D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
We should be looking at the Oceans and Seas as well, using tidal forces to produce energy.
It’s an area that’s on the up and is proving successful in trials.
Has environmental evangelism replaced the religious envagelism?
- Thread starter Bunkermagnet
- Start date
It’s an area that’s on the up and is proving successful in trials.
Hitdaball
Active member
What a crock of crap.
You have posted nonsense data that isn’t true, ignored it when this is pointed out, ignored everything Phil posted , derided environmental science as a subject, derided me studying it individually and then worst of all slagged of geography teachers of all people. ( that cuts deep I loved my old geography teacher😆)
Hitdaball
Active member
We need to consume less energy by making equipment more efficient and using it less.
Oil probably has 50 years as you say but the longer we rely on it as the supply contracts the more chance for conflict. Oil is needed to build most of the things we currently need for renewables and should be targeted towards that.
We need a less centralised grid infrastructure able to utilise smaller scale feed in renewable sources closer to the demand and we need storage for that at a more local level. We also unfortunately need nuclear to avoid large scale social issues as the depletion of fossil fuels starts to bite.
Whether we have the time to do any of this properly without large scale conflict and societal collapse in the coming decades is debateable, espcially in the current political climate. It’s entirely possible that energy wars will see us off way before the worst affects of climate change are felt.
Water scarcity is a similar issue if you look around the world at potential conflicts to come, made worse by continued climate change.
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
This perhaps is where the arguement about global warming gets lost. I have no doubt about climate change, but to hammer the point about CO2 (when our own Government has demonised a lower CO2 outputting engine over the higher one) is where it loses its focus to me. The main point should be the global reduction in drinking water, and how that can be avoided.
If your lead arguement is something so far away from our own existance it's going to be harder to get everyone to buy into it. Tell everyone that in so many years, our water supply will be this low level and how all those lovely golf courses we play on will be just brown dead grass and you might get more people to buy into it, how every summer will be drought conditions, perhaps how half of Spain will be like the African deserts then you might get more to buy into it.
Ultimately the same base points and changes need to be made, but its what you focus the minds on that matters.
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
Don’t be a hater brother...I just don’t believe in the stuff you believe in.ðŸ‘
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
Where is the water going to go? It rains, it soaks into the ground, ends up in rivers, goes back to the sea, evaporates, it rains.
Or, it rains, goes into reservoirs, gets drunk, peed into drains, filtered, to rivers, etc.
Water is pretty indestructible. It is out there. The same amount there always was.
May be the human race needs to look at ways of shipping it around, but it is a renewable resource, possibly the easiest one.
Or, it rains, goes into reservoirs, gets drunk, peed into drains, filtered, to rivers, etc.
Water is pretty indestructible. It is out there. The same amount there always was.
May be the human race needs to look at ways of shipping it around, but it is a renewable resource, possibly the easiest one.
Hitdaball
Active member
Resource use , climate change and population growth are all linked but yes it’s not an easy sell as this thread proves.
@Foxholer posted a link elsewhere in the forum to a good film he part funded, for which we should all be grateful, which looked at the population growth side but also touched on resource depletion - it’s called Critical Mass on Amazon prime. Worth 90mins of most people’s time.
@Foxholer posted a link elsewhere in the forum to a good film he part funded, for which we should all be grateful, which looked at the population growth side but also touched on resource depletion - it’s called Critical Mass on Amazon prime. Worth 90mins of most people’s time.
Hitdaball
Active member
I don’t hate you at all, I have some pity tbh.
It’s not belief, it’s science. I pity that you see science as belief and would equate a defence of scientific knowledge on a similar level to a defence of religion.
Hitdaball
Active member
This is true but there is a finite amount which at any one time will be in one of various states in the system. Plenty of major rivers no longer make it to the sea in Asia, USA and Africa from overuse.
Yes there is the same as ever but we are using more , and for more people.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Surely the answer is desalination plants, we already have the technology at a lower level to produce drinking water.
I don’t think people take the future of water shortages seriously enough to invest in large scale production.
Hitdaball
Active member
Desalination plants use an awful lot of energy from memory.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Currently yes, but they are also investigating using the same location(tides/wind etc) to provide the power that’s needed.
They are already in use around the Middle East, Israel is one of the top users for producing a fair share of its own drinking water.
What water shortage? Here in south east Spain we live on the edge of Europe's only desert. Again, what water shortage? Said for effect of course. We rarely have a water shortage, don't remember one, even allowing for the massive irrigation used in agriculture. But there's a huge desalination plant just up the coast from us.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
The conversation was more about the future Bri and what we could do to avert water shortages from happening.
Maybe that's the future in some areas. My point was that what is someone else's future already is a reality here.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
But then you have the sunshine to power the desal plant. That said, maybe soon, we all will.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Agreed, that’s why I mentioned Israel.
The issue in the future might be enough desalination plants to supply areas that may suffer.
LT touched on something earlier in the thread. In some cases the need drives the political will to make something happen.
Hitdaball
Active member
It looks like some think large nuclear desalination plants are the answer. I’d prefer to see smaller scale solar, unless the economies of scale are very significant.
Decentralise as much of this stuff as we can to make it more resilient.
Decentralise as much of this stuff as we can to make it more resilient.
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
I don't think there is an "or". It's an inconvenient truth that there are too many people on this planet for all, or most , to live a comfortable life.
And those areas where life is comfortable at present will come under threat from the other areas.
Not a nice prospect, but , I fear, a realistic one.
I think of Lincoln''s words
" As our case is new, we must think anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country (planet.)"
