Electric cars and the grid..... it has begun.

[fizzy]

All this messing about is costing us serious money - and some people are making a fortune out of all of it.
Just use what we know works.
Nuclear power until and if/when fusion is ready.
I am seriously concerned about CO2 emissions. Trillions has been spent on renawables and yet we are still pumping out just as much CO2 as ever

 

[daleyd]

All this messing about is costing us serious money - and some people are making a fortune out of all of it.
Just use what we know works.
Nuclear power until and if/when fusion is ready.
I am seriously concerned about CO2 emissions. Trillions has been spent on renawables and yet we are still pumping out just as much CO2 as ever

No we aren’t. It’s down by about 50% since 1990…

Plus how does “being concerned with co2” tally up with your driving style?

 

[dobbslc]

Then you just run a bit of SWA down from the satellite.

Nah! I'd use H07RN as it will twist more easily when the planet spins.

 

[DAPPH]

All this messing about is costing us serious money - and some people are making a fortune out of all of it.
Just use what we know works.
Nuclear power until and if/when fusion is ready.
I am seriously concerned about CO2 emissions. Trillions has been spent on renawables and yet we are still pumping out just as much CO2 as ever

If we only used what we know we'd still be in the stone age , now despite there still being stones galore around we've moved on a tad to say the least .

WRT harvesting IR on earth from earth I've understood that is what is being researched as it is there even a few feet from the soil all over the earth , could we see double side collectors , set at optimum angles .for UV & IR covering some of the less useable areas of land ...not agricultural or afforested ?

It's not so much of a case of you only get a little bit of useable energy it's much more of a case of can it be done at scale and if so where is the break even point and how soon can we get past it & into controlled excess generation .

You comment about money .. what is money , it's just a token for someones time taken , it has no value.
Pour enough into it in research & development and you'd be amazed at the end results , though to often they are not the direct result intended /wanted . .. We've even landed a man on the moon & look at the global changing events that has brought us .

Trillions wasted as you put it , is the cost of living on earth to the standard you enjoy , but if some of those trillions being or are about to be invested in clean energy research come to fruition most people will welcome it and call it success. So will having a very diverse energy plan rather than relying on a few sources that can be used to hold us to ransom similar to the current coal , gas & oil situations.

 

[fizzy]

No we aren’t. It’s down by about 50% since 1990…

Plus how does “being concerned with co2” tally up with your driving style?

How do you work that out?

All the graphs I have seen showing it climbing all the time.
I burn loads of recycled wood and actually plant loads of trees each year.

COâ emissions

How much COâ does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

ourworldindata.org

 

[Morrisman]

Does it involve giant kites by any chance?

Really, really, really tall wind turbines, I'd suggest.

 

[Maker]

Nah! I'd use H07RN as it will twist more easily when the planet spins.

You could get away with much shorter cable if you use a low polar orbit, you'd have to build some massive slip rings around the earth though.

 

[daleyd]

How do you work that out?

All the graphs I have seen showing it climbing all the time.
I burn loads of recycled wood and actually plant loads of trees each year.

COâ emissions

How much COâ does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

ourworldindata.org

I haven’t worked anything out - the figures for the Uk show a significant reduction, due to swapping out coal for gas and the uptake of your hated renewables.

UK: GHG emissions 1990-2023 | Statista

UK greenhouse gas emissions are now roughly 50 percent lower than they were in 1990.

www.statista.com

 

[dobbslc]

You could get away with much shorter cable if you use a low polar orbit, you'd have to build some massive slip rings around the earth though.

But it'll look like Saturn then!

 

[atomant48]

Really, really, really tall wind turbines, I'd suggest.

But then you might as well just put one at each pole and make them axles. The earth could become one BIG alternator ? Maybe I’ve just solved it.

 

[pawsnizzy]

If it's not nuclear fizzy will condemn it as pointless, doesn't matter what it is.

Quite right too

 

[DennisCA]

If we only used what we know we'd still be in the stone age , now despite there still being stones galore around we've moved on a tad to say the least .

Of course the stone age people didn't throw away their tools until they had replacements that worked. And worked better to boot.

Nuclear is an advanced technology that yields far more energy per unit of resource than anything but possibly fusion sometime in the future and it does it reliably. So it feels disingenous to paint renewables as somehow more advanced when it's worse in all respects.

Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options | UNECE

unece.org

 

[DennisCA]

I haven’t worked anything out - the figures for the Uk show a significant reduction, due to swapping out coal for gas and the uptake of your hated renewables.

UK: GHG emissions 1990-2023 | Statista

UK greenhouse gas emissions are now roughly 50 percent lower than they were in 1990.

www.statista.com

You replaced coal with natural gas to a huge degree.

 

[daleyd]

You replaced coal with natural gas to a huge degree.

Yes, as I said…

 

[GRW]

The problem with sensible, sustainable advancement is of course, the corruption and greed that allows new initiative after new initiative - of technologies that haven't been dully thought through or that are a genuine advancement.
Instead, the focus is always on how to lobby for "the next big thing" sold to the govt off the back of questionable (& unquestioned) science and figures - to get a big chunk of taxpayer money to get rich on.... and then go off and come up with the next money-spinning scam.
Bottom line? No matter what colour tie is worn, none of the Politicians or the invisible Civil Service have actually truly represented the best interests of The Public..... they are too busy burying their own noses in the trough.

Solar panels and Ground/Air Source Heat Pumps etc.... if we wanted to meaningfully reduce emissions and reduce demand on the Grid - then we'd be building all new homes with the sort of thermal properties that you'd find in say Norway.

Of course, actually cutting consumption /consumerism goes against every fibre of the capitalism model, while our Govts have got us in hock so far already, that their budgets have a total reliance upon "Growth" (I.e. Spending/Purchasing) in perpetuity.

In short - we won't actually solve anything comprehensively, because no-one in power is actually interested in us doing so

 

[daleyd]

Of course the stone age people didn't throw away their tools until they had replacements that worked. And worked better to boot.

Nuclear is an advanced technology that yields far more energy per unit of resource than anything but possibly fusion sometime in the future and it does it reliably. So it feels disingenous to paint renewables as somehow more advanced when it's worse in all respects.

Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options | UNECE

unece.org

It also does it with “some” extra baggage - undoubtedly we should have nuclear, but it will never be the answer to all our generation needs so we need a mix of nuclear and “something else” (we could almost certainly do with more nuclear than we currently have but it’s just a pipe dream to think every country can have 70-80% of its power from nuclear, there’s been quite a few studies showing just how unfeasable this idea is).

Now we could just carry on as we are and burn fossil fuels to make up the rest or we could actually develop new stuff and use renewables and hopefully as storage tech emerges they will fill the gap.

You can’t just say “they need to develop storage first” as then it will never happen, so we might as well get the generation in place (which is still providing useful power in the meantime) with some eye to the future when storage will hopefully mean the true end of fossil fuel for power generation.

 

[GRW]

There have been practical ideas like the Severn Tidal Scheme - massive and inexhaustible power, courtesy of some handy topography and the Moon.

Of course, the creation of such a barrier might possibly disturb the habitat of the Never-Seen-3-eyed-Turbot or some such, so instead we continue to wreck tens of thousands of square miles of land, and pollute the air and wreck the ozone layer etc etc - in perpetuity instead

 

[daleyd]

There have been practical ideas like the Severn Tidal Scheme - massive and inexhaustible power, courtesy of some handy topography and the Moon.

Of course, the creation of such a barrier might possibly disturb the habitat of the Never-Seen-3-eyed-Turbot or some such, so instead we continue to wreck tens of thousands of square miles of land, and pollute the air and wreck the ozone layer etc etc - in perpetuity instead

That scheme, as far as I recall, was dogged with issues about the financial viability and environmental impact from the start, just because you don’t think they are worthy of consideration doesn’t mean they don’t actually exist.

 

[GRW]

That scheme, as far as I recall, was dogged with issues about the financial viability and environmental impact from the start, just because you don’t think they are worthy of consideration doesn’t mean they don’t actually exist.

Financial cost short-term - bound to be horrendous for sure.
I'm not ignoring environmental impact either - though also we've meddled with habitat for a couple of hundred years or so, and while our actions have caused terrible outcomes (when unregulated etc) - but also most organisms are amazingly adaptable and resilient, and also modern schemes require habitat etc to be considered and mitigated as much as possible.

That all said - whether we like it or not (unless you can persuade the world that a mass cull of humans and a strict population control pit in place).... sometimes it's a case of the lesser of two evils.
To exist is to consume, and to consume is to have a negative impact upon the planet. End of. Sure you can dress it up and kid yourself that you're "helping" the planet by doing your recycling and driving an EV.... but kidding yourself is what it is. The truthful choice we currently have - is to wreck the planet faster, or more slowly.

 

[Maker]

To exist is to consume, and to consume is to have a negative impact upon the planet. End of. Sure you can dress it up and kid yourself that you're "helping" the planet by doing your recycling and driving an EV.... but kidding yourself is what it is. The truthful choice we currently have - is to wreck the planet faster, or more slowly.

But surely wrecking the planet slower is better than faster? Or are you saying both are pointless and we should all just kill ourselves?