Jump to content

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Relativistic said:

The behaviour of some people on this thread makes me sad. Such a lack of maturity. :(

Okay then...How is this 'wall of steel' going to be built? Where is all the iron ore going to come from - the asteroid belt? Is it to be made from high quality Austenitic Stainless Steel, molybdenum steel, or from bog standard girder stuff? How much CO2 is going to be generated by its manufacturing and assembly processes? Where's all the manpower going to come from...?

IMO, we'd get more success from either solar panels fitted to every new-build home, or from painting everyone's roof with BRILLIANT WHITE water-resistant paint that contained silicones; any heavy rain would wash it clean?

Then again, how is a wall of anything going to alter the total amount of heat the Earth receives from the sun - or the amount it re-emits as long-wave radiation? If only Stefan Boltzmann were still alive...

Edited by Ed Stone
No wonder Dave thought I might be talking sh''te!
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What a very strange thread. The OP acknowledges the problem and then, for some reason, decides not only should we treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but that we should adopt crackpot 'solu

In the light of some recent posts I wondered if a brief extract from , “Principles Of Planetary Climate” by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert., might be of interest. The Big Question of how much the Earth

Some of the recent posts remind me of the old climate area where statements could be made willy nilly without the requirement of supporting evidence. If, as appears to be the case, some refute that Gh

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Okay then...How is this 'wall of steel' going to be built? Where is all the iron ore going to come from - the asteroid belt? Is it to be made from high quality Austenitic Stainless Steel, molybdenum steel, or from bog standard girder stuff? How much CO2 is going to be generated by its manufacturing and assembly processes? Where's all the manpower going to come from...?

IMO, we'd get more success from either solar panels fitted to every new-build home, or from painting everyone's roof with water-resistant paint that contained silicones; any heavy rain would wash it clean?

Then again, how is a wall of anything going to alter the total amount of heat the Earth receives from the sun - or the amount it re-emits as long-wave radiation? If only Stefan Boltzmann were still alive...

That's fine, so what if world Govenments , developing counries, etc, cant agree on CO2 reduction, and therefore, over time, it keeps rising?

What's Plan  B ...?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

That's fine, so what if world Govenments , developing counries, etc, cant agree on CO2 reduction, and therefore, over time, it keeps rising?

What's Plan  B ...?

Blimey Dave. We don't even have a Plan A yet!:drunk-emoji:

But then all we can do (IMO) is a combination of reducing atmospheric CO2 and reflecting SW energy straight back out into space...A wall-of-steel will not do that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Blimey Dave. We don't even have a Plan A yet!:drunk-emoji:

But then all we can do (IMO) is a combination of reducing atmospheric CO2 and reflecting SW energy straight back out into space...A wall-of-steel will not do that?

But Pete, if for whatever reason CO2  emissions are not reduced over time, and in fact keep on rising, then maybe someone will have to up with a somewhat radical solution?

BTW, my post is not a reflection on any of Ians  ideas.:):drunk-emoji:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

But Pete, if for whatever reason CO2  emissions are not reduced over time, and in fact keep on rising, then maybe someone will have to up with a somewhat radical solution?

BTW, my post is not a reflection on any of Ians  ideas.:):drunk-emoji:

Hic!:drunk-emoji:

But a wall, wherever you put it, will not reduce the earth's overall heat balance one iota. On the contrary, dry steel will heat up even faster than open water will?

Edited by Ed Stone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Hic!:drunk-emoji:

But a wall, wherever you put it, will not reduce the earth's overall heat balance one iota. On the contrary, dry steel will heat up even faster than open water will?

LOL, I never said it would!

Come on Pete, At least attempt to answer my point:drunk-emoji::D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

Okay then...How is this 'wall of steel' going to be built? Where is all the iron ore going to come from - the asteroid belt? Is it to be made from high quality Austenitic Stainless Steel, molybdenum steel, or from bog standard girder stuff? How much CO2 is going to be generated by its manufacturing and assembly processes? Where's all the manpower going to come from...?

IMO, we'd get more success from either solar panels fitted to every new-build home, or from painting everyone's roof with BRILLIANT WHITE water-resistant paint that contained silicones; any heavy rain would wash it clean?

Then again, how is a wall of anything going to alter the total amount of heat the Earth receives from the sun - or the amount it re-emits as long-wave radiation? If only Stefan Boltzmann were still alive...

That's more like it! It's fine to disagree as long as you ask the right questions, raise the right points, and do so in a polite manor. Some people just want to slag each other off, rubbish ideas without adding much substance, or give pointless one liners. That's what I was alluding to when I mentioned "a lack of maturity".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

If I knew the answer to that one I might be Stephen (why is not a Sir?) Hawking!:drunk-emoji:

Have you read any thoughts on the subject by S Hawking?

I did read somewhere that he thought CO2, Global Warming, would cause a huge problem in the future.

Would be interesting to read any ideas the great man has!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

Have you read any thoughts on the subject by S Hawking?

I did read somewhere that he thought CO2, Global Warming, would cause a huge problem in the future.

Would be interesting to read any ideas the great man has!

 

I have indeed read Sir Stephen. The question is: how much did I understand? The answer - not a lot! But that might be the difference between those of us who merely have science degrees and true geniuses?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He has indeed warned about this. What he didn't mention was the war on science that has been waged by vested interests that has seriously inhibited coherent strategic policy decisions being made and has put us where we are today

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/01/06/stephen-hawking-warns-of-climate-disaster-ahead-of-70th-birthday/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/11/10/five-climate-lessons-from-stephen-hawking/

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Relativistic said:

That's more like it! It's fine to disagree as long as you ask the right questions, raise the right points, and do so in a polite manor. Some people just want to slag each other off, rubbish ideas without adding much substance, or give pointless one liners. That's what I was alluding to when I mentioned "a lack of maturity".

I'm sorry but I cannot take building a massive ice wall seriously. The logistics involved in building it are mind boggling but putting that aside. It's massive in human terms but not in global climate terms where it is just a pin prick. For a start It's a small area which only reaches a tiny way into the boundary layer so why should it have any effect on the atmospheric circulation of the southern hemisphere let alone globally? And of course it will not effect ocean circulation or heat transfer. It appears to me a fantasy attempt to create an artificial vortex which in any case would just inhibit inward flows.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ed Stone, Edgoddard Apologies for the above,  I am not so savvy with selecting drop down boxes and I have not found the function for deleting embarrassing posts from my phone! 

What I wanted to do was to reply to your earlier post about the proposal I suggested for putting  a floating hollowed out steel wall across the far North Atlantic.  I am certainly with you on that building a wall has no effect on the global heat budget in itself.  What it would do is prevent warm currents entering the Arctic Ocean, which would permit sea-ice extent to recover. It is this, not the wall that would reflect the Sun's heat more and help keep the Earth cooler. 

Btw I was throwing some Geo-engineering ideas out for discussion. Of course they are not all going to be practical proposals and some of the ideas discussed by others on this site are also very interesting.  What matters is that the proposals given most serious consideration give the most bang for one's buck, that is have most cooling effect for each £ 1 billion spent whilst having a realistic chance of getting through against political and public opposition. 

The idea of aiming to freeze CO2 directly out of the air to store it under pressure in solid form atop the East Antarctica Ice-Sheet is just that, another proposal to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere on a truly MASSIVE scale. Indeed it would cost upwards of £ 500 billion - about what Gordon Brown borrowed to stave off a major banking collapse in 2008. It may well stretch the limits of what is currently technically feasible, but that research could be done on one day making it a reality. 

Edited by iapennell
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not get ahead of the game and unload a few Trump toys over the East Antarctic ice cap? After the flooding subsides we will have bought a few years without sea level rise to think about how naughty we have been since inventing the steam engine?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 16:13, Ed Stone said:

Why not make all people with blacks skin wear tinfoil hats? It would increase Earth's albedo?

Aluminium foil, on the shiny side, has a reflectivity of 88%

7 billion folk ill include all race /genders

Say 1 meter square per hat assume flat no wind and sunny.  ie 7 billion sq metres

The surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers or 5.1×108 km2.

Increase 0.000147%

 

 

 

Edited by stewfox
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, iapennell said:

The idea of aiming to freeze CO2 directly out of the air to store it under pressure in solid form atop the East Antarctica Ice-Sheet is just that, another proposal to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere on a truly MASSIVE scale. Indeed it would cost upwards of £ 500 billion - about what Gordon Brown borrowed to stave off a major banking collapse in 2008. It may well stretch the limits of what is currently technically feasible, but that research could be done on one day making it a reality. 

Could we not 'take it out' in flight or on the ground and then brush it under ground ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets have a round-up of some of the ideas that folk think have a chance:

1) Putting Sulphur dioxide (SO2) in the Stratosphere to block out sunlight.

2) Painting the rooves of all urban areas with brilliant white rain-resistant paint.

3) Planting trees on a truly massive scale is being pioneered by some organisations. This is something Governments could put money into.

4) Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by freezing, and storing it under slight pressure in solid form in vaults on the coldest parts of the East Antarctic ice-cap.

5) Diverting rivers to freshen the Polar Seas so that pack-ice forms more easily and persists- reflecting the Sun's heat.

6) Huge Steel "Brushes" a mile high erected over higher-latitude seas to slow the Westerlies and permit ice and cold to entrench at high latitudes without warm-air advection.

7) Extraction of silicates and limestone to put on mountains and in rainy mid-latitude regions to promote "chemical weathering" so as to remove CO2 from the air.

8.) A huge Floating "Steel Wall" across the Greenland and Norwegian Seas to prevent the penetration of warm ocean currents into the Arctic so as to facilitate it's re-freezing.

9) Encouraging the Russians and Canadians to mine and use as fuel the methane clathrates on the sea beds off their respective Arctic Coast so that the methane is burnt removing the threat of very dangerous global warming should these be released into the atmosphere as methane. Of course burning methane creates CO2 but CO2 is much less potent than methane as a greenhouse gas. Having this programme in association with encouraging Russians to turn much of Siberia into a big forest to remove said-CO2 could make this a win-win programme.

10) Billions of tonnes of iron filings onto the ocean to promote plankton that removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

If you have more ideas, add them! Then we need to think about how Governments around the World can raise the needed funds without:

a) Provoking hyper-inflation by printing money;

b) Provoking an electoral backlash through unpopular tax rises or spending cuts to raise the needed funds.

c) Bankrupting their economies through too much borrowing.

d) Mass privatisations are also quite unpopular, so that ain't a solution either! 

Ideas below, please!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iapennell said:

So lets have a round-up of some of the ideas that folk think have a chance:

1) Putting Sulphur dioxide (SO2) in the Stratosphere to block out sunlight.

So we now pollute the Stratosphere?

2) Painting the rooves of all urban areas with brilliant white rain-resistant paint.

How will this effect wildlife, their vision that is? 

3) Planting trees on a truly massive scale is being pioneered by some organisations. This is something Governments could put money into.

No issue from me.

4) Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by freezing, and storing it under slight pressure in solid form in vaults on the coldest parts of the East Antarctic ice-cap.

How big will these vaults need to be? 

5) Diverting rivers to freshen the Polar Seas so that pack-ice forms more easily and persists- reflecting the Sun's heat.

No, we see the consequences of diverting water such as with the Aral and Dead Seas.

6) Huge Steel "Brushes" a mile high erected over higher-latitude seas to slow the Westerlies and permit ice and cold to entrench at high latitudes without warm-air advection.

Ridiculous idea. 

7) Extraction of silicates and limestone to put on mountains and in rainy mid-latitude regions to promote "chemical weathering" so as to remove CO2 from the air.

What about the eco damage to the areas where these limestone and silicates are extracted?

8.) A huge Floating "Steel Wall" across the Greenland and Norwegian Seas to prevent the penetration of warm ocean currents into the Arctic so as to facilitate it's re-freezing.

Ridiculous idea

9) Encouraging the Russians and Canadians to mine and use as fuel the methane clathrates on the sea beds off their respective Arctic Coast so that the methane is burnt removing the threat of very dangerous global warming should these be released into the atmosphere as methane. Of course burning methane creates CO2 but CO2 is much less potent than methane as a greenhouse gas. Having this programme in association with encouraging Russians to turn much of Siberia into a big forest to remove said-CO2 could make this a win-win programme.

?

10) Billions of tonnes of iron filings onto the ocean to promote plankton that removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

Ridiculous idea

 

If you have more ideas, add them! Then we need to think about how Governments around the World can raise the needed funds without:

a) Provoking hyper-inflation by printing money;

b) Provoking an electoral backlash through unpopular tax rises or spending cuts to raise the needed funds.

c) Bankrupting their economies through too much borrowing.

d) Mass privatisations are also quite unpopular, so that ain't a solution either! 

Ideas below, please!

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weather-history said:

So we now pollute the Stratosphere?

No, we don't, not permanently at least. The SO2 particles would take about a year to fall back down to the ground once released into the stratosphere, so very unlike CO2 which sticks around in the troposphere.

Perhaps a good course of action to take would be this:
- Decide on the safest timescale over which we would like to return the Arctic ice pack to a safe extent (the ideal extent would also have to be decided upon, e.g. a 7 000 000 km² September minimum).
- Calculate the stratospheric SO2 concentration that would have to be maintained over said timescale to achieve the required extent.
- Begin the process of dispersing SO2 into the stratosphere, until we reach the required concentration.
- Maintain this concentration by matching the SO2 dispersion rate with the rate at which stratospheric SO2 falls to the ground. ***
- Simply switch off the SO2 supply after the timescale is up, and allow the SO2 remaining in the stratosphere to steadily fall to the ground over the course of a year.

*** At this point, we should spend a great deal of time on designing and implementing CO2 capture methods.

The great thing about a "stratoshield" is just how cheap it is. A figure I read a while ago for implementation costs was as little as $250 million, far far cheaper than any of the alternatives. I will dig around for the figure to corroborate this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Weather-history,  Given that the Copenhagen climate Summit in 2009 and the recent COP 21 Summit in Paris seems to have produced little in the way of specifics about how to stop the 2C global warming compared to pre-industrial times, except lots of general platitudes to the effect that "Something Must Be Done"; and given that there seems to be little appetite for Governments to impose stringent CO2 emissions reductions on their economies (and the reasons are understandable) it is right and proper that mankind should look seriously at solutions to tackle Anthropogenic Global Warming head-on. Either that, or we need to start preparing for a significantly warmer World and despite what some doom-mongers would say it is not all doom and gloom. There are benefits such as longer growing seasons across North America and large parts of Eurasia whilst the Russians and Canadians would no longer be subject to -40C cold on any regular basis in their respective winters.

However, there are big downsides to allowing global warming of more than 3C such as serious drought in the Mediterranean and other low-middle latitude regions, killer heat-waves in the tropics and mid-latitude locations in summer and, of course, the inundation of cities as the polar ice-sheets begin to disintegrate. It is therefore imperative that potential solutions that are affordable and technologically feasible are not scoffed at but given some serious consideration. There are, of course, pros and cons- the Environmentalists would diss almost all the above (except planting lots of trees) out of hand. But hey, a lot of species will be seriously dislocated and many made extinct by the sort of climatic changes worldwide posed by more than 3C global warming (and btw, 2C Global Warming is where tipping points such as massive methane-clathrate release from Arctic waters could quickly push the World on an unavoidable path towards over 3C Global Warming, which is why it is imperative to aim to prevent more than 2C warming).

We could, instead, look at each measure and consider how to minimise unwanted side-effects. If Sulphur Dioxide is pumped not into the Stratosphere but to the margins of space (from rockets travelling at the right speeds) in the right quantities it is unlikely to return to the surface as it will eventually be ionised by the Solar Wind but it would still have the effect of reflecting away sunlight. Alternatively, large quantities of fine salt or light-coloured dust could be released from orbit at the edge of space (and over the Equator) where it would reflect away some of the Sun's heat. You look at the proposals and see how to make them workable and overcome objections.

 

PS- Another proposal I have suggested in the past is "painting" the Sahara white by covering it with fine salt so that this reflects much more of the Sun's heat back to space. The questions to ask are, "Is it technologically feasible?" and "Is it Affordable?"; then you consider environmental matters like "How will this affect the nomads and the Tuaregs?" and "Is it possible to satisfy them with offers of compensation and re-settlement?". Where there's a will there is a way- usually.      

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Relativistic said:

No, we don't, not permanently at least. The SO2 particles would take about a year to fall back down to the ground once released into the stratosphere, so very unlike CO2 which sticks around in the troposphere.

Perhaps a good course of action to take would be this:
- Decide on the safest timescale over which we would like to return the Arctic ice pack to a safe extent (the ideal extent would also have to be decided upon, e.g. a 7 000 000 km² September minimum).
- Calculate the stratospheric SO2 concentration that would have to be maintained over said timescale to achieve the required extent.
- Begin the process of dispersing SO2 into the stratosphere, until we reach the required concentration.
- Maintain this concentration by matching the SO2 dispersion rate with the rate at which stratospheric SO2 falls to the ground. ***
- Simply switch off the SO2 supply after the timescale is up, and allow the SO2 remaining in the stratosphere to steadily fall to the ground over the course of a year.

*** At this point, we should spend a great deal of time on designing and implementing CO2 capture methods.

The great thing about a "stratoshield" is just how cheap it is. A figure I read a while ago for implementation costs was as little as $250 million, far far cheaper than any of the alternatives. I will dig around for the figure to corroborate this.

There have been numerous papers written on this subject over the last few years. This is the discussion and conclusion of just one. And in passing I'm not sure why this requires a new thread when there already exists a geoengineering thread. And while I think about it the iron filings idae was looked into in great depth a few years ago and it was decided it wasn't viable.

Geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection: results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and comparison with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE

We have compared the impact of geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection in two fully coupled climate models, HadGEM2 and ModelE. These models differ in numerous ways, having different resolutions, using different SO2 injection methods, and producing different magnitudes of geoengineered sulphate aerosol burdens. Despite these differences, however, injecting the same amount of SO2 into the lower stratosphere induces climate responses which show considerable agreement between the two models. Both suggest a reduction in near-surface air temperature which is global in extent and distributed in a similar fashion to the warming caused by GHGs (e.g. Fig. 6a in Jones et al., 2009). Both models also indicate that this form of geoengineering causes a southward displacement of the tropical precipitation maximum.

This may counteract to some degree the northward shift caused by increases in GHG concentrations, but the latter still dominate. The HadGEM2 simulations suggest that the SO2 injection rates considered here could defer a given amount of global mean warming under the A1B scenario by 30–35 years. However, both models also indicate a rapid warming if geoengineering is not maintained, which raises serious issues when considering the amount of time over which geoengineering would need to be sustained. The patterns of temperature and precipitation responses to geoengineering via stratospheric SO2 injection differ from those via modification of marine stratocumulus cloud sheets in HadGEM2 (Jones et al., 2009). The stratospheric SO2 injection geoengineering simulations produce geographic responses which, being more homogeneous, more closely counteract the responses due to increasing concentrations of GHGs than do the responses from stratocumulus modification.

However, the results from HadGEM2 suggest that increases in GHG concentrations can still have a profound impact on regional climate even if geoengineering is successful in counteracting any change in global-mean temperature. Maintaining global-mean temperature near its current level might be considered a necessary goal for any geoengineering proposals, but it is by no means sufficient. It should also be borne in mind that, in common with other geoengineering proposals to modify the Earth’s radiation balance, stratospheric SO2 injection does nothing to offset other impacts of increasing GHG concentrations, such as ocean acidification.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/5999/2010/acp-10-5999-2010.pdf

And a more recent paper

Climatic impacts of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate, black carbon and titania injection

Abstract. In this paper, we examine the potential climatic effects of geoengineering by sulfate, black carbon and titania injection against a baseline RCP8.5 scenario. We use the HadGEM2-CCS model to simulate scenarios in which the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative imbalance due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations is offset by sufficient aerosol injection throughout the 2020–2100 period. We find that the global-mean temperature is effectively maintained at historical levels for the entirety of the period for all three aerosol injection scenarios, though there is a wide range of side effects which are discussed in detail. The most prominent conclusion is that although the BC injection rate necessary to produce an equivalent global mean temperature response is much lower, the severity of stratospheric temperature changes (>C70 _C) and precipitation impacts effectively exclude BC from being a viable option for geoengineering. Additionally, while it has been suggested that titania would be an effective particle because of its high scattering efficiency, it also efficiently absorbs solar ultraviolet radiation producing a significant stratospheric warming (>C20 _C). As injection rates and climatic impacts for titania are close to those for sulfate, there appears to be little benefit in terms of climatic influence of using titania when compared to the injection of sulfur dioxide, which has the added benefit of being well-modeled through extensive research that has been carried out on naturally occurring explosive volcanic eruptions.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/2843/2016/acp-16-2843-2016.pdf

Edited by knocker
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2016 at 09:34, BornFromTheVoid said:

 

So, 10 years of people in charge that think catastrophic climate change is coming, and all they've really done is say "ehhh, we'll get around to in the next decade or so". All while permitting more drilling operations and trying to get in on the fake shale boom... doesn't really make sense.

For as long as I've been on this forum people have been warning about imminent power outages due to green policies, while others have pointed out that it's due to a lack of any coherent energy plan. Have you got anything to back up that 95% removal figure? As far as I can see only about 35% of coal power have been removed, and much of this based on clean air regulations from the EU as well as commitments to phase out by 2025. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the smog filled air of previous decades.

What do I expect? Nothing much. 

What would I like to see? Something that signifies real intent to keep warming below 2C (1.5C is a lost cause). We've seen little more than small gestures and platitudes so far, like a couple of wind farms and pledges to do something in the next few decades. It all seems rather futile when you then go and award huge numbers of new drilling licenses.

www.ogj.com/articles/2015/07/uk-awards-41-more-licenses-in-offshore-round.html

The UK government has awarded 41 licenses for exploration and production in the second tranche of the 28th Offshore Licensing Round.
In the first tranche late last year, it awarded 134 licenses (OGJ Online, Nov. 6, 2014).
The combined results make the 28th round “one of the largest rounds in the 5 decades since the first licensing round took place,” according to the new Oil & Gas Authority, which recently took over licensing from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
The round, opened in January 2014, drew 173 total applications. The 175 licenses awarded in both tranches cover 353 blocks on the UK Continental Shelf.


No government that was genuinely concerned about AGW, let alone CAGW, would act in such a way.

BFTV

Meanwhile back in the actual world.....

Just spotted your reply and I must say I am surprised by some of your incorrect comments.

1) Coal power stations have reduced their output from 35%, 20 years ago,  to about a 1% level today.

The actual number is 376MW out of a total of 32,000 as the total energy requirement for the UK. (figures from 2015) .

This leaves 3 coal power stations to be 'mothballed' and these are planned by the end of the year.

So all this has happened during the last 6 years whilst an AGW'er was in charge of our future energy requirements

How can you claim that hardly anything has been done?

The fact that it has not happened at the pace you would like is immaterial to the debate.

We will have major energy problems today.if we have the correct meterological conditions. The supposed switch to about 20% additional power from wind and solar can be quickly modified. I also see that last year we had to take about 5% of our energy from France and the Netherlands, presumably to keep the lights on!. We must not become dependent upon other countries for the UK energy needs.

2) The above being true we must develop shale and keep a contact with the North Sea. That is unless you want to see the UK having power outages following the BRexit decision. The way things were going we were going to be 'held hostage' by China and France for our power!

I do find it interesting that the French and Chinese are happy to build a very large new type nuclear reactor on our soil, but are not willing to do it on their own soil!! If it is so good why are they not building their own!.  Aka May's decision is correct to review....

3) You hold Germany as the shinning white shield.

Yet they have just announced that after their decision not to risk Nuclear, they have decided to build around 50 coal power stations.

Admittedly they are hoping to use a more efficient design, but nevertheless they will be coal powered.

With that and the Chinese now still building about 200 more coal powered stations over the next few years, these are the countries that you should be hounding - not the UK.

So, I am willing to change my mind if you provide evidence that we are self-sufficient today, and that the Chinese and Germany are NOT building coal power stations.

MIA 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

BFTV

Meanwhile back in the actual world.....

Just spotted your reply and I must say I am surprised by some of your incorrect comments.

1) Coal power stations have reduced their output from 35%, 20 years ago,  to about a 1% level today.

The actual number is 376MW out of a total of 32,000 as the total energy requirement for the UK. (figures from 2015) .

This leaves 3 coal power stations to be 'mothballed' and these are planned by the end of the year.

So all this has happened during the last 6 years whilst an AGW'er was in charge of our future energy requirements

How can you claim that hardly anything has been done?

The fact that it has not happened at the pace you would like is immaterial to the debate.

We will have have major energy problems today.if we have the correct meterological conditions. The supposed switch to about 20% additional power from wind and solar can be quickly modified. I also see that last year we had to take about 5% of our energy from France and the Netherlands, presumably to keep the lights on!. We must not become dependent upon other countries for the UK energy needs.

2) The above being true we must develop shale and keep a contact with the North Sea. That is unless you want to see the UK having power outages following the BRexit decision. The way things were going we were going to be 'held hostage' by China and France for our power!

I do find it interesting that the French and Chinese are happy to build a very large new type nuclear reactor on out soil, but are not willing to do it on their own soil!! If it is so good why are they not building their own!.  Aka May's decision is correct to review....

3) You hold Germany as the shinning white shield.

Yet they have just announced that after their decision not to risk Nuclear, they have decided to build around 50 coal power stations.

Admittedly they are hoping to use a more efficient design, but nevertheless they will be coal powered.

With that and the Chinese now still building about 200 more coal powered stations over the next few years, these are the countries that you should be hounding - not the UK.

So, I am willing to change my mind if you provide evidence that we are self-sufficient today, and that the Chinese and Germany are NOT building coal power stations.

MIA 

I think you've gotten a little lost MIA. Your original assertion was that a pro-CAGW government has been in power for the last 10 years. The evidence simply doesn't support that, at all.

I'm sure some will be impressed with your ability to fill a few dozen lines with little unsupported stats, opinions and claims, comments on Nuclear power and shinning white shields and the big scary idea of being held hostage to China! But some will also be able to see that as the distraction that it is. Beside we both know, you never change your mind!

Doing just about enough to tell the rest of the world that you're doing something is a massive way off reacting as though catastrophic climate change is coming. Regardless of whether you believe the science or not, think AGW is a serious problems or not - it doesn't change the reality that a pro-CAGW government would not give out record numbers of drilling licenses, would not try to pursue fracking and would be doing an awful lot more to reduce emissions than what we've seen in the last decade.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I do find it interesting that the French and Chinese are happy to build a very large new type nuclear reactor on out soil, but are not willing to do it on their own soil!! If it is so good why are they not building their own!.  Aka May's decision is correct to review....

 

I find it even more interesting wondering who is building the new nuclear reactors in China. It's a complete mystery. As is who is building the 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville

China now with 32 operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the growth phase of its nuclear power programme. There were eight new grid connections in 2015. Over 20 more reactors are under construction, including the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units, and a demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant. Many more units are planned, including two largely indigenous designs – the Hualong One and CAP1400. China aims to more than double its nuclear capacity by 2020.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, knocker said:

I find it even more interesting wondering who is building the new nuclear reactors in China. It's a complete mystery. As is who is building the 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville

China now with 32 operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the growth phase of its nuclear power programme. There were eight new grid connections in 2015. Over 20 more reactors are under construction, including the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units, and a demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant. Many more units are planned, including two largely indigenous designs – the Hualong One and CAP1400. China aims to more than double its nuclear capacity by 2020.

Knocker..

The one planned at Hinkley is a totally new design..

It has been under design for at least 6 years and is having MAJOR problems. There are 2 trials in existence. Neither have worked so far.

They are a real technical risk and I am surprised that you want to take it!

I would be quite happy for us to go for the well established and proven small and standard reactors. The Hinkley one is a major risk.

MIA 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...