Just Stop Oil

[NasPb]

theyre targetting working people and not greedy corporations. Typical of modern movements of their style. The problem is the system itself. not the people who suffer because of it. and the system causes climate change, oil use... etc. its easy to punch the little man, but they wont go after the big man

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Couldn't resist some fag packet math for this.

 

1.2% of 9.2million km²  is 110,400km²

 

1000 metres in a km, so 110,400,000m²

 

Average solar panel is 2m² so it would take 55,200,000 solar panels

 

If we go by murican costs the best I could find puts it at $1000 a panel to install.

 

So $55.2billion would make it happen.

 

Now obviously there are far bigger problems than the cost, like actually doing it, and the infrastructure needed to cart the energy around the world, but it doesn't even seem like that much money does it? 

 

Might have missed a zero somewhere, cba to go through it again. 

Out by a factor of 1,000, I'm afraid.  110,400 km2 is 110,400,000,000 m2.  So 55,200,000,000 solar panels at cost of $55.2 trillion.

[Innovindil]

40 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Out by a factor of 1,000, I'm afraid.  110,400 km2 is 110,400,000,000 m2.  So 55,200,000,000 solar panels at cost of $55.2 trillion.

Sounded a bit too good to be true. 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Related to the climate crisis do many here think about their carbon footprint?

 

8 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Until recently I had a car that was fairly horrendous on the CO2 front so I was always careful to use that as sparingly as possible.

 

I never really thought about my carbon footprint specifically as it sort of goes hand in hand with using as little energy as possible, and that in turn goes hand in hand with being a tight arse, which I've never had a problem with.

 

Even before the price of energy got silly I was a short showers, barely have the heating on kind of guy.

 

I should really eat less meat though

 

7 hours ago, Captain... said:

Yes, regularly, that doesn't mean we do or have done everything we can but it is a constant consideration. Admittedly we've fvcked up all the good work we used to do by having kids* but we have used cloth nappies on them. Admittedly that is a pretty insignificant change but more importantly it is very visible so everyone can see what great human beings we are as we carry around brightly coloured turd smeared fabric bum coverings to wash at home at our own inconvenience and expense. 

 

* Not only are kids a massive drain on the planets resources we now use at least a cow's more milk every week and we're too drained to prep and cook nice fresh low waste veggie food so we now eat meat cos it's easier and throw away 3 times as much food that's out of date.

I consider my own carbon footprint all the time, but at the same time people can go on about not eating meat and the cars being driven as much as they like - the most massive contributor by far to global emissions is, and remains, energy generation. And changing that infrastructure is something that only happens at the policy-based, governmental level. So while people can and should be mindful of the choices they make regarding food and transportation, the best thing that can be done is simply lobbying for and electing governments who will effect changes to energy infrastructure, and push other world governments to do the same. Rapidly.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Claridge said:

Apart from the fact they only last 20 years, what do you do with them then. Be a hell of a recycling job and god knows the amount of energy needed to make and then dispose of them.

 

3 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Hopefully by then technology will have moved on sufficiently to not needing them replacing.

Or replace them much more cheaply and easily.

 

And one day we're going to make fusion power work, which really is the Holy Grail.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Izzy said:

I read a post on twitter that said if 1.2% of the Sahara desert was covered in solar panels, it would provide enough energy for the whole planet ongoing.

 

 

6 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Couldn't resist some fag packet math for this.

 

1.2% of 9.2million km²  is 110,400km²

 

1000 metres in a km, so 110,400,000m²

 

Average solar panel is 2m² so it would take 55,200,000 solar panels

 

If we go by murican costs the best I could find puts it at $1000 a panel to install.

 

So $55.2billion would make it happen.

 

Now obviously there are far bigger problems than the cost, like actually doing it, and the infrastructure needed to cart the energy around the world, but it doesn't even seem like that much money does it? 

 

Might have missed a zero somewhere, cba to go through it again. 

 

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Out by a factor of 1,000, I'm afraid.  110,400 km2 is 110,400,000,000 m2.  So 55,200,000,000 solar panels at cost of $55.2 trillion.

 

 

Did a little bit of maths of my own on this because I'm interested....

 

The current (approximate) world energy demand is roughly 30000 TWh (adding in a margin there, recent figures state 25000-27000).

 

A single solar panel in the Sahara produces 15 W/sq.m of energy, and costs roughly $200 per sq.m.

 

So, that's an area of 30000*10^9/15 = 2*10^12 = 2000000000000 sq.m or 2 million sq km, and a cost of $200*2*10^12 = 400 trillion dollars.

 

So, given the size of the Sahara it is still feasible, but you are talking more about 15-20% of the Sahara rather than 1.2%, and the cost would be....rather large. However, I think such a massive project as that would incur pretty huge economies of scale that would then drive the price down a fair bit.

 

Of course, a smaller such project implemented alongside other initiatives based on location would help hugely.

[marbles]

Don’t forget to include in what it would cost to secure the Sahara if  it was used to power the entire planet.

Every nut job with an agenda would be looking to attack/sabotage it knowing they could shut down everything.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, marbles said:

Don’t forget to include in what it would cost to secure the Sahara if  it was used to power the entire planet.

Every nut job with an agenda would be looking to attack/sabotage it knowing they could shut down everything.

And to say nothing of the other infrastructure and maintenance related costs.

 

This, on a smaller scale, must be part of a suite of solutions, for the sake of redundancy and cost.

Edited 24 July 2023 by leicsmac

[Grebfromgrebland]

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Out by a factor of 1,000, I'm afraid.  110,400 km2 is 110,400,000,000 m2.  So 55,200,000,000 solar panels at cost of $55.2 trillion.

Whatever the cost of transitioning to renewables is still cheaper than expecting, processing and generating electricity from fossil fuels - which also take massive subsidies from governments but most profits don't benefit their host countries.

 

 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Whatever the cost of transitioning to renewables is still cheaper than expecting, processing and generating electricity from fossil fuels - which also take massive subsidies from governments but most profits don't benefit their host countries.

 

 

And even if it wasn't, the future cost of inaction - in terms of damage to infrastructure and lives - utterly dwarfs the cost of transition anyway.

[Jon the Hat]

14 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

Europe is on fire or experiencing abnormal weather conditions and a large percentage of society/ media is debating whether climate change is real.

 

We're so ****ed because some people just need to have even more money than they'll ever need

To be fair, as I understand it the science as to whether these local short-term spikes in extreme weather have anything to do with climate change is not in any way settled, unlike the long term trend.  Modelling is not that precise.

[Izzy]

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Out by a factor of 1,000, I'm afraid.  110,400 km2 is 110,400,000,000 m2.  So 55,200,000,000 solar panels at cost of $55.2 trillion.

$55.2 trillion is approximately the combined national debt of the G7

 

Its all a bit mad when you think about it

[Jon the Hat]

50 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Whatever the cost of transitioning to renewables is still cheaper than expecting, processing and generating electricity from fossil fuels - which also take massive subsidies from governments but most profits don't benefit their host countries.

This sounds like the type of nonsense statistic that turns a lot of people off, which is silly as it is a pointless comparison anyway.  The transition needs to happen regardless.  Better arguments are the improving technology and reducing costs.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be fair, as I understand it the science as to whether these local short-term spikes in extreme weather have anything to do with climate change is not in any way settled, unlike the long term trend.  Modelling is not that precise.

The current average temperature is unprecedented in recent human history. The weather conditions are likewise unprecedented. There has long been a working hypothesis linking the two.

 

While it isn't a certainty like gravity for instance, it's certain enough to base long term decision making on.

 

11 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This sounds like the type of nonsense statistic that turns a lot of people off, which is silly as it is a pointless comparison anyway.  The transition needs to happen regardless.  Better arguments are the improving technology and reducing costs.

Yep, the biggest cost being what is to come if we don't.

[fox_up_north]

13 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This sounds like the type of nonsense statistic that turns a lot of people off, which is silly as it is a pointless comparison anyway.  The transition needs to happen regardless.  Better arguments are the improving technology and reducing costs.

This is probably a really good argument to make to people. Technology is always improving - we need to put more effort into that. 

If we can go from slow dial up internet to streaming a film anywhere in the world, on your phone, in 20 years, then we can do this.

[Captain...]

37 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

This is probably a really good argument to make to people. Technology is always improving - we need to put more effort into that. 

If we can go from slow dial up internet to streaming a film anywhere in the world, on your phone, in 20 years, then we can do this.

But isn't technology also a big part of the problem? As much as green technologies are improving things the amount of energy used to host data centres to stream your films is huge, the energy and resources spent on upgrading infrastructure is also significant and the demand is only going to get greater.

 

Then you have the ridiculousness of things like bitcoin mining. Using a crazy amount of energy to perform a pointless task in exchange for a digital token that may or may not be worth more than the energy spent to mine it. 

 

The frustration is not just old energy inefficient technologies (which are often still better to maintain for their full life cycle than replace early with newer more efficient models) but so many new technologies and practices are being made without the environment being a primary consideration. Built in obsolescence being one of the worst culprits.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

But isn't technology also a big part of the problem? As much as green technologies are improving things the amount of energy used to host data centres to stream your films is huge, the energy and resources spent on upgrading infrastructure is also significant and the demand is only going to get greater.

 

Then you have the ridiculousness of things like bitcoin mining. Using a crazy amount of energy to perform a pointless task in exchange for a digital token that may or may not be worth more than the energy spent to mine it. 

 

The frustration is not just old energy inefficient technologies (which are often still better to maintain for their full life cycle than replace early with newer more efficient models) but so many new technologies and practices are being made without the environment being a primary consideration. Built in obsolescence being one of the worst culprits.

I think this has cropped up before.

 

While tech advances have indeed led to a lot of entirely ridiculous and sometimes counterproductive ideas,  the fact is that if we don't allow for continual tech progress as a means of slowing or stopping carbon emissions, at least for now, in the long term we'd just be swapping one method of terrible downfall for another.

 

It's humans, our outlook, and the way we utilise that technology, that have to change, not the tech itself.

[Benguin]

Thought experiment, if you were stuck in your car in the way to hospital (life and death) and were blocked by just stop oil protesters. What would you do?

 

theres no option to turn around, it would take too long to get out in foot or to look elsewhere for public transport. Would you call the authorities, wait patiently, try and clear them, run them over? 
 

FYI for anyone who supports just stop oils methods, this is the kind of conversation they are getting their audience to have. 

[Izzy]

Even though it’s been an inconvenience with these protesters disrupting sports events and stopping traffic etc. it’s hard to ignore the exposure it’s having.

 

If their purpose is to raise awareness and create discussion, you have to admit they’re doing a decent job tbf.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Thought experiment, if you were stuck in your car in the way to hospital (life and death) and were blocked by just stop oil protesters. What would you do?

 

theres no option to turn around, it would take too long to get out in foot or to look elsewhere for public transport. Would you call the authorities, wait patiently, try and clear them, run them over? 
 

FYI for anyone who supports just stop oils methods, this is the kind of conversation they are getting their audience to have. 

Probably at least attempt to reason with them by pointing out that while future lives are valuable, present ones are too.

 

Of course, no one would really know how they would react in such a situation unless, fate forbid, they actually ended up in it. It is very easy for passion and irrationality to overcome reason when there is such a threat, but that doesn't make it right in the long term.

[The Horse's Mouth]

13 hours ago, NasPb said:

theyre targetting working people and not greedy corporations. Typical of modern movements of their style. The problem is the system itself. not the people who suffer because of it. and the system causes climate change, oil use... etc. its easy to punch the little man, but they wont go after the big man

Spot on, they’re cowardly morons with nothing better to do with their time. It seems to me they’re looking for the attention and trying to have a purpose rather than actually being invested in the cause.

[Captain...]

43 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Thought experiment, if you were stuck in your car in the way to hospital (life and death) and were blocked by just stop oil protesters. What would you do?

 

theres no option to turn around, it would take too long to get out in foot or to look elsewhere for public transport. Would you call the authorities, wait patiently, try and clear them, run them over? 
 

FYI for anyone who supports just stop oils methods, this is the kind of conversation they are getting their audience to have. 

If it's life and death I would have called an ambulance. Oh wait ambulance waiting times are at ridiculous levels due to gross mismanagement and under funding.

 

If I was stuck in such a situation, assuming I was at the front of the blockade to be able to run them over, I would first try and talk to them. If they weren't listening I would get out the car find a clear spot and call an Uber or ask a stranger. I've imagined myself in the situation in the video where it looks like an A road in London with junctions. The M25 would obviously be different.

 

 

[leicsmac]

14 hours ago, NasPb said:

theyre targetting working people and not greedy corporations. Typical of modern movements of their style. The problem is the system itself. not the people who suffer because of it. and the system causes climate change, oil use... etc. its easy to punch the little man, but they wont go after the big man

 

10 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Spot on, they’re cowardly morons with nothing better to do with their time. It seems to me they’re looking for the attention and trying to have a purpose rather than actually being invested in the cause.

As much as the system itself really needs to change and what they're doing may not be conducive to changing that, there seems to be a shortage of better ideas for actually addressing the problem properly here.

 

Which means we're all stuck and the problem continues to grow in terms of cost materially and in human life, both potential and actual.

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

If it's life and death I would have called an ambulance. Oh wait ambulance waiting times are at ridiculous levels due to gross mismanagement and under funding.

 

If I was stuck in such a situation, assuming I was at the front of the blockade to be able to run them over, I would first try and talk to them. If they weren't listening I would get out the car find a clear spot and call an Uber or ask a stranger. I've imagined myself in the situation in the video where it looks like an A road in London with junctions. The M25 would obviously be different.

 

 

sensible. Im a hot head and i honestly cant imagine myself doing anything other than driving through them, obviously as safely as I can and with fair warning. I wonder whether you’d get off on necessity if you injured someone.
 

 

[Lionator]

Climate movements done by toffs will never catch on. Things will only change when the working classes are truly affected by climate change, by which time it’ll be too late, and politicians will gaslight them into thinking someone else is always to blame (aka migrants), is this already happening?