UK energy future

[pjclarke]

Have you heard of photosynthesis?

Would it occur to you that the problem can be solved by creating more of it?

would it occur to you that people have thought of that, that the IPCC even wrote a special report on the topic

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/srl-en.pdf

Photosynthesis is useful as long as the carbon (dang, that word again) remains captured for a long period, which means trees. Dedicating all available land to reforestation would make a substntial contribution, soak up about 1.1–1.6 GT of CO2 per year, total emissions last year were around 32 Gt.

[pjclarke]

It's nothing to do with climate science

You got something right!

[DodgyAgent]

would it occur to you that people have thought of that, that the IPCC even wrote a special report on the topic

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/srl-en.pdf

Photosynthesis is useful as long as the carbon (dang, that word again) remains captured for a long period, which means trees. Dedicating all available land to reforestation would make a substntial contribution, soak up about 1.1–1.6 GT of CO2 per year, total emissions last year were around 32 Gt.

I am not talking about land I am talking about sea and Oceans. What I find remarkable is the way you deal with this. Instead of asking questions such as "how do you scale OF to the level required to reduce CO2?" you instead write it off "I pointed out that many further steps were required to prove it could be viable, and such research has been done into ocean fertilisation indicates that on the scale required to make a difference -Gigatonnes - it is not cost effective". Followed by "Ocean fertilisation is on p56. Estimated cost is $457 for each tonne of CO2 removed" - Well do some research then!

You go on to say that we have too little time to solve the problem "its just that we have little time to lose, and resources need to be focussed where we get most bang for our buck. CDR is discussed in the book from the US National Academy" As if there is any other solution !!

Then you launch an "ad hominen smear on Russ george "George charged the indeginous people $2.5 million for his 'experiment'."

There are answers to all of these doubts but you are patently not interested in hearing them - which sums up the fact that your agenda is simply to frighten extort and control not solve the problem.

[pjclarke]

Au contraire, I am focussed on solutions, they do exist, and they do not involve subjugating anyone, indeed in a culture that worships at the shrine of Clarkson any proposals that involved a reduction in our comfortable lifestyles would never get political backing.

We can get a lot of the way there with energy efficiency, changes in energy policy - switch to renewables,gas and nuclear, and transport policy, industrial and construction changes, eg efficient buildings, zero-carbon cement etc. All with zero or minimal disruption to lifestyles. Even those doom-mongers at the IPCC say

The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades. This assumes that appropriate and effective incentives are in place for development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies and for addressing related barriers.

(AR4/WG2 Summary p16)

What is lacking is political will, macro policy is set by Governments, who need votes, at least in democracies, and they also face (or have faced) resistance from conservative industries and powerful lobbies, especially oil and coal companies who see a reduction in profit and the value of their inventories.

And the electorate's understanding of the problem trails the science by decades, not helped by claims that its all a load of bollux/ a hoax/ an attempt to establish a socialist world government/just grant hungry scientists.

[DodgyAgent]

Au contraire, I am focussed on solutions, they do exist, and they do not involve subjugating anyone, indeed in a culture that worships at the shrine of Clarkson any proposals that involved a reduction in our comfortable lifestyles would never get political backing.

We can get a lot of the way there with energy efficiency, changes in energy policy - switch to renewables,gas and nuclear, and transport policy, industrial and construction changes, eg efficient buildings, zero-carbon cement etc. All with zero or minimal disruption to lifestyles. Even those doom-mongers at the IPCC say



(AR4/WG2 Summary p16)

What is lacking is political will, macro policy is set by Governments, who need votes, at least in democracies, and they also face (or have faced) resistance from conservative industries and powerful lobbies, especially oil and coal companies who see a reduction in profit and the value of their inventories.

And the electorate's understanding of the problem trails the science by decades, not helped by claims that its all a load of bollux/ a hoax/ an attempt to establish a socialist world government/just grant hungry scientists.

How revealing

Give me the shrine of Clarkson than the shrine of lying duplicitous self serving control freaks. if you do not like oil companies (who does) then say so without exploiting climate change.

You have no solution - there is no proof that your windfarms will do anything other than hike the costs of energy. The electorates reaction is because we can see through your obsessive political exploitation of climate change. The best solution is the one I have put forward and you do not like it.

[d000hg]

there is no proof that your windfarms will do anything other than hike the costs of energy

Well reducing the use of oil, coal and gas will cut pollution for one thing. And they will also mean the reserves of coal, oil and gas last longer. Because we're reliant on those things for far more than just energy in our plastics-reliant technological society.

Right now our entire society is totally dependent on a limited natural resource, which we're busy burning. There are good arguments why we should be hoarding fossil fuels for the cases they are needed only. which have nothing to do with climate.

[pjclarke]

I've no great like nor dislike of Exxon et al - they act in the perceived interests of their shareholders and to maximise their profits, as they must. They thought this meant taking a leaf from the tobacco industry's playbook and funding a campaign of lobby groups and organisations putting out disinformation in a [successful] attempt to maximise doubt and delay acceptance of the need for action, some say by as much as a decade.

Not the finest example of corporate social responsibility.

[pjclarke]

You have no solution - there is no proof that your windfarms will do anything other than hike the costs of energy.

Read it again. I favour a mix of renewables plus gas (with CCS) plus nuclear. We need all the low-carbon options we can get. That said, offshore wind is approaching parity with natural gas, so it meets the 'bang for your buck' test, and lessens reliance on the highly volatile price of gas ...

[LucidDementia]

Well reducing the use of oil, coal and gas will cut pollution for one thing. And they will also mean the reserves of coal, oil and gas last longer. Because we're reliant on those things for far more than just energy in our plastics-reliant technological society.

Right now our entire society is totally dependent on a limited natural resource, which we're busy burning. There are good arguments why we should be hoarding fossil fuels for the cases they are needed only. which have nothing to do with climate.

You made sense!

[DodgyAgent]

Read it again. I favour a mix of renewables plus gas (with CCS) plus nuclear. We need all the low-carbon options we can get. That said, offshore wind is approaching parity with natural gas, so it meets the 'bang for your buck' test, and lessens reliance on the highly volatile price of gas ...

So you are more interested in getting people off fossil fuels than you are worried about climate change. What you "favour" is wishy washy in that it is unproven as a means to reduce or reverse CO2 in the atmosphere.

if on the other hand you were genuinely interested in reversing CO2 then you would be pushing for trials of Ocean fertilisation using the technology that I have proposed.

I can buy your arguments about reducing fossil fuels as do so many other people but you and your fellow zealots have undermined your own arguments by trying to frighten everyone. Of course you have been written off as loons thus playing straight into the hands of the Oil companies.