The Climate Emergency | Page 3 | Vital Football

The Climate Emergency

Practically all your posts argue for electrification, and I don't think one can argue with that point, provided, of course, that it is produced using non polluting sources ie/eg wind, wave, solar, nuclear

What I find ironic is that having spent most of my life opposing the generation of nuclear power - due to leaving a legacy of stored waste for future generations - I now find myself supporting it as one of the main options we need to use

Yeah, nuclear is an interesting one. Divides the Greens.

Solve the mass storage of green generated electricity and we take a big step forward.
 
Practically all your posts argue for electrification, and I don't think one can argue with that point, provided, of course, that it is produced using non polluting sources ie/eg wind, wave, solar, nuclear

What I find ironic is that having spent most of my life opposing the generation of nuclear power - due to leaving a legacy of stored waste for future generations - I now find myself supporting it as one of the main options we need to use


Oh yes all my points are to switch all energy sources to electricity and then for all that electricity to be green generated.
And like you I've always been against nuclear power but still am. No reason we can't have 100% and more generated by wind/solar/hydro/wave etc.
Only big concession I'd make is yes to nuclear fusion if and when that finally becomes doable. No long term (and extremely long term that means) radioactive pollution from it nor use of radioactive fuel.
 
Yeah, nuclear is an interesting one. Divides the Greens.

Solve the mass storage of green generated electricity and we take a big step forward.

Storage of energy is where hydrogen can play a big part. Advantage is you can electrolyse as much as you like and store it easily. Fuel tanks in road vehicles/trains/planes and home fuel can be filled just as easily as petrol etc is now. And distance ranges can be far higher than current battery options. Also will avoid a long term battery mountain containing a lot of used up rarer metals.
 
First thing I would say on that:
"Man Tax"!!!

Generally, the recommended daily calorie intake is 2,000 calories a day for women and 2,500 for men.

But that's not taking in to account other factors:

Calories are a measure of how much energy food or drink contains. The amount of energy you need will depend on:

  • your age – for example, growing children and teenagers may need more energy
  • your lifestyle – for example, how active you are
  • your size – your height and weight can affect how quickly you use energy
Other factors can also affect how much energy you burn. For example:

  • some hormones (chemicals produced by the body) – such as thyroid hormones
  • some medicines – such as glucocorticoids, a type of steroid used to treat inflammation
  • being unwell


Oh and other point on any taxing of bought items is that it is naturally unfair on those with least income who nevertheless have to spend to live.
And this iniquity extends to many things currently taxed like bills and driving and so on, and people in rural areas also suffer extra costs for similar reasons, and I'm pretty sure electricity unit costs are highly unfair with transmission costs being based on distance from London irrespective of where in the Uk the electricity is actually geenerated (and it ain't in London!!). Scotland in particular pays a heavy additional cost despite generating all its own electricity and more besides.

So...all of that is a big reason to make taxing of income far more progressive than it is now.
Cut/remove income taxes for a bigger chunk of lower paid people than now and up the taxes on the rest in an increasing scale of course.
 
Whoever solves the engineering issues behind tidal power (salt corrosion for example on existing materials is a biggie I believe) could be a game changer.

We are a coastal nation with tidal rivers and estuaries on top of that. Unlike wind and sun the tides are generally more predictable and reliable. I wonder if we have any physicists on here that can extrapolate the potential of tidal power versus solar/wind.
 
Storage of energy is where hydrogen can play a big part. Advantage is you can electrolyse as much as you like and store it easily. Fuel tanks in road vehicles/trains/planes and home fuel can be filled just as easily as petrol etc is now. And distance ranges can be far higher than current battery options. Also will avoid a long term battery mountain containing a lot of used up rarer metals.

In the meantime whilst we await the storage conundrum to be fixed, we are at least starting to think outside the box a little. The UK government has just reached a mutually beneficial deal with the Norwegian government whereby we can tap into their excess hydro power and vice versa for our wind power as and when required; so at least less of the instantly generated energy will go to waste.

National Grid powers up world’s longest subsea interconnector between the UK and Norway | National Grid Group

Deals like this make political as well as economic sense. The historic reliance on oil rich countries has had deadly consequences as we know only too well, and as Europe is currently finding out it really isn't healthy to be held to ransom by the Russians for gas supplies.
 
Last edited:
Storage of energy is where hydrogen can play a big part. Advantage is you can electrolyse as much as you like and store it easily. Fuel tanks in road vehicles/trains/planes and home fuel can be filled just as easily as petrol etc is now. And distance ranges can be far higher than current battery options. Also will avoid a long term battery mountain containing a lot of used up rarer metals.
We're not there yet with hydrogen storage tanks, but this article suggests that in the interim period we are at least implementing the technology to enable us to store the instant 'green' energy we are producing. I wasn't aware that was commercially available until I read this article.

Elon Musk launches new Tesla project in Brexit Britain: 'Important step for growth!' | Science | News | Express.co.uk

In conjunction with the means to share the energy as it is produced (Norway agreement I referenced before) this shows encouraging signs of joined up thinking, efficiency and progress.
 
Dale Vince, Chairman of forest green Rovers has d had some stick on this Forum, but he was interviewed on the Today programme yesterday morning as owner of Ecotricity. An interesting listen, including his support for nationalising the energy industry

On for around 5 mins from around 1h 09mins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00108gz
 
Dale Vince, Chairman of forest green Rovers has d had some stick on this Forum, but he was interviewed on the Today programme yesterday morning as owner of Ecotricity. An interesting listen, including his support for nationalising the energy industry

On for around 5 mins from around 1h 09mins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00108gz
He has also made sense that we should electrify all rail lines because we no longer need overhead lines or electric rails as big trains are suited to carrying big batteries. Even I did not think of that "no brainer" and I am no battery fan.
 
When you said you do not know who to trust when 95% of climate scientists all say there is and the 5% who work for petrochemical companies have all been proven recently to have been knowingly lying. If you do not accept proven facts then what else are you but a denier. Cars hold up far more ambulances than a few isolated once in a while protesters. I don't see you railing against that. Climate change will literally kill millions of people on this planet; I do not see you railing against that. You pick and choose little bits of evidence that suit your ideological agenda and ignore everything that counters it. You are like Raab and Patel cherry picking extreme examples to rob everybody of their rights. Tories are scum and people who support then knowing that are scum too.
This is timely impede:


So having watched this, what is the extent of coral decline on The GBR?
 
Yeah, but some amongst us still will not know who to believe #cognitivedissonance
You seem to be missing the point. The article highlighted by Maine Road is balanced and allows for variables. It is not alarmist nor does it seek to be sensationalist to further an agenda, unlike the manipulation of data by Cook's University (#50).

The marine physicist was sufficiently perturbed by the unscientific practice, occasioned by a supposedly respectable place of learning, that he felt compelled to become a whistle blower - and was sacked as a result.

If you take stock of what he says, essentially they randomly started the data from a coral high point in 2009 and used the figures taken from a 2018 low point, whilst conveniently ignoring the latest two years results (where it just happens to have recovered well), to come up with a figure to suit their dubious purposes.

Using the same flawed (non) random selection of years, a climate change denier could have taken a historic low from the 1990's up until the current 2020 data to show that the GBR has in fact prospered over the past quarter of a century.

Both examples are appalling scientific procedure and would be laughed out of any attempt to be published in a respectable journal. Therein lies the problem, appositely highlighted.

As the scientist explains, the wilful manipulation of data to push an agenda is completely unacceptable and that is why there are question marks when supposed independent experts publish their results and why we should query their reports, as much as we don't take some politicians at face value when they open their traps.

Are Cook's Uni on your list of 95% trust worthy sources?
 
Last edited:

Again, more food for thought on 'who to believe'.

It would appear that Dr. Roy Spencer is a respected scientist and former NASA meteorologist who is getting demonetised for making supposedly 'unreliable and harmful' claims about the slow rate of actual global warming. Not that Google will say which of his claims are as aforementioned.

He would say that he is comparing apples with apples, involving actual measurements versus over 2 dozen predictive studies. The facts show that the earth is warming at a negligible rate - basically half of what all the debunked predictions have floated.

As he puts it, "I don't know why they decided to do this. I think they have a bunch of liberal arts majors that just heard that the scientists don't like the answers we get, and therefore we are deniers".

His Wiki entry is at least worth a quick skim to get a flavour, if you don't have access to fancy university libraries for his full research data.

Roy Warren Spencer (born December 20, 1955) is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.

So who are people going with - Greta or Dr. Roy?
 
Last edited:
Ah two of my favourite subjects (EU and climate zealots) lampooned mercilessly by the ever sarcastic Andrew Lawrence.


Gotta say I'm impressed with the Dutch - go bezerk like the French when they're told they can no longer have 5 hour lunch breaks with wine, and then back it up politically like the Brits did with the Brexit Party. Best of both worlds.

I must check in with that Swedish climate expert (I hear she got a lot of Swedish GCSE's) to see what is really happening with the climate though. Last I heard she predicted in 2018 that the world would end this year if we didn't ban fossil fuels. I'm not gonna lie, I'm terrified; currently watching the sky expecting it to fall in any moment now.
 
"But the two scientists that are funded by BP and ‪‬Shell know much more about this than that bunch of charlatans"; hulloutpost
Green capitalists to replace oil capitalists; the king is dead, long live the king.

Have to say I'm surprised you are on the side of multi billionaire 'green' capitalists making a killing off the down trodden workers on the back of a bogey man story Impede. I had you down as a person of stronger principles than that. Good to know you're really a dirty little capitalist like the rest of us :grinning: