CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[plaques]

I'm of the opinion that unless the UK builds more clean electricity systems ie: nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar we can never move to a fossil free energy country. Without an overall plan where the government takes charge of making it happen which by definition must contain a large element of nationalisation rather than relying on profit driven companies that will always fail. The Conservatives will never go down this route until its too late to affect global warming. Meanwhile we will be left buying our electricity from the EU (that's if they have any to spare) at inflated prices that will bring us to our knees.

[Tizer]

I'm of the opinion that unless the UK builds more clean electricity systems ie: nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar we can never move to a fossil free energy country.

I agree with that. The more I learn about the potential domestic use of air source and hydrogen boilers the more I realise that most of the UK housing stock won't be heated that way. Also, we would need a lot of electricity to run air source and make hydrogen (and increasingly for cars and air conditioning) so we might as well spend all the money instead on developing and building more and better renewable electricity sources and batteries and heat our homes with electricity.

[Stanley]

You're both right I think. I have long been of the opinion that the only way out is Fusion but I think that will be too slow to save us. You are dead right about the Conservatives and their refusal to take control and responsibility. Nye Bevan was right, control the commanding heights of the economy. Forget the dirty word 'nationalisation', just concentrate on control and stopping the bleeding out of assets via dividends and bent loans at high interest.
Just one more example of how rotten our political systems are. This is how dictators come to power, they step in a seize the reins when all seems lost, that's a danger we should be aware of.
Incidentally, think of the principles we have covered and them apply the same thinking to Mark Zuckerberg and his 'Metaverse'. I heard someone asking why is he investing billions of dollars in this concept. Quite simple, he's looking for more control. Think about it.......

[Stanley]

See THIS ABC report on the black box that has been installed on a remote part of Tasmania.
When an aeroplane crashes, it's left to investigators to sift through the wreckage to recover the black box. It's hoped the recorded contents can be used to help others avoid the same fate. And so it is with Earth's Black Box: a 10-metre-by-4-metre-by-3-metre steel monolith that's about to be built on a remote outcrop on Tasmania's west coast. Designed to operate independently for at least 50 years, it could record the progress of our extinction. Now there's a cheerful thought!

[Tizer]

I hope no malicious hackers convert it to a cryptocurrency mint!

This story is a mixed message - Japan wants to go green but is opening a 1.3-gigawatt coal-fired power station. It's interested in using hydrogen instead but expects to make it by a method generating carbon dioxide so is dependent on carbon capture and burial...
`Climate change: Is ‘blue hydrogen’ Japan’s answer to coal?' LINK

[Stanley]

It all sounds like a complicated excuse for building coal powered power stations.I don't see how that can ever be excused. Fukushima didn't happen because the technology failed but because of where and how it was built. In the long run, fewer will die because of nuclear. The death toll from coal is enormous already and will get worse.

[Stanley]

See THIS BBC report of accelerated melting of the Thwaites Glacier, one of the largest in Antarctica.
"Scientists are warning of dramatic changes at one of the biggest glaciers in Antarctica, potentially within the next five to 10 years. They say a floating section at the front of Thwaites Glacier that until now has been relatively stable could "shatter like a car windscreen". "

[Tripps]

It's currently cold and dark - Winter is just getting going.

We are at 43 GW demand - currently met by mainly

Gas - 53.5 %
Coal 4.5 %
Nuclear 14 %

Wind 2.5 %
Solar Nil.

Net zero seems a little way off I'd say.

[Stanley]

I think you are right David. As far back as I can remember our energy policy has been broken. Talk as they will, it hasn't changed.
Could it be because we have politicians making decisions on highly technical matters they don't understand?

[Whyperion]

It's currently cold and dark - Winter is just getting going.

We are at 43 GW demand - currently met by mainly

Gas - 53.5 %
Coal 4.5 %
Nuclear 14 %

Wind 2.5 %
Solar Nil.

Net zero seems a little way off I'd say.

Thats 74.5 ? The rest (tidal / hydro / biomass ??)

[Tripps]

Thats 74.5 ? The rest (tidal / hydro / biomass ??)

Well spotted - I just put enough to make my point. No sunshine and no wind and no fossil fuels = no leccy .

Here's the rest - Gridwatch

[Whyperion]

Thats 74.5 ? The rest (tidal / hydro / biomass ??)

Well spotted - I just put enough to make my point. No sunshine and no wind and no fossil fuels = no leccy .

Here's the rest - Gridwatch

The i website (is that the independent newspaper?) reports for Weds 29 Dec 2021
Just before midnight on Wednesday evening coal and gas were providing just six per cent of electricity, according to Drax Electric Insights.

“Renewables generated 24.19 GW – 65 per cent of the country’s entire electricity needs – while fossil fuels were at a new record low,” the analysts said in statement on Thursday.

In the place of coal and gas, wind was generating 55 per cent of total electricity to the grid, with nuclear providing 24 per cent, and biomass eight per cent.

(that is still a 93percent total , so there are some other bits too). Of course, subject to availiblity, there are Gas stations that can be switched in. But really most of the UK electric demand surely must be falling anyway (over christmas). I assume plants powering not on the grid steelworks are discounted, so the rest is basically watching telly and cooking - and hot water for those of us that dont have gas

[Stanley]

Biomass shouldn't be counted as it includes Drax which is a worse polluter than coal.

[Tizer]

`Climate change destroying homes across the Arctic' LINK
We already know about the dangers of permafrost melt due to climate change but I found an extra bit of information in this article. In June 2020 I wrote about a major oil spill at Norilsk Nickel, a nickel producer in the Russian Arctic, 21,000 tons of oil polluting the waterways and making its way to the Arctic Ocean. Now I see that it was due to storage tanks sinking into the ground after it became unstable as permafrost thawed.

[Stanley]

Yet another facet of global warming that I was only vaguely aware of. What does this mean for methane locked in the permafrost? Truly, we aren't fit to have a planet and deserve all that's coming. What will my great grandchildren have to cope with?

[Tizer]

Methane hydrate occurs beneath Arctic permafrost and Antarctic ice, and in oceanic sedimentary deposits along continental margins worldwide. It's stable in a narrow range of temperature and pressure - if temperature rises or pressure falls the hydrate breaks down to methane and water. As the oceanic methane rises through the water column much of it gets oxidised to CO2 by bacteria. The methane is a `stronger' global warming gas but breaks down relatively fast to CO2 - which is weaker but persists for much longer in the atmosphere.

[Tripps]

Can't help but notice that it's January, pressure is high, Kev showed 1040 on Wednesday and SCG said 1033 yesterday.
It's cold and dark, and there's no wind blowing.

Demand is high at 43 GW and green wind energy is only contributing 2.5% of it. The coal fired generators are rescuing us with 4.2 % .

Can someone help me understand why policy is to build more wind and solar, and close down coal powered stations entirely?

[Stanley]

That's the big conundrum David and the reason why China and India will be burning coal for a long time to come. What should be happening is that nuclear or fusion should be taking over but nobody completely trusts it and we have yet to solve the problem of radio-active waste. The obvious answer is to allow fracking and build cheap and cheerful gas powered capacity to keep us going until the problems of fusion are overcome. Not ideal but far cleaner than coal or biomass.
The reason why this isn't happening is that our leaders have decided to go for the impossible dream, carbon Zero.

[Tizer]

A response to an analysis of the UK’s vulnerability to climate change by the official advisers, the Climate Change Committee. Probably all talk and no action...
`Government says its climate change curbs inadequate' LINK
`The government has admitted that its efforts to insulate the UK from climate change impacts have been inadequate. The costs of climate change to Britain are "high and increasing", it says, and could reach many billions of pounds a year. Ministers say they'll have to go much further and faster to curb the worst impacts. It means climate change must be built into all long-term decisions, such as new housing or infrastructure. The aim should be to avoid costly remedial actions in the future. The government has also accepted that it must consider low-probability but high-impact events arising from a heating climate. '...

[Stanley]

See my report in energy matters which has a bearing on this.

[Stanley]

See THIS BBC report about the accelerated melting of the South Col glacier.

[Tizer]

That guy Bolsanaro strikes again...
`Deforestation threat to Amazon indigenous areas if protected status changed - report' LINK

[Stanley]

And what will we do about it? Sod all. That's why jerks like Bolsonaro act as they do, there are no consequences.

[plaques]

We should now be going flat out on clean energy. Making excuses about using gas, wood and coal just makes the situation worse. Bullet biting, nettle grasping time is here. The oligarchs can always retreat behind their gated enclaves on a mountain top while Rome burns.

[Tizer]

Yes, and I read somewhere this morning a report that we should be dropping coal, gas and oil as energy sources because, regardless of other reasons, renewable sources have become cheaper (even before the latest war).