Author Topic: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.  (Read 29074 times)

JimSh

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: scotland
  • My Honda: 2014 Honda Jazz ES Plus
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #120 on: August 07, 2021, 05:16:49 PM »
Fossil fuels used for more than just energy, medicines, fertilizers and plastics, as well as roads made out of them ( to name but a few products ).  Mankind was much more unhealthy before we started using fossil fuels, dying from cold and infections, as well as starving ( coal tar soap and all the other disinfectants made from coal and oil ).
That's true and then we ripped the *rse out of it.
If not for fossil fuels there would not be a tree left standing on the planet - which would be mainly desert.  Without fossil fuels there may not be many people left on the planet today to moan about fossil fuels.
I don't see how that follows.

culzean

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8017
  • Country: england
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #121 on: August 07, 2021, 07:15:26 PM »

If not for fossil fuels there would not be a tree left standing on the planet - which would be mainly desert.  Without fossil fuels there may not be many people left on the planet today to moan about fossil fuels.
I don't see how that follows.

What would people have used in the absence of fossil fuels - they would have burned wood, just like they still do in many 3rd world countries ( with disastrous results for soil erosion ).   Fossil fuels have kept humans warm and healthy, and enabled them to cook food without stripping the landscape of trees like human locusts.   They used to use charcoal to make steel,  till some bright spark realised that heating coal to yield gas made coke ( a pure form of carbon ) that was cheaper and easier to get and much better for smelting metals,  so even our metals are reliant on fossil fuels.  It would be a cold and damp, dark and unhealthy world devoid of everything we take for granted without fossil fuels, and food would be in short supply as well, we would still be reliant on horses and manual labour.... many of the people on this forum may well not be here.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2021, 07:20:17 PM by culzean »
Some people will only consider you an expert if they agree with your point of view or advice,  when you give them advice they don't like they consider you an idiot

guest4871

  • Guest
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #122 on: August 07, 2021, 07:54:43 PM »
We still burn wood in UK - to generate electricity.

It is now called biomass and is classed as a "renewable" (???) energy source!

Biomass power (i.e. wood) accounted for around 12 per cent of the UK's electricity in 2020.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biomass-power-renewable-energy-sustainable-b1805168.html

Some people are just "havin a laff"   

JimSh

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: scotland
  • My Honda: 2014 Honda Jazz ES Plus
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #123 on: August 07, 2021, 09:10:37 PM »

Some people are just "havin a laff"
I think that is the gist of the article.
Much of the wood is imported from America in the form of pellets and who is to know what type of wood was used.


JimSh

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: scotland
  • My Honda: 2014 Honda Jazz ES Plus
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #124 on: August 07, 2021, 09:28:42 PM »


What would people have used in the absence of fossil fuels - they would have burned wood, just like they still do in many 3rd world countries ( with disastrous results for soil erosion ).   Fossil fuels have kept humans warm and healthy, and enabled them to cook food without stripping the landscape of trees like human locusts
People have lived sustainably with forests for centuries and would have continued to do so had it not been for mechanised
deforestation.
Much of the Scottish forests (and presumably English and European) were destroyed to provide wood for warships and charcoal to smelt iron and steel for weapons as well as to provide agricultural land and timber for building.
https://treesforlife.org.uk/into-the-forest/habitats-and-ecology/human-impacts/deforestation/
Edit Added second paragraph
« Last Edit: August 07, 2021, 09:45:04 PM by JimSh »

embee

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 810
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: 2018 Jazz SE CVT
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #125 on: August 07, 2021, 10:16:36 PM »
This is the real problem ...........
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

What we could get away with doing to the environment when I was born back in the 1950s, with 3bn people on the planet, we can no longer get away with today when there are 8bn+

guest4871

  • Guest
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #126 on: August 07, 2021, 11:02:40 PM »
This is the real problem ...........
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

What we could get away with doing to the environment when I was born back in the 1950s, with 3bn people on the planet, we can no longer get away with today when there are 8bn+

Or put another way

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006502/global-population-ten-thousand-bc-to-2050/


culzean

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8017
  • Country: england
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #127 on: August 08, 2021, 09:32:10 AM »


What would people have used in the absence of fossil fuels - they would have burned wood, just like they still do in many 3rd world countries ( with disastrous results for soil erosion ).   Fossil fuels have kept humans warm and healthy, and enabled them to cook food without stripping the landscape of trees like human locusts
People have lived sustainably with forests for centuries and would have continued to do so had it not been for mechanised
deforestation.
Much of the Scottish forests (and presumably English and European) were destroyed to provide wood for warships and charcoal to smelt iron and steel for weapons as well as to provide agricultural land and timber for building.
https://treesforlife.org.uk/into-the-forest/habitats-and-ecology/human-impacts/deforestation/
Edit Added second paragraph

You cannot rewrite history,  without the charcoal to melt iron and wood to build ships we may all have been speaking French or Spanish. Without iron we would have nothing today, not even kettles or cars.   Mankind made a massive leap forward using fossil fuels - do you really think 70million people could live in UK today using wood to heat houses and cook ?  Even the biomass woodchips we use as 'sustainable' power generations ( LOL ) are shipped from USA Canada in steel ships using bunker oil ( the dirtiest form of oil ).   Coal and coke made steel / metal production cheap and plentiful,  allowing many things to be made quickly and cheaply from metals.  Living sustainably from natural resources means a subsistence level lifestyle ( scratching around in the dirt for food ) for a very small population ( probably less than a million people in UK ). 
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 09:33:43 AM by culzean »
Some people will only consider you an expert if they agree with your point of view or advice,  when you give them advice they don't like they consider you an idiot

embee

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 810
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: 2018 Jazz SE CVT
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #128 on: August 08, 2021, 11:13:31 AM »
But it is not the whole answer. The richer countries are accountable for a far greater proportion of the depletion of resources than more populous regions of the World.
Oh indeed yes. I certainly wouldn't point a finger at any specific population region, that's a very complex issue.
The basic principle however would be that with half (to pluck a number for example) the population across the world the problem would be much smaller and much easier to address. Unfortunately little if any emphasis seems to be put on overall population, it seems to be a PC minefield where no-one wants to go. China of course did it, but that was condemned broadly across the west, and even they have since relaxed the rules somewhat. No western politician dares broach that subject.
If you increase the population by 25% and reduce the average CO2 footprint by 25% (or 20% if you want to argue the maths backwards) you essentially don't solve anything, the world still sees the same net effect. If you freeze the population (i.e. one person one child) then you can reduce the CO2 effect with the technical actions you are taking.
The first challenge to tackle most problems is for the participants to accept the issue exists, former USA presidents for example.

guest4871

  • Guest
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #129 on: August 08, 2021, 11:59:41 AM »

Oh indeed yes. I certainly wouldn't point a finger at any specific population region, that's a very complex issue.
The basic principle however would be that with half (to pluck a number for example) the population across the world the problem would be much smaller and much easier to address. Unfortunately little if any emphasis seems to be put on overall population, it seems to be a PC minefield where no-one wants to go. China of course did it, but that was condemned broadly across the west, and even they have since relaxed the rules somewhat. No western politician dares broach that subject.
If you increase the population by 25% and reduce the average CO2 footprint by 25% (or 20% if you want to argue the maths backwards) you essentially don't solve anything, the world still sees the same net effect. If you freeze the population (i.e. one person one child) then you can reduce the CO2 effect with the technical actions you are taking.
The first challenge to tackle most problems is for the participants to accept the issue exists, former USA presidents for example.

You are absolutely correct in your analysis.

Another problem with population control is that you finish up with an aging population which is the issue that China has.

The world can only sustain a certain population. In history migrations occurred from either resource depletion (famine) or exploitation ( farming moving into Europe) or resource excess (wood to build ships and then coal to mine in the case of Great Britain).

Unfortunately the world's excess population is consuming resource to depletion with nowhere for the world's population to migrate to.

Coupled with that is the falsification of economic growth.

More population = more economic growth but not per capita economic growth.

As an example, UK economic growth since 2007 ( the great age of multiculturalism) has come from population growth through migration. The 2021 census figures might shock a few people with the potential of a 10% increase in population over ten years. No wonder we need more houses. However since 2007 (13 years) UK per capita income has been all but level.


JimSh

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: scotland
  • My Honda: 2014 Honda Jazz ES Plus
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #130 on: August 08, 2021, 07:12:28 PM »

You cannot rewrite history,  without the charcoal to melt iron and wood to build ships we may all have been speaking French or Spanish. Without iron we would have nothing today, not even kettles or cars.   Mankind made a massive leap forward using fossil fuels - do you really think 70million people could live in UK today using wood to heat houses and cook ?  Even the biomass woodchips we use as 'sustainable' power generations ( LOL ) are shipped from USA Canada in steel ships using bunker oil ( the dirtiest form of oil ).   Coal and coke made steel / metal production cheap and plentiful,  allowing many things to be made quickly and cheaply from metals.  Living sustainably from natural resources means a subsistence level lifestyle ( scratching around in the dirt for food ) for a very small population ( probably less than a million people in UK ).

I don't want to rewrite history.
I would just like the World leaders to ensure a brighter future. They will not do this by making empty promises.

culzean

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8017
  • Country: england
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #131 on: August 08, 2021, 07:19:49 PM »

You cannot rewrite history,  without the charcoal to melt iron and wood to build ships we may all have been speaking French or Spanish. Without iron we would have nothing today, not even kettles or cars.   Mankind made a massive leap forward using fossil fuels - do you really think 70million people could live in UK today using wood to heat houses and cook ?  Even the biomass woodchips we use as 'sustainable' power generations ( LOL ) are shipped from USA Canada in steel ships using bunker oil ( the dirtiest form of oil ).   Coal and coke made steel / metal production cheap and plentiful,  allowing many things to be made quickly and cheaply from metals.  Living sustainably from natural resources means a subsistence level lifestyle ( scratching around in the dirt for food ) for a very small population ( probably less than a million people in UK ).

I don't want to rewrite history.
I would just like the World leaders to ensure a brighter future. They will not do this by making empty promises.

You mean like the empty promises that fans on sticks and solar panels will provide power for EV, heating, cooking, industry and all our other rapidly growing list of electrical needs ( mainly caused by empty - undeliverable promise of net zero carbon )
Some people will only consider you an expert if they agree with your point of view or advice,  when you give them advice they don't like they consider you an idiot

Jocko

  • Topic Starter
  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9356
  • Country: scotland
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: Died from rust.
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #132 on: August 08, 2021, 08:08:53 PM »
Scotland narrowly missed a target to generate the equivalent of 100% of its electricity demand from renewables in 2020. Figures revealed it reached 97.4% from renewable sources.

JimSh

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: scotland
  • My Honda: 2014 Honda Jazz ES Plus
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #133 on: August 08, 2021, 08:40:52 PM »

You cannot rewrite history,  without the charcoal to melt iron and wood to build ships we may all have been speaking French or Spanish. Without iron we would have nothing today, not even kettles or cars.   Mankind made a massive leap forward using fossil fuels - do you really think 70million people could live in UK today using wood to heat houses and cook ?  Even the biomass woodchips we use as 'sustainable' power generations ( LOL ) are shipped from USA Canada in steel ships using bunker oil ( the dirtiest form of oil ).   Coal and coke made steel / metal production cheap and plentiful,  allowing many things to be made quickly and cheaply from metals.  Living sustainably from natural resources means a subsistence level lifestyle ( scratching around in the dirt for food ) for a very small population ( probably less than a million people in UK ).

I don't want to rewrite history.
I would just like the World leaders to ensure a brighter future. They will not do this by making empty promises.

You mean like the empty promises that fans on sticks and solar panels will provide power for EV, heating, cooking, industry and all our other rapidly growing list of electrical needs ( mainly caused by empty - undeliverable promise of net zero carbon )
No. I was referring to previous COP meetings on climate change.
 Sharma got at least one thing right "Alok Sharma warns world is ‘dangerously close’ to climate change ‘catastrophe’"
It's time they actually did something rather than have a talking shop setting targets decades in the future.
Edit Added 2nd paragraph
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 10:51:10 PM by JimSh »

JimSh

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: scotland
  • My Honda: 2014 Honda Jazz ES Plus
Re: Electricity generation. The pros and the cons.
« Reply #134 on: November 02, 2021, 10:21:46 PM »
Just watched this --- A lot more positive than Cop 26
Orkney: Britain's Green Islands with Julia Bradbury and Alex Beresford
Julia and Alex visit the beautiful, green Orkney Islands, and discover how Orcadians harness their extreme weather.
https://www.itv.com/hub/orkney-britains-green-islands-with-julia-bradbury-and-alex-beresford/10a1712a0001

    Today 8.30pm
    30 mins

You may have to sign in for ITV if in England.
I can only sign in for STV in Scotland. (I get a message " not available in your region" from ITV

Worth a watch.

   

« Last Edit: November 03, 2021, 08:29:42 AM by JimSh »

Tags:
 

Back to top