you Google the world's population decade on decade it is increasing at a frightening pace. Long term this is not sustainable. Problem is how to slow it down. Politicians around the world just Bury their heads in the sand and refuse to tackle the problem.
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
8 Billion at present. An 8 fold increase since 1800 and predicted to be 10 Billion by 2050. A lot more mouths to feed and provide for. Can’t help feeling that something has to give at some point.
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
8 Billion at present. An 8 fold increase since 1800 and predicted to be 10 Billion by 2050. A lot more mouths to feed and provide for. Can’t help feeling that something has to give at some point.
Exactly this. If you Google the world's population decade on decade it is increasing at a frightening pace. Long term this is not sustainable. Problem is how to slow it down. Politicians around the world just Bury their heads in the sand and refuse to tackle the problem.
Only thing that would work is a worldwide ban on having more than 2 births per person. Yes very occasionally you'll have people with 4 kids because one birth was triplets or something, but it's the only way to limit the growth IMO.
Problem is half the people having 14 children are doing so because they're raving lunatic religionists, and the other half are doing so because the death rate amongst children is so high in their countries, and neither are going to follow the rules
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
8 Billion at present. An 8 fold increase since 1800 and predicted to be 10 Billion by 2050. A lot more mouths to feed and provide for. Can’t help feeling that something has to give at some point.
The bigger the population grows the more the problem will grow. This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK. The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
8 Billion at present. An 8 fold increase since 1800 and predicted to be 10 Billion by 2050. A lot more mouths to feed and provide for. Can’t help feeling that something has to give at some point.
Exactly this. If you Google the world's population decade on decade it is increasing at a frightening pace. Long term this is not sustainable. Problem is how to slow it down. Politicians around the world just Bury their heads in the sand and refuse to tackle the problem.
I can think of one obvious example that did something about it, it’s now causing huge problems that will only get worse over the next 10/15 years.
There is no easy solution other than having people consume less and cause less pollution, those are the real key issues.
Comments
Little Josè
In short 70% of these individual units can be factory built with the advantage that staff can be retained, expertise centralised and costs kept at a minimum as other units roll off the line.
One way or another we are going to need inexpensive power and this is an answer. However, recent wobbles by the government won't be filling RR with confidence - there won't be any shortage of takers from abroad if the UK don't put pen to paper.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/
Their planned reaction to it saw them casting uncertainty over the scientific findings that even their own researchers had arrived at, despite the fact that they were among the first to reach that conclusion by the way
Now the truth is undisputed by anyone credible, their protectionism policy has been adapted and goes more along the lines of ... well we can't make do without using fossil fuels, our dependency is too great, so we should focus more on developing the technology to remove the carbon we emit from the atmosphere rather than cutting it, and in so doing, not killing the goose that laid the golden egg (well they don't emphasize that last bit of course)
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/global-warming-set-trigger-horror-31166449
''Scotland's biggest offshore wind farm has begun operating at full capacity, removing emissions from power supply.
Seagreen, off the Angus coast, can generate enough electricity to power two-thirds of Scotland's households.
The £3bn project, comprising 114 giant turbines, has been more than a decade in the making.''
We need to cut the, 'inception to reality' times.
The effects of releasing greater quantities of methane shouldn't be underestimate either, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. How fast is the permafrost thawing?
https://www.pbs.org/video/is-permafrost-the-climate-tipping-point-of-no-return-qyheu3/#:~:text=Arctic air is warming, causing,coming much sooner than expected.
So they merely store carbon in the short term.
CCS technology is the way ahead for longer storage.
The UK is one of the 5 countries leading the way with this.
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsthe-carbon-cycle
Let's hope CCS saves the day, but you'd be very foolish to put all your eggs in that basket.
The technology has existed for some time, but will governments invest in it when it isn't profitable?
https://climeworks.com/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=GS-AO-Tier1-en-Industry&utm_term=carbon capture technology&gclid=Cj0KCQjwhL6pBhDjARIsAGx8D5_0mTHZtsrFZiaW-uD3DeBDivGq4ObRqNTSlZ0FiijkPjJgBfwTr14aAsjqEALw_wcB
CCS is longer storage than trees. Not sure why you are arguing.
And it’s not really clear if and when carbon capture is going to start tipping the balance away from climate crisis. Do you know what the current thinking is about this? Tbh, if it seemed genuinely feasible wouldn’t climate experts be less concerned about the future than they currently are?
We should be planting a lot more trees, as they do remove carbon from the atmosphere. Planting trees is just one of the many solutions to reducing carbon dioxide. Unfortunately most of the new houses being built have such small gardens that people don't want trees. Paving, decking and plastic grass are all very detrimental to the planet.
https://news.sky.com/story/biodiversity-uk-is-one-of-worlds-most-nature-depleted-countries-new-data-finds-12430477
This applies to the world's population and not just in the UK.
The problem is that when you mention the Elephant in the room some people go into total denial of the fact.
If you Google the world's population decade on decade it is increasing at a frightening pace.
Long term this is not sustainable.
Problem is how to slow it down.
Politicians around the world just Bury their heads in the sand and refuse to tackle the problem.
Problem is half the people having 14 children are doing so because they're raving lunatic religionists, and the other half are doing so because the death rate amongst children is so high in their countries, and neither are going to follow the rules
But again I'm not sure deciding that everyone that hits their 80th birthday gets euthanised is going to go down well....