Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Steffers0,Anonymous,CryptoPlankton,GrahamPlatt,Walkeia, for Donating to support the site

The future of the planet.

A virtual pub for off topic, light hearted pub related banter and discussion. No trainers

Is Snorvey right and it's too late?

Yes the planet is doomed.
4
7%
The planet will survive but the human race will not.
25
42%
No, man and the planet will be fine.
17
29%
Unsure - a lot depends on the most industrialised countries.
7
12%
None of the above (explain please).
6
10%
 
Total votes: 59

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4095
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 1476 times
Been thanked: 2586 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#253875

Postby Itsallaguess » September 25th, 2019, 3:51 pm

djbenedict wrote:
However: the data don't support your view that family size control will make any meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally. Family size is the actual straw man.

You asked me to point out where you were focusing on un-developed nations. As well as the direct quote above, which I note you haven't addressed at all, your entire obsession with family size as being a major factor does this in a second order way.


Family size is the actual straw man?

It was mentioned by me in direct relation to the fact that some climate-change hypocrites find it well within their remit to try to tell me, loudly and repeatedly, to turn down my central heating at the very same time that they're pumping out more than a single unit of inverted-people-pyramids. That was the entire basis of me entering this thread, and I stand by that position.

When you say that 'family size control' doesn't make a 'meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally', that's not the point at all (even if I disagree with it on a 'preparing for the future' basis....)...

I only need those climate-change hypocrites to fully understand that if they were less hypocritical, and looked towards their loins rather than angrily towards my hand near my heating thermostat, they'd then realise that their own 'family size control' would make a much, much larger difference to planetary C02 levels, on a 200-year, five generations out view (don't forget about all those little inverted people-pyramids starting at each off-spring...), than them standing there with their multiple off-spring pointing at my thermostat.....

You're the one that's meandered away from that central point that I was making, I'm afraid, and I'll please ask if you agree on that specific point or not, rather than continuing to spur off into developed/un-developed nation rabbit-holes...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1609
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 566 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#253881

Postby scotia » September 25th, 2019, 4:05 pm

gryffron wrote:Yes, sorry, 60% is from generator to consumer.
Gryff

The efficiency of turning Heat Energy into Electrical Energy is governed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The higher the temperature you can achieve in burning the fuel, and the lower the temperature of the wasted output, then the higher the efficiency you can achieve. With old conventional
coal or oil fired steam-turbine generation plant, this resulted in about 40% efficiency. The newer gas powered generators use gas turbines (like jet engines) which get up to very high temperatures, but their output (waste) temperature is also high - so this output is used to heat a conventional boiler for a steam turbine generator. The 2-stage process can give efficiencies of around 60% (all numbers are ball-park figures).

djbenedict
Lemon Slice
Posts: 278
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#253892

Postby djbenedict » September 25th, 2019, 5:11 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
However: the data don't support your view that family size control will make any meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally. Family size is the actual straw man.

You asked me to point out where you were focusing on un-developed nations. As well as the direct quote above, which I note you haven't addressed at all, your entire obsession with family size as being a major factor does this in a second order way.


Family size is the actual straw man?

It was mentioned by me in direct relation to the fact that some climate-change hypocrites find it well within their remit to try to tell me, loudly and repeatedly, to turn down my central heating at the very same time that they're pumping out more than a single unit of inverted-people-pyramids. That was the entire basis of me entering this thread, and I stand by that position.

When you say that 'family size control' doesn't make a 'meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally', that's not the point at all (even if I disagree with it on a 'preparing for the future' basis....)...

I only need those climate-change hypocrites to fully understand that if they were less hypocritical, and looked towards their loins rather than angrily towards my hand near my heating thermostat, they'd then realise that their own 'family size control' would make a much, much larger difference to planetary C02 levels, on a 200-year, five generations out view (don't forget about all those little inverted people-pyramids starting at each off-spring...), than them standing there with their multiple off-spring pointing at my thermostat.....

You're the one that's meandered away from that central point that I was making, I'm afraid, and I'll please ask if you agree on that specific point or not, rather than continuing to spur off into developed/un-developed nation rabbit-holes...


You seem very certain of the truth of your theory. However, people in the pyramid past the next generation, or maybe the one after that, will probably be net zero CO2 emitters over their lifetimes. Or certainly much lower emitters, following the prevailing trends of decarbonisation. Is that a factor you have included in your calculations?

So sorry for "meandering" by the way, I rather thought that was the point of this particular board. By all means get us whipped into shape and back on to your narrow little hobby-horse topic.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4095
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 1476 times
Been thanked: 2586 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#253907

Postby Itsallaguess » September 25th, 2019, 6:30 pm

djbenedict wrote:
However, people in the pyramid past the next generation, or maybe the one after that, will probably be net zero CO2 emitters over their lifetimes.

Or certainly much lower emitters, following the prevailing trends of decarbonisation.


But might you agree that this 'something might turn up tomorrow' approach seems to be how we've got ourselves into this little pickle in the first place?

You seem to be hanging your hat very firmly on un-developed countries failing to develop more ferocious CO2-guzzling habits, and now you're also hoping that a 'carbon-neutral approach' to things, which is likely to be very, very costly in terms of time, effort and funding, is going to give the planet a quick wipe with a cloth and things will be as right as rain....

Then there are others who simply point to the growing numbers of people on the planet, and saying, erm, shall we take look at how we might help to fix the issue at source, instead of coming up with a number of down-stream wish-lists that may or may not materialise in terms of their effectiveness......

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

G37y
Posts: 30
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 2:32 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#253918

Postby G37y » September 25th, 2019, 7:21 pm

I think the youth of today have a different solution to overpopulation and saving the planet. Why not just have compulsory euthanasia for the over 70s? That would solve the pensions problem, The housing problem and the tricky situation of the old farts spending all the families fortune before the younger generation got to enjoy it?

JohnB
Lemon Slice
Posts: 817
Joined: January 15th, 2017, 9:20 am
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 138 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#253927

Postby JohnB » September 25th, 2019, 8:06 pm

21 surely, else Logan will chase you down.

richlist
Lemon Slice
Posts: 532
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#253993

Postby richlist » September 26th, 2019, 7:13 am

I don't care.....genuinely I dont care.......like a very large percentage of the population.

I don't see many people changing their lifestyles to make even the smallest effort to reduce their carbon footprint.

Are we doomed.....probably yes.......but it's not going to be my problem is it?

UncleIan
Lemon Slice
Posts: 888
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:35 pm
Has thanked: 533 times
Been thanked: 399 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254031

Postby UncleIan » September 26th, 2019, 9:50 am

G37y wrote:I think the youth of today have a different solution to overpopulation and saving the planet.


Yes, large numbers are going gender neutral or some other flavour of "not straight" and won't be procreating anytime soon. As this trend accelerates around the world, expect population collapse. The earth will be much better off, but totally indifferent.

richlist
Lemon Slice
Posts: 532
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254034

Postby richlist » September 26th, 2019, 9:59 am

Here's an example of why I don't care.....I've just had a doctor's appointment......I could walk the couple of miles to the surgery and back instead of using my car. However it looks like rain so I drove, I stayed dry, got home quicker and life was a lot easier.

Ditching cars ain't gonna work for me unless you can arrange/ guarantee that I won't get rained on.

There were 50 other people in the car park who didn't walk either......and probably never will.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1609
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 566 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254063

Postby scotia » September 26th, 2019, 11:33 am

richlist wrote:Here's an example of why I don't care.....I've just had a doctor's appointment......I could walk the couple of miles to the surgery and back instead of using my car. However it looks like rain so I drove, I stayed dry, got home quicker and life was a lot easier.
Ditching cars ain't gonna work for me unless you can arrange/ guarantee that I won't get rained on.
There were 50 other people in the car park who didn't walk either......and probably never will.

But I suspect your car is much less of a gas guzzler than those you drove in your youth, and it almost certainly emitted less harmful exhaust fumes. Every Little Helps :)

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1609
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 566 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254069

Postby scotia » September 26th, 2019, 12:07 pm

An interesting article which seems to imply that the destructive habits of humans have actually improved the planet :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49829177
The Pentlands are just south of Edinburgh - and make very pleasant walking. They reach about 1900ft in height.

xeny
Lemon Pip
Posts: 81
Joined: April 13th, 2017, 11:37 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254073

Postby xeny » September 26th, 2019, 12:19 pm

djbenedict wrote:You seem very certain of the truth of your theory. However, people in the pyramid past the next generation, or maybe the one after that, will probably be net zero CO2 emitters over their lifetimes. Or certainly much lower emitters, following the prevailing trends of decarbonisation. Is that a factor you have included in your calculations?


So it's important to collapse the pyramid sooner rather than later?

djbenedict
Lemon Slice
Posts: 278
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254074

Postby djbenedict » September 26th, 2019, 12:20 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
However, people in the pyramid past the next generation, or maybe the one after that, will probably be net zero CO2 emitters over their lifetimes.

Or certainly much lower emitters, following the prevailing trends of decarbonisation.


But might you agree that this 'something might turn up tomorrow' approach seems to be how we've got ourselves into this little pickle in the first place?


I would say that ignorance was a more important historical (and current) factor.

Itsallaguess wrote:You seem to be hanging your hat very firmly on un-developed countries failing to develop more ferocious CO2-guzzling habits, and now you're also hoping that a 'carbon-neutral approach' to things, which is likely to be very, very costly in terms of time, effort and funding, is going to give the planet a quick wipe with a cloth and things will be as right as rain....

Then there are others who simply point to the growing numbers of people on the planet, and saying, erm, shall we take look at how we might help to fix the issue at source, instead of coming up with a number of down-stream wish-lists that may or may not materialise in terms of their effectiveness......


We disagree about what "the source" of the issue is. As I keep pointing out, it is perfectly possible for large numbers of people to produce very little CO2 e.g. as Africa's population does, while small numbers of people produce large amounts of CO2, like the USA's population does.

Ergo, elementary logic says... absolute numbers of people are not the problem. Quite why you insist on continuing to bark up this tree I have no idea. The problem is what people do.

djbenedict
Lemon Slice
Posts: 278
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254075

Postby djbenedict » September 26th, 2019, 12:22 pm

xeny wrote:
djbenedict wrote:You seem very certain of the truth of your theory. However, people in the pyramid past the next generation, or maybe the one after that, will probably be net zero CO2 emitters over their lifetimes. Or certainly much lower emitters, following the prevailing trends of decarbonisation. Is that a factor you have included in your calculations?


So it's important to collapse the pyramid sooner rather than later?


So the size of the pyramid is irrelevant.

sunnyjoe
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 104
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:11 pm
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254076

Postby sunnyjoe » September 26th, 2019, 12:30 pm

gryffron wrote:OVERALL electric cars are just slightly more efficient than typical petrol ones. Those heavy batteries really kill the performance. And the very best modern internal combustion engines will beat electrics. Unless they're sat in a traffic jam.


Do you have any evidence to support these assertions?

servodude
Lemon Slice
Posts: 354
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254079

Postby servodude » September 26th, 2019, 12:47 pm

sunnyjoe wrote:
gryffron wrote:OVERALL electric cars are just slightly more efficient than typical petrol ones. Those heavy batteries really kill the performance. And the very best modern internal combustion engines will beat electrics. Unless they're sat in a traffic jam.


Do you have any evidence to support these assertions?


I'd be interested to see that too;
- or the definition of "overall"
- or the measure of efficiency used

;)

-sd

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1609
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 566 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254087

Postby scotia » September 26th, 2019, 1:12 pm

sunnyjoe wrote:Do you have any evidence to support these assertions?

I would also like to see evidence.
I have scoured the web for actual thermal efficiencies of petrol engines, and the best that I found was a claim by Toyota that their latest engines will be 38% thermally efficient - but I suppose that figure will only be achieved when operating over an optimal power range.
On electric cars, assuming that they use electricity generated by fossil fuel, then the thermal efficiencies of the best combined Gas/Steam generators is claimed to be around 60%. Then you have to take the distribution losses, and the losses in battery charging, the efficiency of the electric motors, and the weight penalty of the battery. But I suspect these losses in total will still leave an advantage with the electric car.

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1608
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 262 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254099

Postby gryffron » September 26th, 2019, 2:52 pm

Google.

Electric car efficiency also around 60%. So AT BEST 60% (power station) * 60% (vehicle) = 36%

Google quotes typical overall energy efficiency as 24% for EV vs 20% ICE. Probably figures from America.

Add in the greater vehicle weight for batteries and that isn't going to leave much difference for overall energy usage

Gryff

scrumpyjack
Lemon Slice
Posts: 691
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254101

Postby scrumpyjack » September 26th, 2019, 3:02 pm

But electricity is increasingly coming from sources not generating CO2 (mainly wind power) and also much of the charging of EVs happens at night when some generated electricity would otherwise go to waste.

One can see the Wind power / EVs / stored wind energy eventually leading to the end of fossil fuel generation. EVs are the future and petrol cars will gradually die out.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1609
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 566 times

Re: The future of the planet.

#254106

Postby scotia » September 26th, 2019, 3:07 pm

And I have had another bash at comparing efficiencies of Electric Cars with Petrol Cars - with (to me) somewhat surprising results.
I tried to calculate the fuel cost (minus tax) per mile - which should give some indication of relative efficiencies.

The current Electricity Cost is variable around the UK, but I have used a figure of 15p per kWh (i.e. 15.75p which includes 5% VAT)
I have looked at the Nissan Leaf - a 40kwh battery, and a range of up to 168 miles.
Hence Cost per mile = 40*15/168 = 3.52p

I have taken the current petrol price as 128p per litre. Removing VAT this becomes 106.7p, and removing excise duty this becomes 48.7p
I have assumed a miles per litre as 13 (59 mpg). This gives a cost per mile of 3.75p

That result is much closer than I expected. And the 15p per kWh is a domestic rate - I don't know what rate is charged at a commercial fast charger.

So when we all change to Electric, and the government applies tax rates to equal what they currently receive for petrol sales, then Electric Cars are not going to be significantly cheaper to run than Petrol cars.

I would welcome anyone looking over my figures and reporting any boobs that I have made.


Return to “Beerpig's Snug”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests