Technology, Science and the Environment.

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

 Fascinating that the focus is on electric but for power (torque presumably), i.e. trucks, tanks, construction, forestry, agriculture etc existing biodiesel technology but improved to run on 100pc oilseed rape is by far the best alternative. Yet it's not mentioned anywhere. This was all news to me and I run this gear.

Is it a surprise that bio-fuels, that removes more CO2 from the air than is released when combusted, has that kind of reduction?

[FoxesDeb]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/catalonia-declares-drought-emergency-extending-water-limits-to-barcelona

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

On 20/01/2024 at 09:15, David Oldfields Gate said:

 Fascinating that the focus is on electric but for power (torque presumably), i.e. trucks, tanks, construction, forestry, agriculture etc existing biodiesel technology but improved to run on 100pc oilseed rape is by far the best alternative. Yet it's not mentioned anywhere. This was all news to me and I run this gear.

Presumably those figures are talking about CO2 reduction starting from the moment the fuel is in the truck.  It doesn't include the CO2 used in generating the power, because obviously electricity is not (and probaby cannot) be generated entirely by renewable energy.

 

We need to be careful about using agricultural land for power.  There are 8 billion people on this planet who want to eat.  Rich countries already use more than our share of the available farmland, and we're trying to stop poorer countries from converting forest to agriculture.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Presumably those figures are talking about CO2 reduction starting from the moment the fuel is in the truck.  It doesn't include the CO2 used in generating the power, because obviously electricity is not (and probaby cannot) be generated entirely by renewable energy.

 

We need to be careful about using agricultural land for power.  There are 8 billion people on this planet who want to eat.  Rich countries already use more than our share of the available farmland, and we're trying to stop poorer countries from converting forest to agriculture.

Another reason why renewable and contained fission solutions tend to be better all round for the future.

 

Of course there is going to be a need for biofuels and oil for some things, but as you say setting aside agricultural land for something used for power generation in a big way is not a good precedent to set, for a lot of reasons.

[The Bear]

You can put up massive solar farms in large dry and/or barren places like plains or deserts though. You don't need to use agricultural land. 

 

Obviously I'm talking globally in general here, especially in Australia, Africa, North and South America, Russia, etc. The UK is a little different but we have plenty of coastal wind potential to mitigate the amount of solar space we'd need. 

 

The technology is there to power the world by pretty much all renewable sources. It's just the political and public will to do it and the cost holding it back. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Bear said:

You can put up massive solar farms in large dry and/or barren places like plains or deserts though. You don't need to use agricultural land. 

 

Obviously I'm talking globally in general here, especially in Australia, Africa, North and South America, Russia, etc. The UK is a little different but we have plenty of coastal wind potential to mitigate the amount of solar space we'd need. 

 

The technology is there to power the world by pretty much all renewable sources. It's just the political and public will to do it and the cost holding it back. 

I think the discussion was about giving up agri land for growing rapeseed oil for fuel, rather than using it for renewable energy.

 

Of course you're right however, especially about the last sentence. The dark irony, yet again, being that not doing enough will cost, at least, an order of magnitude higher than doing enough in the long term.

[jgtuk]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think the discussion was about giving up agri land for growing rapeseed oil for fuel, rather than using it for renewable energy.

 

Of course you're right however, especially about the last sentence. The dark irony, yet again, being that not doing enough will cost, at least, an order of magnitude higher than doing enough in the long term.

That being said, most agri land is used for animal feed and not human consumption anyway...

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

That being said, most agri land is used for animal feed and not human consumption anyway...

That's another element to it that needs to be considered, yeah.

 

Complex problem that needs a number of different approaches to solve.

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

1 hour ago, jgtuk said:

That being said, most agri land is used for animal feed and not human consumption anyway...

And who eats the animals?

 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, jgtuk said:

That being said, most agri land is used for animal feed and not human consumption anyway...

 

 

 

There's every chance this could change slightly with more people making a switch to less meat in their diet.. But to be honest, it will only be a slight change as it appears that the current reduction in mostly centered around Europe and Northern America.. But they do seem to be the areas who are changing their eating habits a bit so they'll be creating their own space, i suppose..

Edited 5 February by MPH

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

3 hours ago, The Bear said:

You can put up massive solar farms in large dry and/or barren places like plains or deserts though. You don't need to use agricultural land. 

 

Obviously I'm talking globally in general here, especially in Australia, Africa, North and South America, Russia, etc. The UK is a little different but we have plenty of coastal wind potential to mitigate the amount of solar space we'd need. 

 

The technology is there to power the world by pretty much all renewable sources. It's just the political and public will to do it and the cost holding it back. 

Correct. Stick panels where the sun shines. Waste of time in the UK. Hydro, tidal, wind and nuclear much better non FF options here.

 

The rapeseed discussion... apologies for mentioning....

Totally agree farmland should not become a factory for FF replacement, I was thinking in terms of transition. Diggers, tanks, tractors, fire engines like torque, electric is crap for torque.  Fine for cars, not tanks. So it's a transition thing to whatever next.

There is however an almighty amount of land going into industrial crops already and I think because of the RED up to 10% of diesal across Europe has been oilseed rape in recent years.

Loads of land is wasted on the Cs: chocolate, cotton, cocaine, coca cola (sugar) and coffee, worth remembering when looking at total global land use. Plus western wastage, food waste is criminal and then add in the absolute regressive attitude of European governments to agriculture which has plateaued yields.

There is a scope for ag to do more, but yes not at the detriment of food supply.

 

Sorry for the rushed effort. I'm meant to be in a meeting.🤣

 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

Correct. Stick panels where the sun shines. Waste of time in the UK. Hydro, tidal, wind and nuclear much better non FF options here.

 

The rapeseed discussion... apologies for mentioning....

Totally agree farmland should not become a factory for FF replacement, I was thinking in terms of transition. Diggers, tanks, tractors, fire engines like torque, electric is crap for torque.  Fine for cars, not tanks. So it's a transition thing to whatever next.

There is however an almighty amount of land going into industrial crops already and I think because of the RED up to 10% of diesal across Europe has been oilseed rape in recent years.

Loads of land is wasted on the Cs: chocolate, cotton, cocaine, coca cola (sugar) and coffee, worth remembering when looking at total global land use. Plus western wastage, food waste is criminal and then add in the absolute regressive attitude of European governments to agriculture which has plateaued yields.

There is a scope for ag to do more, but yes not at the detriment of food supply.

 

Sorry for the rushed effort. I'm meant to be in a meeting.🤣

 

Speaking personally I would say that solar panels on south facing parts of buildings and roofs where possible have utility as the tech is maturing, but interesting points here. It is a most complex problem.

[The Bear]

Solar in the UK is fine it just takes a bit longer for the payback of costs. The more efficient they become the better it'll be. 

[kenny]

3 hours ago, The Bear said:

You can put up massive solar farms in large dry and/or barren places like plains or deserts though. You don't need to use agricultural land. 

 

Obviously I'm talking globally in general here, especially in Australia, Africa, North and South America, Russia, etc. The UK is a little different but we have plenty of coastal wind potential to mitigate the amount of solar space we'd need. 

 

The technology is there to power the world by pretty much all renewable sources. It's just the political and public will to do it and the cost holding it back. 

We need to look at renewable sources that are more consistent than our own offshore wind, I'm not convinced storage is the answer.

 

The cables being installed to Morocco is brilliant and looks to be a good idea assuming a russian chartered fishing boat doesn't have an anchor accident.

 

We also underutilise geothermal power even though it's been proved to work in Southampton. Ground source piles are being used more and more which is a good idea.

 

We ought to become the world leaders in tidal power which is consistent. I saw the power units for tidal power at le harve and we really ought to be making more of that power, particularly on the Thames.

[jgtuk]

1 hour ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

And who eats the animals?

 

That was my point, reducing meat/dairy would be another tool in the process. I don’t believe there is a fix all so we need to make use of everything available. 
As for solar in the UK, there is definitely a place but again not a solution for everyone and everywhere. I’m lucky to be south east facing with a large roof space so I’ve installed panels. I’ve also added an ASHP to replace the ancient oil boiler which was costing a fortune to run (I’m fairly remote so no mains gas for miles around) so the panels have been great for reducing running costs. 
I’m currently awaiting planning so I can cover a barn roof with more panels and a shed load of storage. 

[Zear0]

What could possibly go wrong...

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

What could possibly go wrong...

 

[Jon the Hat]

On 05/02/2024 at 20:33, David Oldfields Gate said:

And who eats the animals?

 

Foxes!  

[leicsmac]

Because this was discussed elsewhere recently:

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/04/peer-reviewed-literature-what-does-it-take-to-publish-a-scientific-paper/

 

 

"There are several important take home messages here. First, the idea that you cannot publish anything that is contrary to the mainstream view or that there are several “big wigs” who are pulling the strings and deciding what to publish and what not to publish is absurd. For any of these notions to work, all of the reviewers, editors, etc. that look at your paper would need to be corrupt and/or biased, but given the number of people involved and the fact that they are from multiple institutions, it is highly unlikely that all of them would be corrupt and/or biased. Further, if you get a biased editor who rejects your paper for absurd reasons, you can appeal to the editor and try to reason with them, or you can just submit to another journal. In other words, if you wanted to suppress any papers that were contrary to the mainstream view, you would need every editor in the world to agree not to publish any controversial papers. This is clearly absurd. Evidence that opposes the mainstream view can be published if you have good data. The reason that there are so few papers opposing evolution, climate change, vaccines etc. is not that there is some global conspiracy, but rather that there is no evidence to support those positions."

[Zear0]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/20/astronomers-discover-universes-brightest-object-a-quasar-powered-by-a-black-hole-that-eats-a-sun-a-day

 

Get a decent tan off that. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68341208

 

One of the UK's "most technically advanced" indoor farms has opened in Gloucestershire.

The so-called vertical farm can grow salad three times as fast as traditional outdoor agriculture thanks to its controlled, consistent climate.

Lettuce, basil and other herbs are grown under special lights, in a warm humid atmosphere.

Interesting look.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/20/astronomers-discover-universes-brightest-object-a-quasar-powered-by-a-black-hole-that-eats-a-sun-a-day

 

Get a decent tan off that. 

The scale of that thing is unbelievable.

[worth_the_wait]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

The scale of that thing is unbelievable.

Nearly as big as Brendan Rodger's head.

[dsr-burnley]

8 hours ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/20/astronomers-discover-universes-brightest-object-a-quasar-powered-by-a-black-hole-that-eats-a-sun-a-day

 

Get a decent tan off that. 

If that's what it was doing 12 billion years ago, what's it doing now?

[Zear0]

12 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

Nearly as big as Brendan Rodger's head.

Not as dense though