Al Gore takes our sigantures to Bali

[Penners]

Fair point, but what if the more efficient engine gets more mpg than the put-put?

But according to your earlier point, that's irrelevant, because the saved oil will be burned by someone else anyway.

 

[skier-hughes]

Mr Average is beginning to see your arguement now.

But does using less oil now mean it will last longer which should give us more time to get alternative sources up and running?

So people not flying as much means less planes in the air means oil lasts longer means wind electrcity production comes on line in time?

 

[biffvernon]

It's a nice thought but clutching at straws I fear. We are producing, and using, about 85 million barrels per day at over $90 per barrel. If an awful lot of people were to stop flying or making other savings the price might drop a little before other users entered the market but no way is it going to drop anywhere near the production cost, nearer $20 per barrel, so production, and use, will be maintained. That's the nature of a commodity whose production is limited by geology not price.

 

[Flyfisher]

Fair point, but what if the more efficient engine gets more mpg than the put-put?

But according to your earlier point, that's irrelevant, because the saved oil will be burned by someone else anyway.

Yes, I must have been thinking conservation; use less or get more from the same amount. But in terms of CO2 production it probably doesn't matter. Hmm.

I've read Biff's point about oil price used elsewhere to explain the risks of big investment into alternative energy sources, particularly PV. Apparently, at current oil prices PV could be an economic alternative that would reduce the demand for oil - a good thing for the planet but a bad thing for those economies depend on oil production. So, they would reduce the oil price and, hey presto, PV is no longer economic and oil demand ramps up again. Only by trying to overide the markets by some form of political control can this be avoided, which is apparently what Germany has done to great effect.

The other point I've read, and one that seems rarely discussed, is that oil is a rapidly delining source of energy anyway. If my sources were correct, it used to require 1 barrel (energy equivalent) to obtain about 10 barrels of the stuff but I've read this is now down to a yield of about 2. So, there may be lot's of undiscovered reserves out there but they may be too difficult to extract as an energy source.

So why aren't we investing all our time, money and expertise in alternative energy sources? It increasingly seems to be the only practical way out of impending doom.

 

[NT]

Nem's link:

"Global population is now six billion and is projected to be 11 billion by 2050," says Nick Reeves, executive director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. "Scratch the surface of any environmental problem and it reveals population growth, and the way we live our lives, as the root cause. The need for a population policy has never been more urgent."

The overpopulation chestnut is well debunked. It seems curious that words like 'chartered institution' mean people start believing what theyre told.

Biff seems to be saying that all the oil in production will be burned whether we give up cars or flying or only buy locally produced food and as far as climate change is concerned it makes no difference where that oil is burned.

... which flies in the face of the basic principles of capitalism, which tell us that total size of production facilities follows demand. In the case of large expensive long lived production facilities like oil wells, its not a fast response, but clearly its there, otherwise we wouldnt have the large oil industry we have today.

So, short of stockpiling barrels of oil to prevent them being consumed, is it actually possible for anyone to to do anything to prevent any fossil fuels being burned by someone else?

Energy efficiency campaigns, both legally enforced and voluntary, reduce consumption to some degree, though not by as much as first appears. The benefit is economic rather than environmental, as the money just gets spent on something else that uses energy. The end result is we're better off materially, which translates to more resources for important services, more genuinely useful goods, and a lot more consumer junk.


Oil production is not geology bound. There are known oil resources not being used, and if oil demand increases, which means a higher price, more of these sources will come into use as well.


To understand the oil situation one needs to understand capitalism. Persuading everyone on the planet to do something that goes against their interests and nagatively impacts their chances of survival just isnt going to work. As a proposed solution to the hypothetical problem, it simply isnt realistic.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

The overpopulation chestnut is well debunked

?

Where?

And what in particular do you have against this organisation?

http://www.ciwem.org/

 

[biffvernon]

NT, you just don't understand Peak Oil. Classical economics doesn't work post peak. Supply will not increase no matter how high the price goes.

Conventional crude peaked in May 2005 and the price rising to almost $100 has not been able to beat that. The record volume of all liquids last month include this summer's ethanol from grain crop.

 

[Penners]

at current oil prices PV could be an economic alternative that would reduce the demand for oil - a good thing for the planet

I think that needs qualifying further. It's a good thing for the planet, providing the PV panels don't have more embedded carbon resulting from their manufacturing/fitting process than they save, post activation.

I find it difficult to separate the environmental and the economic arguments, and I don't offer the above as a given. Perhaps the counter-argument is that we should use the last if our oil to manufacture alternative energy devices, no matter what their embedded energy.

I don't know...

 

[Pford75]

This all has a rather tenuous connection to period properties...to try and bring it back, what is the general view on...

"Double glazing conserving energy or retain period single (but thermally inefficient) glazing?"

One answer...no if's...no but's....period property or energy conservation?

I'm in the period property camp

 

[Nemesis]

The latest issue of Period Homes mag has Marianne Suhr trying both Storm secondary glazing and professional draughtproofing (Ventrolla) in her home, to compare.

I note a number of newish houses round here which have recently ripped out perfectly sound (and attractive) timber dg windows to fit (ugly) plastic, and I note that some people are now onto their second lot of uPVC windows and doors as clearly the old ones went out of fashion.

Retaining my small single glazed windows (shutters closed at night) maybe has meant all the energy used in building placcy window factories, use of raw materials, transport, taking them to landfill, etc etc should be offset against the tiny amount of heat lost through the glass.

 

[biffvernon]

period property or energy conservation?

Both. That's my day-job. Brought sharply into focus by living in a period property at sea level.

I'm not quite sure which, ultimately, is the bigger threat to period properties, rising sea level or the global collapse of the economy as a result of Peak Oil. Economic breakdown is likely to be the more urgent problem but climate change more devastating in the long run.

(And no, Penners, don't worry about the embodied energy in solar pv. It is trivial in comparison to the energy gain. Energy payback is measured in months not years.)

 

[Nemesis]

Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/29/solarpower.renewableenergy

 

[Pford75]

If we are truly on the brink of a crisis (as some here are claiming), then surely we shouldn't concern ourselves with aesthetics at all?

I get the general feeling that some would rather wallow in endless breast-beating 'doom and gloom' than actually find a solution or any ray of hope.....for they would then have nothing to moan about.

I do believe that there are many positive developments to report on (which we rarely hear anything about).

Sometimes i'd also like to simply enjoy the many things about my family, house, lifestyle etc. which I feel privileged to have....but somehow the liberal left expect me to feel a sense of guilt.

Here's to a more positive 2008 on the forum....

 

[Nemesis]

Well, maybe if folks didn't point out the doom and gloom no-one would bother seeking a solution.

If you want us all to be little rays of sunshine maybe this isn't the right place to be?

If you feel guilt or you don't feel guilt is entirely up to you.

 

[Pford75]

Not at all...just gets a bit wearing when the vicar never leaves the pulpit.......

Anyway, was under the impression that this was a PP forum....I can fully understand the relevance of issues such as Stansted and I would defend your (and others) right to raise/discuss that here (even though we perhaps disagree)....but endless threads with little or no reference to PP are a little confusing.

Perhaps I should start a thread on Arsenal's current league form and whether Abou Diaby can be considered a success?

 

[Nemesis]

No, I think that climate change has considerable relevance to period buildings, rather more so than many another topic.

Trying to stop people posting about it may make you feel better, but maybe some people like to be kept up to date.

I'm hoping we can save what's good about the world for future generations to enjoy.

(Whether you agree or don't agree with me is, I point out, not a matter over which I lose sleep.)


Gilmour's Close - Page 8 of this report:

http://www.ewht.org.uk/editor/GetFile.aspx?ItemId=330


“The redevelopment of the hostel using
a ground source heat pump, positive
input ventilation with heat recovery,
enhanced insulation and sunspaces
make this a particularly exciting
project. Working closely with Edinburgh
World Heritage as a funding partner
has allowed us to demonstrate how
to develop highly efficient refurbished
homes with essentially new build
standards in listed buildings. We have
been delighted to work with EWH to
maintain and enhance a building which
makes such an important contribution to
the streetscape of the Grassmarket.”

 

[Pford75]

Trying to stop people posting about it may make you feel better

Shame that as usual, you either didn't bother to read my post....or simply chose to ignore the bits which didn't fit conveniently with your point of view

pford75 wrote:

I would defend your (and others) right to raise/discuss that here

I just don't see the link between this thead (other than it being a topic which a few individuals feel passionate about) and PP. I can however see the relevance of a thread like Stansted, or incandescent bulbs etc.

Some people who feel very passionate about something make the mistake of assuming everyone else feels just as passionate or is just as interested. This is not always the case. Whether it is ex-smokers who have now kicked the habit, 'reborn' christians (or any zealously religious types really) or my personal passion for Arsenal Football Club.

But I suspect the forum at large is not that interested in 'our' victory over Everton yesterday, so i've held back on the match report.

Perhaps one solution would be for those with a close eye on the various web sources to simply post a set of links for PPUK members to go and look at?


Climate change is relevant to everyone (not just those residing in period properties) in the same way that debate on the minimum wage is relevant, or perspectives on the war in Iraq etc.....but we don't see the need to post endless blogs on those

 

[Nemesis]

No, I read it. As usual.

If you don't like the forum that's up to you, don't read the bits you don't like is maybe the answer?

As I posted above about Edinburgh - the problem is there and requires solutions. Some people are working towards those, no matter on how small a scale.

This forum has, as long as I have been reading and posting, been one which has been quite wide in its topics, and it would be a shame to narrow that.

 

[Pford75]

Do I take that you're not interested in the debate on Bendtner's sending off then?

 

[Nemesis]

Em - nope. Hate football.

Does he live in a period building?