The technology that you describe is a worth while addition to capacity, although the hydroelectric schemes in Scotland have been in existence for decades. I suspect the return on investment of tidal (not wave) schemes in the Pentland Firth will be well below that of wind, which is dismally poor. The lifetime costs and maintenance of tidal will be massive. Having said that I think the tidal lagoon schemes proposed for the Severn Estuary do have some merit but they rely upon tidal range rather than tidal streams. Norway is a special case with high rainfall and a high plateau from which to generate hydro electricity, Scotland has high mountains but no high plateau. One final though on Norway, the hydro and pumped storage schemes in Norway have been built as part of their Sovereign Wealth Fund with money from the sale of hydrocarbons, so can they really be though of as 'green' ? If you had read my previous posts you will see that I acknowledge the existence of the greenhouse effect. So here is one for you. Do you acknowledge that the climate was changing long before the modern rise in CO2 and do you accept that those mechanisms still exist today and are acting alongside any change as a result of modern CO2. You believe that 'There are no credible climate scientists that believe that the current climate change is not man made', but I suspect your definition of a incredible climate scientist is one that doesn't believe that the current climate change is man made. Bit of a circular argument there ? But I am putting words into your mouth. Oh, and I don't think I will be needing my passport after 18th September next year
That's sort of the whole point. Mankind will struggle. Mankind is already struggling in all sorts of places. As I have already said, the world is indifferent to the success of mankind, or the fate of the panda or polar bear. But I'm not.
It's a good ethical point I suppose. But it would have been unrealistic to suppose that they would deprive themselves of wealth by not exploiting their natural resource. It does say a lot about them that despite the fact they are swimming in oil, they haven't just been using it to supply themselves with energy. Can you say the same about the Arab states and the quantity of cloudless sky and sun they enjoy? I imagine we will be using hydrocarbons for some time - for a very long time in order to make plastics and carbon fibre and the like. And we are not yet in a position to entirely replace the petrol engine, or have planes running on batteries. But there is a clear difference in the vision of Norway and Germany, and indeed Scotland, compared to most other places as regards renewables.
I've made the point before, but I'll make it again seeing as it didn't seem to sink home the first time: Suppose the greenhouse effect was extremely beneficial to mankind and the environment (I mean the anthropogencic greenhouse effect). Would people be so sceptical about it? Is it not that they use their emotional response to this to dictate their view of the likelihood of it being a reality, rather than any real knowledge or objective criteria, or willingness to believe the body of scientific opinion? It seems to me that as it appears to be potentially disastrous, changes the status quo and increases costs (at least in the short term) the reaction of many people is just to wish it away, put their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la la la" very loudly, as they grab at any straws that float past them. Unfortunately, that doesn't actually change anything as regards what is going on.
I assume that was a tongue in cheek remark, but like many people who make jokes about something, it tends to betray what they really think. If you conflate preserving the environment with some socialist, "reds-under-the-bed" outmoded conspiracy theory, you really have no hope of seeing sense.
You make it sound like we're gonna wake up one morning and see some kind of green apocalype. That isn't going to happen. The earth will change, as it always has, and man will adapt or die. Look how quickly we've evolved already; we're a foot taller than we were just a couple of centuries ago, and a whole lot more communicative than we were when we lived in caves. Blimey, in ecological terms it was only yesterday we stood upright for the first time. The world will change at a slower rate than man, that's the truth of the matter. Perhaps at some point we'll devolve back into some sort of primordial gloop and float off to inhabit another planet, who knows. But the chances of that happening in your lifetime, or your childrens', or their great great great great grandchildren are slim at best. Let's concentrate on living now and stop worrying every time it snows or the sun comes out. Our onus should be on finding energy for the near future - in as green a way as possible of course - and each person taking personal steps to look after their immediate environment. It doesn't take war or taxation to do that.
You view is paradoxical, Fig. If it doesn't make a blind bit of difference how much oil and coal we burn, because mankind can't affect the environment (like poison lakes, or cause acid rain, or global warming) why should we bother finding any "green" energy? There wouldn't be any such thing. It's just a label applied to stuff which supposedly doesn't affect the environment. You can't have it all ways.
That is very kind of you Fig, but you'll have to do better than that. Stick your colours to the mast man, and just say you don't give a flying fuck about the environment! Now hand me that 7 litre V16. I feel like burning some rubber.
I couldn't say I don't give a fuck about the environment, but I strongly believe that mans' actions are having a much smaller effect than many would have us believe. And maybe by rushing into green ideals we could be doing more harm elsewhere. Altering earths natural flora to make way for biofuel ingredients could be disastrous for the regions involved, for instance.
Yeah, I don't like biofuels either. A complete waste of time and not very ecological it seems to me. Trust Brazil to get that one wrong. They seem totally indifferent to keeping their country as nice as it was before they got there.
It's the day Scotland gets to vote on independence. I believe that the Yes vote will not win and Scotland will remain part of the UK. Interestingly the young in Scotland, whom Wee Eck wished to extend the vote to in the belief that they would support his cause, are polling in support of the status quo.
There is no conspiracy Glidd just an idea that took root and grew. There is a grain of truth in the idea, we exist therefore we have an effect but I believe that effect is small compared to natural change. Also your belief that the 'greenhouse effect' is harmful to the planet is wrong, there will be winners and loser to climate change just like in the past. We need to adapt to those changes as and when they occur, mainly because as the UK emits 2% of global manmade CO2 emissions whatever changes occur will be outside of our control. I am still waiting for one you warmists to accept that climate change has always occurred long before the modern rise in CO2 level and those processes are still active today. As previously stated the idea that manmade CO2 emissions account for all of the climate changes we are seeing today is ridiculous.
Adding Ethanol to fuel is a direct response to meet commitments to reduce CO2 emissions, it is being done to save the planet. Are you suggesting that some of those responses are wrong ?
Fermentation of crops that require fertilisers and large quantities of agricultural diesel used in their production. Another example of a diminishing return I am afraid.
I haven't looked into it in any detail, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised that they are wrong. I don't give the green lobby a blank cheque. There has been quite a bit of noise around here as they wanted to install a wind farm near me. It would be a blight on the landscape and I'm not remotely convinced that is has to be here. I can think of a lot of better places to put one, and I still don't know that wind is the best way to go in any case as regards alternative energy. I still think that solar has the least environmental impact and that large scale installation on rooftops could be a great way to generate a lot of power. As I say, corporatism doesn't like this, as it empowers individuals, any more than Tesco would be be in favour of everyone growing their own fruit and veg (were this possible). Accepting anthropogenic global warming as a reality doesn't mean that you approve per se of literally everything that is done to prevent it. Some things are going to be wiser than others. Some have the green label but probably aren't that green.
