Guest Posted March 14, 2016 Wow, that all sounds great, and very simple.Now explain to me in simple terms how we move from reliable, despatchable energy model based on fossil fuels, to a "decarbonised" system based on current technology? Would you agree that nuclear is the only option?Also, it''s all well and good to say that "just because they aren''t doing it, doesn''t me we shouldn''t", but in practical terms what would happen? Do you think that we would survive and prosper in a nation without any fossil fuels? Or would it, in fact, make our poor incredibly poor, our rich incredibly (even more) rich, and give a huge competitive advantage to other nations that carry on building coal-fire power station? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,314 Posted March 14, 2016 Certainly nuclear is part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future (along with the carbon penalties associated with its construction and development).What would happen is we would become world-leaders in renewable/decarbonised technologies (a new industrial revolution) which everyone will ultimately have to move to. As our economy is not based on heavy industry and manufacturing this would not make a significant difference from a competitive advantage prespective for the products we have already effectively outsourced but would give us a huge competitive advantage in emerging and new technologies.Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted March 14, 2016 Funny how it''s changed from ''Global warming'' to '' Climate Change'' Did science get it so wrong they had to change the name ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,314 Posted March 14, 2016 So global warming (or indeed cooling) doesn''t involve a change in the climate...dearie me...I suggest you pick up those straws you need to clutch at.Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy Canary 628 Posted March 14, 2016 Oh dear Swindon - Global Warming causes Climate Change! The world is warming in total which causes some parts to heat and others to become drier, more extreme events etc. It''s not that difficult. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,352 Posted March 14, 2016 Now I''m a man of little brain but I can see the difference between philosophising about a scientific theory and facts of science. Back in my days as a bog cleaner I found overwhelming evidence that some men have their anus in the lower back.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,314 Posted March 14, 2016 Ahhhhhhhh NN, now you''re getting into the philosophy of science which is a whole new game entirely!Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,352 Posted March 14, 2016 I think a lot of people were already there buddy[;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 14, 2016 Yes, Mr Apples, that sounds great! It would also be excellent if we could become world-leaders in rainbow and pixie-dust powered technology also.Or perhaps, it would be better if in the interim, we focused on lower carbon alternatives like natural gas and nuclear, which can actually meet our energy requirements, whilst spending money on research into energy storage and nuclear fusion? I think this would be preferable to wasting money on subsidising hugely inefficient and backwards technologies like turbines, which have about as much chance of meeting our energy needs as my above suggestion. It would have the minor benefit of allowing the less-well-off of us to both be able to heat their homes AND eat.Also, re: your comment about our economy not being based on heavy industry/manufacturing - I believe this still counts for a huge proportion of our exported goods. Higher energy prices have done wonders for our steel industries too, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted March 14, 2016 They changed it from ''Global warming'' to '' Climate Change'' because in fact it wasn''t warming. Natural climate temperatures appeared to slow down warming over short periods. This does not does not refute long-term climate change trends. Thus it was impossible to keep calling it global warming, whilst temperatures dropped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooreMarriot 298 Posted March 14, 2016 [quote user="SwindonCanary"]Funny how it''s changed from ''Global warming'' to '' Climate Change'' Did science get it so wrong they had to change the name ?[/quote]They don''t mean the same thing. And the term " climate change " has been around since at least 1956 , predating " global warming " .https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,314 Posted March 14, 2016 Now there''s a thought...have you got data on their relative carbon footprint(s)?I don''t disagree with you on low carbon alternatives and R&D into emerging technologies (and I haven''t actually advocated covering the country in wind turbines - although they also have a role to play in the energy mix). Energy efficiency also has a massive role to play in reducing our demand.I think it currently accounts for between 10 - 15% GDP. As for the steel industry would that be the Indian (Tata) or Thai (SSI) steel industry exactly?Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 14, 2016 Good point about ownership of those large steel companies Mr Apples, but I wonder if the 1000+ steel-workers who are about to lose their jobs, and presumably UK income tax contributions, are bothered about that?I think we probably share a lot of similar viewpoints, but my view is that we will spend a huge amount of money on trying to prevent something which has not yet (in my opinion) been appropriately quantified, whilst massively increasing the cost of energy. This is money that could probably be put to better use elsewhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,314 Posted March 14, 2016 A fair point Ian, but when we sold the family silver we lost control of the industry and the decision-making (and that includes the energy supply industries too)...UK Govt needs to answer that question.I think you''re right, we''re not too far apart just with different perspectives/priorities.Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Horn (again) 129 Posted March 14, 2016 [quote user="Jeremy Borbyn"]I am hoping to seal a move to Florence Road shortly so the Nelson will be within a stone''s throw. I shall hand my application over in person but nobody knows what the inner circle look like.[/quote]Come to The Jubilee, Bor far better class of Old Pastonian in there! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Ink 0 Posted March 14, 2016 This has to be one of the most boring threads ever. Carbon footprint is all a big tax scam. Far more polluters get away with it in industry and transportation, rather than picking on motorists and shoppers with their 5p bags. My bags have usually biodegraded by the time I get home. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
If wed only kept Howie.. 3 Posted March 14, 2016 i wasn''t sure about the nature of this thread... however after some analysis my suspicions have been confirmed...Carbon Footprint is an anagram of "Act of Bin-Rot Porn"..The "Carbon Footprint" at Portaloo road must be huge! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
If wed only kept Howie.. 3 Posted March 14, 2016 Dr Ink....Carbon Footprint is not the same as Carbon Credits... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,352 Posted March 14, 2016 I went carbon dating one evening not so long back. There were some right old sorts there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,314 Posted March 14, 2016 Then why respond to it Dr Ink?It appears your brain has biodegraded...Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,314 Posted March 14, 2016 NN, did only 14 people turn up?Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites