Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted (edited)

House batteries without Solar Panels (We are told we cannot have them) - is it worth it? Anyone got any experience of them with or without Solar panels?

Edited by Dahnsouff
Innovindil

Innovindil

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

House batteries without Solar Panels (We are told we cannot have them) - is it worth it? Anyone got any experience of them with or without Solar panels?

Eh? How the hell do you charge it without panels? 

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Eh? How the hell do you charge it without panels? 

From the grid, and its more of a cost saving thing than anything else, as you charge it at low rate (11:30pm-5:30am) and this is especially useful if we end up getting an EV

Innovindil

Innovindil

Posted
Posted
Just now, Dahnsouff said:

From the grid, and its more of a cost saving thing than anything else, as you charge it at low rate (11:30pm-5:30am) and this is especially useful if we end up getting an EV

Ah wild. Never even heard of doing such a thing. Interested to see if there's any technical analysis behind it. Between power transfer loss and cost difference. Lmk if you find any please. :D

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It's not, but what the article is suggesting is there's nothing that can be done about european warming.

 

 

Nothing to be done to stop an increase of 1.5 or even 2 degrees average? Yeah, it's likely that ship has sailed.

 

Nothing to be done about it increasing still further? Not necessarily, and keeping that increase as low as possible is important because the consequences increase exponentially with the temperature increase.

yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nothing to be done to stop an increase of 1.5 or even 2 degrees average? Yeah, it's likely that ship has sailed.

 

Nothing to be done about it increasing still further? Not necessarily, and keeping that increase as low as possible is important because the consequences increase exponentially with the temperature increase.

No, we can slow it down by not contributing to it as much , but that will only delay the inevitable. The ice caps are receding exponentially, much like an ice-cube if you put it on a table in the kitchen, it starts off being able to retain its core temperature but as the surface area, it's heat relecting ability, and the volume, it's thermal mass, reduces, it melts faster and faster,  and imho (humble) that is the issue. We'd be better off putting all our efforts into trying to refreeze them.

 

Bugger me, i just looked if that was possible, and some of your lot from the university of bangor are after some cash to develop the technology to refreeze the icecaps.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1433031/scientists-build-machine-refreeze-north-pole-fight-climate-change-news

Edited by yorkie1999
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

No, we can slow it down by not contributing to it as much , but that will only delay the inevitable. The ice caps are receding exponentially, much like an ice-cube if you put it on a table in the kitchen, it starts off being able to retain its core temperature but as the surface area, it's heat relecting ability, and the volume, it's thermal mass, reduces, it melts faster and faster,  and imho (humble) that is the issue. We'd be better off putting all our efforts into trying to refreeze them.

 

Bugger me, i just looked if that was possible, and some of your lot from the university of bangor are after some cash to develop the idea of refreezing the icecaps.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1433031/scientists-build-machine-refreeze-north-pole-fight-climate-change-news

Well, I hope such grand projects aren't what we have to rely upon at the end.

 

We've known for a long time that albedo effects - among other things - will make such an increase in temperature something of a feedback loop, but there's nothing to suggest that effect can't be stopped or, yes, at least slowed down. And the slowing down would be important too, because time is a critical factor to create the infrastructure (in many areas) needed for everyone to survive in a changed world.

 

NB. I find it both darkly humorous and rather annoying that the various climate do-nothings (mainly because it won't be them suffering and dying, at least not at the start) have shifted seamlessly from "don't need to do anything, there's not a problem" to "don't need to do anything, it's already too late". I can only hope - and work towards - that if the worst should happen, all of them will face some kind of accountability for the consequences they allowed to happen through their apathy and self-interest.

yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, I hope such grand projects aren't what we have to rely upon at the end.

 

We've known for a long time that albedo effects - among other things - will make such an increase in temperature something of a feedback loop, but there's nothing to suggest that effect can't be stopped or, yes, at least slowed down. And the slowing down would be important too, because time is a critical factor to create the infrastructure (in many areas) needed for everyone to survive in a changed world.

 

NB. I find it both darkly humorous and rather annoying that the various climate do-nothings (mainly because it won't be them suffering and dying, at least not at the start) have shifted seamlessly from "don't need to do anything, there's not a problem" to "don't need to do anything, it's already too late". I can only hope - and work towards - that if the worst should happen, all of them will face some kind of accountability for the consequences they allowed to happen through their apathy and self-interest.

I faily sure that the person who decided to light his fag next to that gasy stuff coming out of the ground wouldn't have expected it to power the world. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I faily sure that the person who decided to light his fag next to that gasy stuff coming out of the ground wouldn't have expected it to power the world. 

That's true. Sometimes it does only take one moment of happenstance to change the world. Of course, sometimes it doesn't happen and sometimes when it does it changes it for the worse, but...

 

I'd rather we go slower and more surely with things that are proven to work, but if a big leap of inspiration ends up being what's needed, I'll be out there wishing for it and working for it as much as anyone else.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Not news specifically, but my own take:

 

The only thing separating humanity from finding simple microbial life on places other than Earth is a matter of time. I'd put a lot of money on that right now

  • Like 1
The Bear

The Bear

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Not news specifically, but my own take:

 

The only thing separating humanity from finding simple microbial life on places other than Earth is a matter of time. I'd put a lot of money on that right now

Agreed. It has to be out there all over the place tbh.

 

Time enough for simple life to form, but not stable enough conditions over millennia for complex life to evolve. 

Edited by The Bear
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Agreed. It has to be out there all over the place tbh.

 

Time enough for simple life to form, but not stable enough conditions over millennia for complex life to evolve. 

Exactly.

 

As shown from the diagram below, there was only a few hundred million years between the formation of the Earth and the first simple life. It then took between two and two and a half billion years for that life to become multicellular, and another billion and a half after that before the Cambrian explosion where life became truly complex.

 

That's an obvious suggestion that simple life forms very quickly in conditions anywhere near ideal for it, but complex life does not.

Screenshot from 2022-11-06 17-26-42.png

  • Like 1
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Exactly.

 

As shown from the diagram below, there was only a few hundred million years between the formation of the Earth and the first simple life. It then took between two and two and a half billion years for that life to become multicellular, and another billion and a half after that before the Cambrian explosion where life became truly complex.

 

That's an obvious suggestion that simple life forms very quickly in conditions anywhere near ideal for it, but complex life does not.

Screenshot from 2022-11-06 17-26-42.png

Appreciate you're not local, but did you catch the below?  Felt it could have been done better, but was a really interesting idea.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001ctnr/first-contact-an-alien-encounter

  • Like 1
blabyboy

blabyboy

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, The Bear said:

Agreed. It has to be out there all over the place tbh.

 

Time enough for simple life to form, but not stable enough conditions over millennia for complex life to evolve. 

Depends where you're looking...and things have recently got better with JWST

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

I wonder when Boris became such a crusader for green power solutions?

 

Not that I'm complaining, having him onside does much more good than harm overall.

 

The line about a "Telegraph colleague, who happened to be an aide of his, scoffed at the idea of turning to wind power, on the grounds that it was "medieval technology"" and his reply that "burning oil was "positively Paleolithic" in comparison" is probably embellished, but it is accurate.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Professor Hannah Cloke, climate scientist:

 

"stick to the facts, don't frighten people, don't give your opinion".

 

But then: "Us scientists, we've been doing that for 30 years now, with increasing alarm. We just don't have this widespread action that's needed.

 

"We have evidence from the past year, every corner of the world showing us that there is a massive problem here. We've got sea levels continuing to rise faster, lethal heatwaves... getting hotter, and the time we have to change the course is getting shorter and shorter.

 

"It feels like a lot of talking and no action. And as a climate scientist it's just awful and really, really frustrating."

 

Truer words were seldom spoken.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...