Climate Change - thoughts by Richard Littlejohn

[HDI]

Wind turbines are a joke and nothing more than a political response to carbon footprint nonsense from Brussels. They are the fastest and easiest method to implement as a show that government is 'doing something' to Brussels and the ignorant masses.

Not only are they a blight on the landscape, inefficient, unpredictable in energy generation and expensive to maintain but they also won't last very long due to mechanical wear and tear !

The easiest way to reduce energy consumption is to reduce our personal consumption by as much as possible within our lifestyles. When there are people like my muppet neighbours who insist on leaving outside lights on during dark hours, for their CATS !! What hope does society have ?!

Most people wash clothes too often, have the temperature in their house too high, use too many lights, heat too much water, have poor insulation, etc etc. 10-20% personal energy saving should be relatively easy to achieve with only minor effort and expense and the motivation should be a matter of social conscience.

The so called global warming crisis is manufactured though, even superficial research will reveal that. As always, the financial interests of the corporate giants are the creator of this issue. Oil is a limited resource and the oil giants are out to maximise their revenue intake at both ends in the final decades of oil resource. They make money and we all suffer.

[Xaccers]

Think of it like this, the Earth is you in bed, the Sun is your central heating, and your blankets are the CO2.
The majority of your heat comes from the central heating, if it is active you get hot, if it is inactive you cool down.
Now, if you pull a blanket over you, you trap more of the heat from the CH and your temperature is higher than it would be without. More blankets, the more heat is trapped and the higher your temperature is compared to no blankets.
The blankets don't heat you, the CH does.
So no matter how active or inactive your CH is, the more blankets you have the hotter you are compared to how you would be without them.

So while the media won't bother explaining it properly, it is not that CO2 increases warming, its that it makes it hotter than it would be if we weren't pumping so much into the atmosphere.
The knock on effect is different weather patterns.

[Deanxm]

There will always be those who believe and those that dont, i still dont.
Yes the climate is changing, it always has and always will, people seem to think the earth will remain the same forever, sea levels will never move and england wont go back to being a tropica forest or buried under hundreds of feet of glacial ice of course it will.

The big debate is fossil fuels, we are not going to run out any time soon but the reservs that are there will get harder to extract, harder meaning more expensive too, Coal is still plentiful but with most of the uk supplies comming from china or not as the case is now prices are on the up, oil and gas are even more vunrable to price rises and supply issues.

Solar is ok but even though i fit it i dont have it in my home for a very good reason, wind farms are a total waste of effort they will never take over from fossil fuels.

Things like electric cars are laughable too, people dont understand that its not free, the energy requirements are still the same, its just they dont see the emissions on their doorstep

air source heat pumps, ground source, wind farms, none will ever work in the way we need them to, i dont buy the we are killing the planet, the climate changes all the time with or without us, we do need a long term solution to our energy needs that does not rely on fossil fuels though, i just wish the government would wake up and get it sorted rather than p**s about keeping the green extreemists happy with token gestures like wind farms and using this green movement and guilt to tax the hell out of everyone and make a proper effort to find a sustainable energy source.

D

[Xaccers]

Until something more suitable comes up, nuclear is the only option.
We may not be able to kill the earth, but we can make it inhospitable to humans and other creatures we rely on.

[CitroJim]

Until something more suitable comes up, nuclear is the only option.

Absolutely agreed. It's a bloody shame that Fukushima has given the hysterical, hand-wringing anti-nuclear brigade a few rounds of ammunition just as the world was beginning to get their heads around nuclear power again and warming to it.

The big problem is that so many of these greenie warriors get hold of a bit of wrong information and use it to devastating effect. Their mantra of "Nuclear is Bad, end of.." is so misguided. I wonder if they have ever sat down and really studied the subject in depth and properly rather than just creaming off the bits they want to see, the bits that are most sensational? Have they properly studied waste disposal options, fast breeders, MOX fuel, molton salt reactors, the basic chemisty and so on.

Have they read the full stories of The 1957 Pile Fire in Windscale (Seallafied), Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and now Fukushima? Have they really understood that actually, apart from the immediate area, very little long term damage has been done. The Japs have shown us how to cope with that and lessons have been learned. Chernobyl has taught us that even if things really go pear-shaped in a big way it can be dealt with.

There was a suggestion that when decommissioning the Chapelcross Magnox station that operated from 1959 to 2004, the most dangerous part was the asbestos decontamination.

The number of big nuclear accidents compared to the operational reactors in the world is actually very small.

I have no problem with nuclear but then, I've studied it in some depth to be able to make an informed judgment. And my decision is that we should both go for it as soon as possible and encourage the development of new nuclear technology.

The Germans, in deciding to end their nuclear programmes must have taken leave of their senses. Utter stupidity.

[Xaccers]

Ah but in Germany they're low on cash, and low on votes, so they're onto a winner by shutting them down.

[myglaren]

Ah but in Germany they're low on cash, and low on votes, so they're onto a winner by shutting them down.

Until they realise that the alternatives are going to cost three times as much and take years to complete.

[Xaccers]

Ah but in Germany they're low on cash, and low on votes, so they're onto a winner by shutting them down.

Until they realise that the alternatives are going to cost three times as much and take years to complete.

But by then they'll have retired from the government and moved onto the one of the many gravy trains for them, so it won't be their problem.
Or they'll be in opposition and therefore will be able to beat the new government up over the brown outs etc.

[Deanxm]

The big problem is that so many of these greenie warriors get hold of a bit of wrong information and use it to devastating effect. Their mantra of "Nuclear is Bad, end of.." is so misguided. I wonder if they have ever sat down and really studied the subject in depth and properly rather than just creaming off the bits they want to see,

We are talking about a group of people who tried to ban an element in the periodic table, now how daft do you have to be to want to ban something that accures naturaly
and yes i totaly agree about neuclear, it is thhe almost perfect solution, its a shame the cooling tanks for the spent fuel were not a bit better built, at least the reactor was sound, like you say all the idiots will be running around with their hands in the air now claiming it should be banned

D

[addo]

It's intriguing to see how much spin has polluted the arguments. We are now "conditioned" to assume/expect that saving something will cost us more.

HDI makes the point that reducing personal energy usage is immediately possible, and doesn't cost more. Until greater numbers of people are willing to act in such a way, the net result is everyone paying greater energy costs for the sake of preserving irresponsible levels of energy wastage.

[Deanxm]

It's intriguing to see how much spin has polluted the arguments. We are now "conditioned" to assume/expect that saving something will cost us more.

You think using less fuel will cost us less? money still has to be made it doesnt matter what quantity of fuel is used, the same infrastructure has to be supported.

also Adam how can a V6ist talk of reducing energy usage

Seriously though,we are conditioned into the fact its our right to travel, you wont change that untill its impossible to fuel it, people just wont give up their cars. i wouldnt, not even at £5 a litre.

D

[Xaccers]

Thing is when people reduce the cost of something they use (fuel by going diesel/veg, or electricity by fitting energy saving bulbs) they normally compensate by using them more.
For many people the concept of an electric car would be fine (the charging might be an issue for most though) as the average journey is about 20 miles, the sort of distance that in the past you'd do on a bus and then walk, but driving has become so cheap people take the car to the shops around the corner.

[lexi]

This may go some way to alleviating the problem. Expect the cost of Eolys fluid to go through the roof though.

There is a method of 'storing' overcapacity generated electricity, there is a facility in Wales that pumps water up into a reservoir using 'excess' electricity, then releases the stored water on demand to drive hydroelectric turbines.
Only the one though, as far as I am aware.
The alternative is to sell it to France.

Quite sure the first of that type was Cruachan Power Station built in sixties

Bit of an engineering marvel really.

The next Govt. fad is solar panels on the roof. They give you a little energy in the summer when you don't need it and next to nowt in winter in most of UK.

[Deanxm]

Ah yeah but you can tell your eco worrior friends that your saving the planet and that makes you feel good

D