RSPB and renewable energy

[biffvernon]

At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 147 years. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 41 and 63 years at current production levels respectively.[/i] That's proven reserves, never mind all the as yet undiscovered reserves. So, we're not going to experience a huge energy gap in the next ten years are we?

More numbers from Fairyland. Yes, we are going to experience a huge energy gap in the next ten years are we. (Or we will if global financial chaos doesn't result in enough economic recession to destroy demand.)

It's funny how often you hear politicians and economists, when talking about the banking problem, saying things like "nobody predicted this". Oh yes we did! But they called us nuts. We've been discussing the present crisis on forums such as PowerSwitch and Housepricecrash for a few years!

And we still get called nuts when we point out that the lights will go out before the decade is out.
It's proably already too late to stop catastrophic global warming. All we can do is make it a little less bad.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's funny how often you hear politicians and economists, when talking about the banking problem, saying things like "nobody predicted this". Oh yes we did! But they called us nuts. We've been discussing the present crisis on forums such as PowerSwitch and Housepricecrash for a few years!

Biff, that's exactly my point. The green lobby is not getting its message across, possibly because it makes unrealistic predictions and/or doesn't provide realistic, practical solutions. Being right isn't enough to actually make a difference. Why else is Stansted being expanded?

Tell you what, according to http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/Demand8.htm the average electricity demand for the first week in October seems to be about 37GW (or is that Fairlyland as well?). Let's reconvene this discussion in 10 years and see how much power the grid is delivering then. Place your bets . . .

 

[Pford75]

More numbers from Fairyland

How is it that every source which supports your view is a well respected tome...but anything with contrary views is somehow 'fairyland'?

It's funny how often you hear politicians and economists, when talking about the banking problem, saying things like "nobody predicted this". Oh yes we did! But they called us nuts. We've been discussing the present crisis on forums such as PowerSwitch and Housepricecrash for a few years!

And it's a statistical certainty that if I predict Norwich City winning the European Cup for long enough, one day I'll be correct. Have you forgotten about the repeated occasions where we were told that the world was doomed....only to be told later that someone was 'misquoted'? There will be a massive cost (economic and societal) involved in reducing power consumption....people will starve, pensioners will die of hypothermia, businesses will go bust.....but the eco lobby acts like there are no costs.....or that they are unavoidable, unfortunate 'collateral damage' in the war against the evil capitalist world. As flyfisher points out, noone can disprove the theories either way....so if in 10 years time, we haven't encountered the doomsday scenario you describe, what will happen? Will the eco-lobbyists hang up their comfortable shoes? No, they'll find another 'issue' about which to harp on about.....conveniently forgetting the pain and suffering that has resulted from their propaganda.

 

[Moo]

As a boy I can remember getting dressed in bed, to keep warm, with the frost making beautiful patterns on the inside of my bedroom window.

So can I (though not as a boy, of course). The trick was to get into bed fully clothed, cuddling one's pyjamas until both they and the bedclothes had warmed up. Then, with as little movement as possible, so as not to let any cold air in, one would effect the change from day to night clothes. The following morning the process was reversed.
Baths happened once a week. On all other days it was a stand-up wash at the bathroom basin (two flannels, of course) dealing with bits of the body one at a time so as to have as little flesh as possible exposed to the chill air.

It was not fun.

 

[MdB]

There was a programme on the radio a few weeks ago, on which someone was sounding the alarm about rising sea levels due to the melting ice at the north pole.

That sounds like dodgy physics to me. After all, it's sea ice.

I suspect that much of the 'north pole' in that context probably included all that ice covering Alaska, Greenland, Siberia - but you're essentially correct; when was the last time your glass of G&T overflowed because the ice melted (I know, it doesn't get a chance!).

Melting of sea ice isn't a problem. Melting of ice on Alaska, Greenland, Siberia, Antarica etc is a problem but the bit that often gets ignored is the thermal expansion of the water. I believe this is more significant than the ice melting.

edit - just checked. Thermal expansion wall cause the same or slightly more sea level rise than ice melting.

 

[biffvernon]

Pford75, It is not a statistical certainty that Norwich City (or any other team) will one day win the European Cup.

I used the Fairyland word in connection with just two pieces of numerical data, one concerning CO2 emissions of nuclear power and one relating to fossil fuel reserves. Both of these are far enough from reality to be described as originating in Fairyland.

I wouldn't describe the lights going out within 10 years as a 'doomsday scenario', but power cuts in cold weather with rolling blackouts would be a a great inconvenience. We can see today the effects of a shortage of generation capacity in various parts of the world, such as South Africa and Pakistan, today.

I don't speak for the whole 'eco-lobby' but I think you are wrong to characterise it as acting 'like there are no costs' and 'forgetting the pain and suffering'. It is the 'eco-lobby' that is aware of the potential cost of environmental change that could culminate in the extinction of our species. That's the benchmark that other pain has to be judged against.

Flyfisher, our predictions are realistic. There are no easy solutions. That's the problem. There may be practical solutions but they will not be easy.

Is Stansted being expanded? The Government has given permission for airlines to operate more flights but the Government has not spent any money, nor (yet) given permission for destroying houses and pouring concrete for another runway. Allowing more flights on the existing runways reduces the need for new build. The airlines, the passengers (or lack thereof) and the economic situation will, hopefully, combine to ensure that no new runways are built.

The National Grid data are (afaik) quite true. You can watch the electricity use in real time from their website. If you compare the generating capacity retirement programme and the planned new build you will see the problem. This is neither rocket science nor Fairyland.

 

[biffvernon]

Melting of sea ice isn't a problem. Melting of ice on Alaska, Greenland, Siberia, Antarica etc is a problem but the bit that often gets ignored is the thermal expansion of the water. I believe this is more significant than the ice melting.

edit - just checked. Thermal expansion wall cause the same or slightly more sea level rise than ice melting.

Absolutely not!

Thermal expansion can account for less than one metre of sea level rise this century. Melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets would add over 15 metres to sea level.

 

[MdB]

Absolutely not!

Thermal expansion can account for less than one metre of sea level rise this century. Melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets would add over 15 metres to sea level.

I don't think there are too many people who think the complete melting of those ice sheets is likely this century.

My data came from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_results
which comes from the IPCC. 110 to 430 mm global sea rise due to thermal expansion, 110 to 770mm overall global sea rise.

Where does your data come from?

 

[Penners]

It's funny how often you hear politicians and economists, when talking about the banking problem, saying things like "nobody predicted this".

From "Bremner Bird & Fortune" a year ago:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/187.html

 

[biffvernon]

I don't think there are too many people who think the complete melting of those ice sheets is likely this century.

And neither do I. I said "Thermal expansion can account for less than one metre of sea level rise this century. Melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets would add over 15 metres to sea level."

Note the conditional term 'would'. I did not use the unconditional 'will'.

One of the really big and important unkowns is the rate of destruction of the Greenland and WAIS as a result of dynamic processes such as surface melt with meltwater decending to glacier base and lubricating the ice-rock interface allowing greater glacier flow rates.

My house is over 250 years old and I very much doubt that it will survive another 250 years if we don't stop global warming. From the period property perspective this is much more important than what sort of mortar we repair the pointing with.

My personal opinion is that the Lincolnshire Marsh will ramain mostly dry for my lifetime, but that it would be shortsighted to embark on major developments such as the founding of an 'ecotown' as was recently proposed, upon land below 20m OD.

 

[shelli]

As a boy I can remember getting dressed in bed, to keep warm, with the frost making beautiful patterns on the inside of my bedroom window.

Me too - except I was a girl - and still am I hasten to add!!

It wasn't that long ago either - 1972 when I was born

 

[MdB]

I don't think there are too many people who think the complete melting of those ice sheets is likely this century.

And neither do I. I said "Thermal expansion can account for less than one metre of sea level rise this century. Melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets would add over 15 metres to sea level."

Note the conditional term 'would'. I did not use the unconditional 'will'.

Correct, however you used the term "Absolutely not!" to my comment that thermal expansion is as important as ice melt. Why am I wrong?

 

[shelli]

At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 147 years. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 41 and 63 years at current production levels respectively.

You think that these estimates represent a long time? I'm sorry but I disagree.

1. Who is saying that current levels will continue? - what if global catastrophe strikes like oh I dunno maybe an earthquake or hurricane or Tsumani, massive shift in the earths crust and we need double the amount of power, where is the contingency? - what if coal seams are flooded by rising waters and cant be mined.

2. What if theres a world war and we can't trade with each other?

3. Can every country in ythe world source coal as a fuel? - is that true?

Okay - now I'm worried



The buggering up of the world to date has been caused by governments only planning for the short term (eg in the USA 4 years at a time and elsewhere however long the leadership term is)

 

[Flyfisher]

Flyfisher, our predictions are realistic. There are no easy solutions. That's the problem. There may be practical solutions but they will not be easy.

Now we're in agreement. Trouble is, human nature being what it is, people will probably resist a cure that's worse than the progression of the disease over the next 100 years or so. Why else do people smoke, take drugs and engage in other risky behaviour? That's the problem.

Is Stansted being expanded?

Yes, of course it is. It really doesn't matter how many runways there are, it's the flights that do the global environmental damage. Seems to me this is a typical government compromise. Just wait and see what happens when the single runway is at full capacity.
[/quote]

 

[Flyfisher]

At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 147 years. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 41 and 63 years at current production levels respectively.

You think that these estimates represent a long time? I'm sorry but I disagree . . . .

What's 'a long time' ? Time is a matter of persepective. I agree that 147 years might as well be a million years as far as the planning horizon of governments is concerned, but it's a blink of an eye in geological terms. However, 147 years is also a very long time in terms of our industrial history. Think about what the world was like in 1861 and the incredible technological progress we've made since then, making us probably the most privileged people in history. Who knows what progress we can make in the next 147 years?

 

[shelli]

I wonder if it's enough time to evolve gills?!

 

[biffvernon]

you used the term "Absolutely not!" to my comment that thermal expansion is as important as ice melt. Why am I wrong?

Because thermal expansion has the potential to cause a little less than a metre of sea level rise. That's the sort of amount that nations wealthy enough to do serious civil engineering can cope with. Melting of Greenland and WAIS is much more important as it has the potential to destroy many of the world's largest cities and vast areas of densly populated land.

 

[middi]

I wonder if it's enough time to evolve gills?!

What?, and then be eaten by the sharks?

 

[Nemesis]

Is Stansted being expanded? The Government has given permission for airlines to operate more flights but the Government has not spent any money, nor (yet) given permission for destroying houses and pouring concrete for another runway. Allowing more flights on the existing runways reduces the need for new build. The airlines, the passengers (or lack thereof) and the economic situation will, hopefully, combine to ensure that no new runways are built.

There may yet be a legal challenge to the decision anyhow.

This isn't the extra runway - it's the previous 'more flights' application.

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/

Planning Appeal - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Stansted Airport

House of Commons - 9 October 2008

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Geoff Hoon): My Right hon friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I have decided to grant planning permission to change two planning conditions attached to the Stansted airport 2003 permission.

This relates to an appeal by BAA plc and Stansted Airport Ltd following the refusal of planning permission by Uttlesford District Council in November 2006.

The decision allows for an increase in the number of flights to and from the airport in a year from 241,000 to 264,000 air traffic movements and an increase in the maximum number of passengers using the airport from 25 million to 35 million per annum.

The reasons are set out in the Secretaries of State's decision letter, copies of which have been placed in the House Libraries, together with the Planning Inspector's report.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 October 2008

STANSTED EXPANSION IS A PYRRHIC VICTORY FOR AVIATION: ANALYSIS
The aviation industry may be in meltdown with planes being grounded by the dozen, but this grim reality seems to have escaped the Government.

David Millward, Transport Editor - Daily Telegraph - 9 October 2008

While allowing airports to expand may have made sense in 2003, the economic – let alone the environmental – landscape has changed dramatically over the last five years.

The latest industry figures, released earlier this week, showed that demand for air travel had dropped dramatically over the past year with nearly half a million flights being axed over the last quarter of this year.

Within Europe 11 million fewer seats will be sold between now and January compared to the same period in 2007. Stansted's two major operators, Ryanair and EasyJet are cutting back on services during the winter. Obviously many will be restored in the summer, but will there be as many as last year?

The rise in demand for air travel, at least in Britain, was largely fuelled by growing links with Eastern Europe following the fall of Communism. Even without the looming recession, it is not unreasonable to ask whether demand for air travel had peaked anyway.

Geoff Hoon's decision means that Stansted will be capable of handling 10 million more passengers in 2015. But given current trends, one does wonder where they are going to come from?

PARLIAMENTARY ‘CLIMATE RUSH’ PROTEST THIS MONDAY, 13 OCTOBER


In the wake of yesterday’s announcement on Stansted expansion, you might like to join us to show the Government your disapproval of the plans for the airport at an event outside the Houses of Parliament, in Parliament Square, this Monday at 5.30pm for about an hour. Nearest tube is Westminster.



It’s a rally designed to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the suffragettes going to Parliament to demand change. Together with people from other communities concerned about the Government’s disregard for climate change, we’ll be demanding an end to airport expansion and other measures that would frustrate national efforts to reduce global warming emissions.



The event has been organized by Tamsin Omond of Plane Stupid and speakers will include Caroline Lucas MEP, Rosie Boycott and others from across the political spectrum.



Tamsin is asking everyone - men, women and children - who comes to wear white if at all possible (though this is less important than actually being there). (She’s also asked for period dress but this is probably even less feasible for most people.) Everyone taking part will be given special sashes to wear at the event.

http://www.climaterush.co.uk/

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I'm no expert on any of this (but am stockpiling food, guns and gold in this part of 800ft high Wales!).

When I was a wee snip of a thing, I remember one of the early "games" I had on my ZX Spectrum (which incidentally I played on in the morning having also got dressed in bed and admired Jack Frost on the inside of my bedroom window, despite being a year younger than Shelli) was a Fox vs Rabbit simulation. You input various parameters like numbers of foxes & rabbits, availability of grass etc, and it drew the graphs of fox & rabbit populations over successive generations.

The point I seem to remember learning is that whatever the starting point of the variables, fairly quickly the populations reach the same equilibrium - ie a dynamically sustainable population level.

Isn't the more fundamental problem here that we have 6-7bn of us on this planet, within finite resource levels. Population estimates show a 50%-100% rise in the next few decades. Strikes me that whatever we do in terms of energy efficiency, carbon emmissions, etc, a population of 6bn isn't sustainable in the long term - particularly if we want a more comfortable existance than subsistence farmers living in the dark, without medcine & toasted-sandwich makers.

So whether it is sea levels rising, fresh water conflicts (likely to be the cause of the next set of conflicts, not oil suppply), bird flu,famine, or something else - a dynamically sustainable population level will be established. We are but bit players in this drama, albeit it we may have sped up the clock with that infernal industrial revolution malarkey.

The other thing that struck me from my computer game was that if only the rabbits could evolve to eat foxes, then they'd have a game-changer.