Climate code red

[bobmac]

Nothing will change until renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels (getting there), and we find an efficient way to store energy (a work in progress).
When that happens, the profit motive will effect the required change.
Let's hope it comes before there is a complete climate catastrophe.

''The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.''
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

 

[stefanovic]

You're not going to stop people breeding.

Science is a big player in helping people live longer to fuel the population explosion.
Incredibly, science is anti-Darwinian.
It also helps develop technology to fell trees far more efficiently.
In the last few thousand years we have lost 3 trillion trees from this planet.

You're not going to stop people in the developing world wanting the kind of stuff we have in the first world.

I don't blame them.
Politicians, theologians, industrialists claim that planet Earth is for our exploitation as stewards of this planet.
They could not be more wrong.

Both of these issues inevitably mean that energy use will increase. The only way to prevent that is to engineer a collapse of civilisation, because you're not going to change human nature.

We should stop thinking about economic growth, and start thinking how we can actually shrink the economy.
I can only see a happier world if we do.

The world is run by huge corporations for profit. Governments can't change that unless you revert to totalitarian states.

We need a new world order, with a central government for all mankind.
But that is wishful thinking.

So: the world will need more energy, and the companies providing it are run for profit, with little regard to the future consequences.
Nothing will change until renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels (getting there), and we find an efficient way to store energy (a work in progress).
When that happens, the profit motive will effect the required change.
Let's hope it comes before there is a complete climate catastrophe.

There is a price to be paid for everything.
Like a smoker who realises too late that his addiction has caused severe health problems.

 

[cliveb]

There would seem to be huge scope to improve sex education and access to contraception to reduce birth rates.

The biggest impact on birth rates would be from the emancipation of women to choose how many children they have. Luckily this is beginning to happen in Asia. Hans Rosling presented a very interesting lecture on the future of population growth in which he predicted world population would peak around 10-11 billion.

''The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.''
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

Well, yes, that's why I said we're getting there. The fact that solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in some places doesn't mean it's yet a feasible full-scale global replacement. If it was genuinely cheaper, don't you think China would have stopped building coal-fired power stations?
And we still have the problem of how to store the excess energy from renewables. I can't see how batteries can do the job on a large scale, unless there's a radical breakthrough that eliminates the need for rare elements in their construction. Lithium might be the third most abundant element in the universe, but there's not very much of it on planet Earth.

I'm personally a big believer in green hydrogen. It can be converted to and from ammonia for ease of storage and transport.
Replacing natural gas with hydrogen for domestic heating seems a better option than the air source heat pumps that some are pushing (and which are inappropriate for most of the UK's current housing stock).
Hydrogen fuel cell based cars would eliminate range anxiety - although of course getting it distributed to filling stations might be a challenge. I sometimes wonder if the push for pure electric cars is a short-sighted stopgap, a bit like the low energy fluorescent bulbs we had for a few years before the obviously better LEDs became ubiquitous.

 

[bobmac]

There are over 1.4bn people in China and they need a lot of energy which can't be provided by renewables alone but things are changing.

''China is also the world’s most prolific producer of wind energy, with the capacity to make more than twice as much as the second-largest generator, the United States. And it has about one-third of the world’s solar-generation capacity, building more systems last year than any other country.''

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5

As for Hydrogen, it's just too expensive and it's about 10 years behind Evs as far as production and infrastructure. You mention eliminating range anxiety which it will, as long as you live close to one of the dozen or so chargers in the Uk
100km in a Hydrogen car ... £11.40
100km in a diesel car.......... £6.72
100km in an EV ................. £2.79

As I've said many times, we're not there yet and EVs aren't suitable for everyone but you only have to watch the car adverts on TV to see what the manufactures are pushing.

It's also interesting how you saw ''cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.'' but wrote ''solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in some places''

 

[SocketRocket]

There are over 1.4bn people in China and they need a lot of energy which can't be provided by renewables alone but things are changing.

''China is also the world’s most prolific producer of wind energy, with the capacity to make more than twice as much as the second-largest generator, the United States. And it has about one-third of the world’s solar-generation capacity, building more systems last year than any other country.''

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5

As for Hydrogen, it's just too expensive and it's about 10 years behind Evs as far as production and infrastructure. You mention eliminating range anxiety which it will, as long as you live close to one of the dozen or so chargers in the Uk
100km in a Hydrogen car ... £11.40
100km in a diesel car.......... £6.72
100km in an EV ................. £2.79

As I've said many times, we're not there yet and EVs aren't suitable for everyone but you only have to watch the car adverts on TV to see what the manufactures are pushing.

It's also interesting how you saw ''cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.'' but wrote ''solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in some places''

I don't believe the efficiency of EVs is the important factor, it how to provide enough clean energy and infrastructure to support them on mass. There may only be a small number of hydrogen chargers in the UK but it's not a massive task to create them in large numbers, existing fuel stations could be easily converted. The main advantage is that you can simply pull up, top up and go just like petrol or diesel. The stumping block right now seems to be extracting the hydrogen from things it's stuck to which probably can't be any harder than trying to create the charging and electricity generation for existing EVs

 

[bobmac]

I don't believe the efficiency of EVs is the important factor, it how to provide enough clean energy and infrastructure to support them on mass.

There's not going to be a massive increase of EVs overnight.

''The UK’s national grid will be able to cope with the mass adoption of EVs by 2030, even with the public charging network also growing exponentially by then.''
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/uk-national-grid-can-handle-ev-surge-experts-say

There may only be a small number of hydrogen chargers in the UK but it's not a massive task to create them in large numbers, existing fuel stations could be easily converted.

Can I refuel my hydrogen car at home, or at the golf club, or at work or at Lidls? And would you pay £2.60 per litre for it. Assuming you can afford the car in the first place (which start around £65,995)

The main advantage is that you can simply pull up, top up and go just like petrol or diesel.

If you can find one.

The stumping block right now seems to be extracting the hydrogen from things it's stuck to which probably can't be any harder than trying to create the charging and electricity generation for existing EVs

I've already got electricity at home

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.or...drogen-fuel-from-seawater/page/5/?el_dbe_page

 

[cliveb]

There are over 1.4bn people in China and they need a lot of energy which can't be provided by renewables alone but things are changing.

Agreed 100%

If you recall, I said renewables are "getting there" and you responded with a link to a paper that states solar is cheaper than coal - which I took to mean that you believe we are already there. The simple fact that the country doing possibly the most to move into renewables is still having to build coal-fired power stations to meet demand suggests to me that we aren't there yet.

As for Hydrogen, it's just too expensive and it's about 10 years behind Evs as far as production and infrastructure. You mention eliminating range anxiety which it will, as long as you live close to one of the dozen or so chargers in the Uk
100km in a Hydrogen car ... £11.40
100km in a diesel car.......... £6.72
100km in an EV ................. £2.79

Bob, you're arguing the case from the way things are today. Yes, using hydrogen isn't feasible right now, and in fact at the moment nearly all of it is produced using an environmentally disastrous process that emits huge quantities of CO2.

But the solution to the impending climate catastrophe has to be a long term one. Going entirely electric isn't appropriate in all situations. I'm suggesting that green hydrogen (perhaps converted into ammonia for the purposes of storage and transportation) might be a sensible approach for the energy requirements of some sectors, such as long-range transport and domestic heating.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Perhaps it's just me, but why does it seem the whole cliamte fight soley aimed at the car?
How about we start to examine our desire to replace everything electrical every 2 or 3 years, throwing things away because its "cheaper by comparison".
Lets stop buying the cheapest junk clothes that last only last 2 minutes, lets "make do and mend" as was the way years ago, or is that sort of thing not fitting in with the car bashing currently endemic everywhere.
Concentrating on the car and the drive for EV is not going to solve the problem or bring more people into a better way forward. There needs to be a complete rethink and approach by society in regards to the throw away mentality.
Anyway, I'm sure many will disagree as the car is the whole reason for the climate problem.

 

[bobmac]

But the solution to the impending climate catastrophe has to be a long term one. Going entirely electric isn't appropriate in all situations. I'm suggesting that green hydrogen (perhaps converted into ammonia for the purposes of storage and transportation) might be a sensible approach for the energy requirements of some sectors, such as long-range transport and domestic heating.

I agree, hydrogen may be used in larger modes of transport (tankers, ferries, trucks etc) but if the people who love the Internal combustion wont take up an EV which is cheaper to run, there's little to no chance they will want a more expensive solution.
Maybe in 20 years or so, we might see both Ev and Hydrogen vehicles existing together like petrol and diesel do now.
That way, the battery technology can continue to improve which would do wonders for ipad, laptop and moby capacity.
Can you imagine your electric trolley with a sodium-ion battery, charging in minutes and lasting weeks?

 

[chellie]

Perhaps it's just me, but why does it seem the whole cliamte fight soley aimed at the car?
How about we start to examine our desire to replace everything electrical every 2 or 3 years, throwing things away because its "cheaper by comparison".
Lets stop buying the cheapest junk clothes that last only last 2 minutes, lets "make do and mend" as was the way years ago, or is that sort of thing not fitting in with the car bashing currently endemic everywhere.
Concentrating on the car and the drive for EV is not going to solve the problem or bring more people into a better way forward. There needs to be a complete rethink and approach by society in regards to the throw away mentality.
Anyway, I'm sure many will disagree as the car is the whole reason for the climate problem.

Don't forget to add to that anyone who eats meat or consumes dairy products.

 

[SocketRocket]

There's not going to be a massive increase of EVs overnight.

''The UK’s national grid will be able to cope with the mass adoption of EVs by 2030, even with the public charging network also growing exponentially by then.''
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/uk-national-grid-can-handle-ev-surge-experts-say



Can I refuel my hydrogen car at home, or at the golf club, or at work or at Lidls? And would you pay £2.60 per litre for it. Assuming you can afford the car in the first place (which start around £65,995)



If you can find one.



I've already got electricity at home

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.or...drogen-fuel-from-seawater/page/5/?el_dbe_page

Your argument against hydrogen electric cars is based on current infrastructure which is not realistic. Should Hydrogen become plentiful then creating filling stations would be a fairly simple project, also the price per litre would reduce substantially with availability. The big advantage would be you could use your hydrogen EV in exactly the same way as you use your petrol car.

 

[bobmac]

Your argument against hydrogen electric cars is based on current infrastructure which is not realistic. Should Hydrogen become plentiful then creating filling stations would be a fairly simple project, also the price per litre would reduce substantially with availability. The big advantage would be you could use your hydrogen EV in exactly the same way as you use your petrol car.

So while you are building the facilities to create the massive amount of hydrogen needed and buying lorries equipped to transport the pressurised hydrogen and digging big holes in garage forecourts to store the pressurised hydrogen and waiting for the prices to fall for the hydrogen and the cars, what will be happening in the advancement of the EV battery technology and charging infrastructure?
And what will happen to those people who already have EVs and charge at home for pennies?
I'll tell you one thing, powering my electric trolley or my mobile phone by going to the hydrogen station is not going to work.

There are currently over 35,000 car fires in the UK with a technology that is over 100 years old.
How safe are you going to feel with a tank full of hydrogen sitting under your back seat

 

[SocketRocket]

So while you are building the facilities to create the massive amount of hydrogen needed and buying lorries equipped to transport the pressurised hydrogen and digging big holes in garage forecourts to store the pressurised hydrogen and waiting for the prices to fall for the hydrogen and the cars, what will be happening in the advancement of the EV battery technology and charging infrastructure?
And what will happen to those people who already have EVs and charge at home for pennies?
I'll tell you one thing, powering my electric trolley or my mobile phone by going to the hydrogen station is not going to work.

There are currently over 35,000 car fires in the UK with a technology that is over 100 years old.
How safe are you going to feel with a tank full of hydrogen sitting under your back seat

There's room for both technologies and while you suggest EVs are a game in progress that is evolving you suggest Hydrogen won't work unless it's brought in over night. People have been driving with LPG tanks for decades without real problems. Your comment about mobile phones and electric trollies is silly Bob and you know it, we don't run our mobile phones or electric trollies with petrol, so what's the difference.

 

[bobmac]

There's room for both technologies and while you suggest EVs are a game in progress that is evolving you suggest Hydrogen won't work unless it's brought in over night. People have been driving with LPG tanks for decades without real problems. Your comment about mobile phones and electric trollies is silly Bob and you know it, we don't run our mobile phones or electric trollies with petrol, so what's the difference.

I didn't suggest that hydrogen should be brought in over night, I was suggesting hydrogen would be playing catchup but about 10 years behind. And who knows how long charging times will come down to in the next 10 years.

And if hydrogen did replace batteries in cars, battery development would probably grind to a halt, meaning no improvements to the current Lithium batteries mined by children used in your trolley.

My biggest problem with hydrogen is you need electricity to produce the hydrogen to produce electricity.
So you use the cheapest cleanest electricity you can find (renewable) which is then used to produce the hydrogen which is stored, transported and delivered to your £65,000 car which generates electricity in the car to power the motor.

Why create a middle man which only increases the cost and CO2*, not to mention storage, transportation and delivery, just put the clean, cheap, safe renewable electricity straight into the car, often while you're at home asleep, at work or shopping.

* There are two major ways to produce hydrogen today, by steam reformation or by electrolysis. In steam reformation methane is used together with water in order to produce hydrogen and CO2. More than 90 % of the hydrogen produced in the world today is made from fossil input.

https://www.uib.no/en/energy/102468/large-scale-production-hydrogen

 

[Crumplezone]

Don't forget to add to that anyone who eats meat or consumes dairy products.

Not many people seem to be aware of the vast, industrial food growing operations in many parts of the world. They use huge amounts of energy and produce masses of waste plastic. 'Plant based' isn't as good for the environment as many think.

 

[stefanovic]

It's astonishing that our addiction to food as promoted by big corporations as well as in books and on TV is a massive factor here.
There is also a big industry in dieting, but commercial diets are never effective.
We are encouraged to eat but healthier people do not eat more.
At one time the rich were fat and the poor were thin, but this has gone into reverse.
Then there's deforestation in the Amazon for cattle farming.

 

[SocketRocket]

It's astonishing that our addiction to food as promoted by big corporations as well as in books and on TV is a massive factor here.
There is also a big industry in dieting, but commercial diets are never effective.
We are encouraged to eat but healthier people do not eat more.
At one time the rich were fat and the poor were thin, but this has gone into reverse.
Then there's deforestation in the Amazon for cattle farming.

I thought deforestation was to grow things like palm oil.

 

[SocketRocket]

I didn't suggest that hydrogen should be brought in over night, I was suggesting hydrogen would be playing catchup but about 10 years behind. And who knows how long charging times will come down to in the next 10 years.

And if hydrogen did replace batteries in cars, battery development would probably grind to a halt, meaning no improvements to the current Lithium batteries mined by children used in your trolley.

My biggest problem with hydrogen is you need electricity to produce the hydrogen to produce electricity.
So you use the cheapest cleanest electricity you can find (renewable) which is then used to produce the hydrogen which is stored, transported and delivered to your £65,000 car which generates electricity in the car to power the motor.

Why create a middle man which only increases the cost and CO2*, not to mention storage, transportation and delivery, just put the clean, cheap, safe renewable electricity straight into the car, often while you're at home asleep, at work or shopping.

* There are two major ways to produce hydrogen today, by steam reformation or by electrolysis. In steam reformation methane is used together with water in order to produce hydrogen and CO2. More than 90 % of the hydrogen produced in the world today is made from fossil input.

https://www.uib.no/en/energy/102468/large-scale-production-hydrogen

You're doing it again. You talk about time allowing improved battery development but fail to accept that this time could also develop improved ways of creating and distributing hydrogen. You also suggest hydrogen powered cars will remain very expensive because they are now, can't you accept their would be economies of scale that would reduce production costs.

As I suggested, there is room for multiple technologies, I would suggest it's not a choice but a necessity.

 

[bobmac]

You're doing it again. You talk about time allowing improved battery development but fail to accept that this time could also develop improved ways of creating and distributing hydrogen. You also suggest hydrogen powered cars will remain very expensive because they are now, can't you accept their would be economies of scale that would reduce production costs.

As I suggested, there is room for multiple technologies, I would suggest it's not a choice but a necessity.

I'm obviously not typing in English.
I'm out

 

[Cherry13]

There would seem to be huge scope to improve sex education and access to contraception to reduce birth rates. Even in so called developed countries like the UK and USA. Providing financial incentives to have fewer children is a tricky one as it could unfairly target poor families. As the current 2 child benefit cap in the UK that exists specifically for that reason. Many people can now see the environmental impact of an ever increasing population and are choosing to have fewer children. However many, including environmental activists such as Extinction Rebellion as I mentioned, seem to be completely blind to it. More widespread awareness of this would have a big impact too I think.

Sex education, contraception and better general education for young girls (in particular) in developing countries is really important. But one of the most effective ways to slow down population growth is to tackle and reduce infant mortality rate.
All of the countries with negative population growth have an infant mortality rate of less than 1%, those with hugely growing populations have infant mortality rates of 9/10%.

I don’t have the answer for how you achieve it, but seems like something that could be achieved.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality-vs-population-growth