Technology, Science and the Environment.

[Fazzer 7]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's a rather large difference between storage tech for large scale energy generation and the battery you have in your phone. (For a start, the latter is often subject to built in obsolescence,  viz. money grubbers wanting you to buy a new product after a couple of years so they make sure the one you have doesn't last.) As Line-X says above, the storage tech is there.

 

In any case, that the UK doesn't generate much from renewables (yet) is also down to the fact the UK hasn't utilised anywhere near the potential it has from them yet by building more, not that the tech itself is not fit for purpose.

 

 

I can see the benefit of tidal if it can be scaled to meet demand if for no other reason than its constant and reliable. Wind and solar, not so convinced it will ever be anything more than intermittent and therefore hugely expensive requiring permanent taxpayer subsidy.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

I can see the benefit of tidal if it can be scaled to meet demand if for no other reason than its constant and reliable. Wind and solar, not so convinced it will ever be anything more than intermittent and therefore hugely expensive requiring permanent taxpayer subsidy.

Even if that is true (and for reasons above I don't think it will be), then the cost of keeping such things in the suite of solutions in that way is still an order of magnitude, perhaps more, lower, than not implementing those necessary solutions properly. That is obvious.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said:

I can see the benefit of tidal if it can be scaled to meet demand if for no other reason than its constant and reliable. Wind and solar, not so convinced it will ever be anything more than intermittent and therefore hugely expensive requiring permanent taxpayer subsidy.

Mate, money only matters if you’re alive 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Mate, money only matters if you’re alive 

...or if there's a functional civilisation in which to spend it.

 

Or if there is still a functional civilisation but a much more limited supply of food and potable water to buy with it.

[SpacedX]

3 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Will batteries longevity and durability improve hugely then? Because current technology is pretty poor. Like this flaming phone, 15 months from new and the battery is down to 81% capacity meaning I now need to charge it twice most days. 

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

There's a rather large difference between storage tech for large scale energy generation and the battery you have in your phone.

Let your seemingly endless reserves of patience and diplomacy be a lesson to us all Mac. 

 

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

I can see the benefit of tidal if it can be scaled to meet demand if for no other reason than its constant and reliable. Wind and solar, not so convinced it will ever be anything more than intermittent and therefore hugely expensive requiring permanent taxpayer subsidy.

Erm,  energy from renewable sources is already cheaper to produce in the UK than energy from fossil fuels. 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Line-X said:

 

Let your seemingly endless reserves of patience and diplomacy be a lesson to us all Mac. 

 

See me watching a City game and you might get a different idea.

[Dahnsouff]

5 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

I can see the benefit of tidal if it can be scaled to meet demand if for no other reason than its constant and reliable. Wind and solar, not so convinced it will ever be anything more than intermittent and therefore hugely expensive requiring permanent taxpayer subsidy.

It is important to embrace the whole gamut of alternatives (to fossil fuels) with regards to energy, one specific technology won’t fill the hole

 

And something never discussed, is people power, as we can make a substantial difference to the current energy requirements by changing our behaviours.

[Fazzer 7]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

It is important to embrace the whole gamut of alternatives (to fossil fuels) with regards to energy, one specific technology won’t fill the hole

 

And something never discussed, is people power, as we can make a substantial difference to the current energy requirements by changing our behaviours.

Is that you, Jeremy? I don't want to turn my thermostat down, sorry. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Is that you, Jeremy? I don't want to turn my thermostat down, sorry. 

Get a blanket is my advice, preferably made from your own old clothes. 

[Fazzer 7]

Looking at the wx forecast for the coming 10 days, wind and solar will be virtually redundant. With all that gas being used, I am pleased I overhauled my generator a few weeks ago. Just in case the lights do go out! 

[Dahnsouff]

On a not wholly unrelated note, why did we destroy our gas storage capability so wilfully 

[Otis]

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

On a not wholly unrelated note, why did we destroy our gas storage capability so wilfully 

As well as phasing out coal fired power stations without a viable backup. 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

On a not wholly unrelated note, why did we destroy our gas storage capability so wilfully 

There really should have been more foresight done there. Transitioning is the right thing to do, but it had/has to be done right.

 

3 hours ago, Otis said:

As well as phasing out coal fired power stations without a viable backup. 

...because lots of lung diseases as well as contributing to the overall temperature increase across the Earth and thus sharing responsibility in hundreds of millions of people lacking the ability to grow food or source potable water isn't a great look?

 

Of course, the "without a viable backup" part is a fair point but I don't like inference that it didn't have to be done in the first place.

[Otis]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

There really should have been more foresight done there. Transitioning is the right thing to do, but it had/has to be done right.

 

...because lots of lung diseases as well as contributing to the overall temperature increase across the Earth and thus sharing responsibility in hundreds of millions of people lacking the ability to grow food or source potable water isn't a great look?

 

Of course, the "without a viable backup" part is a fair point but I don't like inference that it didn't have to be done in the first place.

"Isn't a great look..."

 

Well neither is people freezing to death .

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Otis said:

"Isn't a great look..."

 

Well neither is people freezing to death .

And were the current circumstances a straight dichotomy between the two, that would be pertinent. But it isn't, so it isn't. It is perfectly possible to have a reasonably smooth transition from carbon emitting power generation sources to ones that use much less.

 

Allow me to be plain: What I'm hearing here just seems like an argument to maintain the status quo in terms of coal, oil and gas and not transition at all, no matter the future cost. Its that the argument being made here? And if so, I wouldn't mind knowing why.

[Otis]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And were the current circumstances a straight dichotomy between the two, that would be pertinent. But it isn't, so it isn't. It is perfectly possible to have a reasonably smooth transition from carbon emitting power generation sources to ones that use much less.

 

Allow me to be plain: What I'm hearing here just seems like an argument to maintain the status quo in terms of coal, oil and gas and not transition at all, no matter the future cost. Its that the argument being made here? And if so, I wouldn't mind knowing why.

Not at all. I'm all for greener technology powering our energy grid. But not at the expense of people not heating their homes because energy is too expensive. I wonder what your suggestion is that would reduce bills until a time when nuclear power becomes the main source. 

[The Bear]

Ultimately I'm all for telling energy companies to go suck it. Right now my heating is on and set at 18C. It runs most of the day from 8am to 11pm, as someone is pretty much always home.

 

I say don't let them dictate whether you are cold all winter. Just heat your home to a reasonable level and then pay what you can afford. If you get into debt tell them they'll get their money as and when you can afford to. 

 

Particulary if I was a 70-80 year old pensioner I just wouldn't worry about it. If the energy company had the gall to try and cut off heating to my home I'd kick up one hell of a fuss about it in the media. 

 

They've already tried to raise my direct debit once without my permission, and I just went on their app and set it back to what I'm comfortable at. I don't care if they say it isn't enough. I'll sort any shortfall out next spring/summer. 

 

A couple of years ago I was paying £80-90 per month in the winter. Now they want me to pay £280 p/m. Well they can go and get ****ed quite frankly. I'm paying £200 p/m and that's my limit. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Otis said:

Not at all. I'm all for greener technology powering our energy grid. But not at the expense of people not heating their homes because energy is too expensive. I wonder what your suggestion is that would reduce bills until a time when nuclear power becomes the main source. 

Subsidies and government aid where needed while the transition happens and additional such aid for businesses involved in the rapid changing of power generation infrastructure, the logistics of which I have elaborated on in this thread a few times already.

 

Absolutely it will cost and put a strain on the exchequer, but neither leaving people to fend for themselves with their energy bills nor stopping the changing of infrastructure in order to help them are acceptable options as they will both end up costing much, much more. Unless, of course, the UK and the rest of the "civilised" world do choose to do the latter, remain reliant on carbon emissions for energy generation, and then when the time comes abandon hundreds of millions of people in the Equatorial regions to their fate, as well as accepting the manifold extreme weather effects that will hit everywhere. That would be very human, wouldn't it?

[Otis]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Subsidies and government aid where needed while the transition happens

This results in tax increases as we are seeing now. I don't see this as a viable solution for the next 10-20 years while nuclear is being built.

According to Wikipedia there are 3 coal fired power stations active in the UK. 

China has 1100

India has 285

USA has 240

Japan 91

Germany 63

 

Yet apparently the message we keep hearing is that we are the problem. 

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be phased out,  I absolutely agree they should but over a time period where our energy security isn't compromised. I think we are on the same page there.

There should be a massive nuclear building process now, in the aim to provide the vast majority of UK power.

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Otis said:

This results in tax increases as we are seeing now. I don't see this as a viable solution for the next 10-20 years while nuclear is being built.

According to Wikipedia there are 3 coal fired power stations active in the UK. 

China has 1100

India has 285

USA has 240

Japan 91

Germany 63

 

Yet apparently the message we keep hearing is that we are the problem. 

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be phased out,  I absolutely agree they should but over a time period where our energy security isn't compromised. I think we are on the same page there.

There should be a massive nuclear building process now, in the aim to provide the vast majority of UK power.

 

I sincerely hope that it isn't, because if it is it's inaccurate.

 

The entirety of humanity that relies in any way on carbon emissions for power generation is the problem, because the consequences will be worldwide and not limited by national borders. We need people to look beyond their own borders on this one, and I'm honestly not sure why that isn't obvious given the deliverer of the consequences won't be human and therefore cannot be negotiated with.

 

The UK, and every bugger else, simple cannot afford to act like tribal children on this one.

 

WRT cost, while what you say about the current situation is true what I have said about future costs is equally so. So governments have to find a way to make it work.

[leicsmac]

On 27/11/2022 at 10:44, leicsmac said:

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-climate-frequency-temperature-extreme.html

 

Confirming what is already known, but...

...just going to bring this back to the front page here just in case it hadn't been made obvious already in light of the recent chat.

[leicsmac]

Something I learned today:

 

The Yucatan impact event may not have been alone in wiping out the dinosaurs. It may have had a partner!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_crater

[samlcfc]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Something I learned today:

 

The Yucatan impact event may not have been alone in wiping out the dinosaurs. It may have had a partner!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_crater

Always fun to have a read about events like this. Definitely a humbling feeling that comes with readsing about an 8km hole in the ground.

 

Would be good to see whether the paper has any information related to how often such an event would occur. The link says every 50-100,000 years which seemed a bit often, but a cursory google threw up an article regarding the same event, noting they'd expect something similar every 700,000 years.

 

Will have to go down a cataclysmic rabbit hole at some point, but im already procrastinating!

Edited 3 December 2022 by samlcfc

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, samlcfc said:

Always fun to have a read about events like this. Definitely a humbling feeling that comes with readsing about an 8km hole in the ground.

 

Would be good to see whether the paper has any information related to how often such an event would occur. The link says every 50-100,000 years which seemed a bit often, but a cursory google threw up an article regarding the same event, noting they'd expect something similar every 700,000 years.

 

Will have to go down a cataclysmic rabbit hole at some point, but im already procrastinating!

Well, given that the projected size of the object hitting was around 400m (less than a tenth of the size of the Yucatan impactor, for reference), such impacts are projected to happen around once every 100,000 years, yes.

 

However, given that it came down so close to the much larger Yucatan event, it is possible that the two events are related and it was a cluster event, perhaps even two pieces of the same impactor that somehow split up shortly before impact. Hopefully we'll learn more as the crater is analysed.

 

An asteroid of similar size, Bennu, currently represents the greatest threat on the Palermo Threat Scale, with a 0.06% chance of hitting Earth in the year 2182.