O/T Frack me

[rolymiller]

Where did I say I got the info from a newspaper? There are plenty of scientific books about it.

[ragingpup]

So you just read a newspaper and take it all as absolute fact?

That's not very smart is it?

Fair point GF. But it is reliably reported that 97% of climate experts (https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...-consensus.htm) agree that human activity is causing global warming.

Where do you get your counter evidence that there is no effect on global warming by human activities?

[ragingpup]

For any of us that accept that there may well be a serious problem with global warming, and that we should try and do something about it, but not sure what, this article is quite straightforward with simple practical ideas, some discussed in good depth above in this thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nels?CMP=fb_gu

[great_fire]

Where did I say I got the info from a newspaper? There are plenty of scientific books about it.

Scientists whose jobs depend on us believing climate change is man-made when it almost certainly isn't.

How did men create those ice ages we went through exactly?

[millmoormagic]

Scientists whose jobs depend on us believing climate change is man-made when it almost certainly isn't.

How did men create those ice ages we went through exactly?

Wow, just how folk can be so blinkered and ignorant is beyond me considering the overwhelming evidence suggesting they're wrong...

[John2]

Scientists whose jobs depend on us believing climate change is man-made when it almost certainly isn't.

How did men create those ice ages we went through exactly?

This is such a primitive argument and highlights how little you understand what you're talking about.

Climate change has been a regular occurrence throughout the earth's history, however historically it has taken millennia.

What we are seeing now is unprecedented, changes that historically took many thousands of years are happening in 100, the rate of change has huge implications.

Those people who have children or grandchildren and actively don't care about global warming despite overwhelming evidence it is occurring are going to be remembered by their future generations with contempt. Social attitudes are powerful things which are strongly shaped with the passage of time.

Unlike old people unintentionally using out of date language without meaning to offend (forgivable), being fully aware of but ignoring the overwhelming evidence of what is happening to our planet is really rather appalling and unforgivable. What a vile mentality towards future generations who have to live through the consequences.

What a horrific legacy, yet such bizarre pride in ignorance and not caring. What have you got to lose by listening to scientists (who can't just make things up to keep their job... they provide overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence)? Why don't you care at all about future generations?

[KerrAvon]

John, I suspect I will be called out for pedantic, but I have to point out the terminology error in your post. When you are talking about the average household electricity consumption you mean kWh not kW. To say otherwise is akin to saying that the distance from Bristol to Rotherham is 70mph.

The calculation that you have made concerning the amount of solar panelling you need to meet the energy consumption of your average house is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. Firstly a 1kW panel might well yield 700 to 900kW per year, but it won’t do that at a constant rate through the year. In Rotherham in June, daylength peaks at about 17 hours whilst in December it will reach around 6 hours and 10 minutes. That is bad enough, but then you get onto the second reason, which is that the demand for electricity is at its lowest in June and peaks in the winter. That means that you are going to need an awful lot more panelling than you calculate to meet winter demand or you ae going to have a lot of non-renewable capacity doing nothing during the summer. That is the point that I am making – solar is useful, but is not a solution, because it is good at producing energy when it is not needed.

A third problem with your calculation is that you assume that it is possible to utilise 100% of the electricity produced by your panel. You can’t – there are conversion losses, a symptom of which is that inverters get warm.

Everybody is pursuing the better battery at the moment, but physics limits what can be achieved. That’s why electric cars are barely a practical proposition for anyone doing more than a local commute - the fact is that diesel or petrol carries more energy per kg than any battery – and the batteries still weigh the same even when they have been discharged.

As for battery power – I haven’t dug out your skiing posts, but if memory serves me correctly – you went late season? I would be interested to hear how you get on if you travel in January. In addition, I am not sure whether you were parked at resort level or in a valley. If you were at resort level, you would probably be at around 6000 feet above sea level – where sunlight is far more energetic than a couple of hundred feet above sea level, which would be typical in the UK. I would be surprise if you don’t wear sun lotion when skiing – I certainly have to.

If you do go in January, be very careful about how low you run your batteries. You will be aware that completely running them down shortens their already limited life span.

Don’t get me wrong – I think solar has its place, but it is not the panacea that it is (mis)sold to be. The Green Party largely reject a battery based solution to the uneven output issue and go for using electricity to produce hydrogen when the sun is shining or storing the energy as heat. I don’t know if either is a practical proposition , but I suspect both make more sense than a large battery approach.

To get back to the OP, I too am not convinced that there is an unacceptable risk associated with fracking. If - as even the Green Party accept - there has to be a reliable back up for when renewables don’t deliver then gas is the only real option. Wouldn’t we be better off producing it locally and, perhaps, coupling it with carbon capture technology rather than shipping it from Qatar?

[great_fire]

You lot really would believe anything.

The people in power would love everyone to be such unquestioning dupes.

It's a money-making scam/ globalist power grab.

[millmoormagic]

You lot really would believe anything.

The people in power would love everyone to be such unquestioning dupes.

It's a money-making scam/ globalist power grab.

You really do need help....

[millmoormagic]

John, I suspect I will be called out for pedantic, but I have to point out the terminology error in your post. When you are talking about the average household electricity consumption you mean kWh not kW. To say otherwise is akin to saying that the distance from Bristol to Rotherham is 70mph.

The calculation that you have made concerning the amount of solar panelling you need to meet the energy consumption of your average house is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. Firstly a 1kW panel might well yield 700 to 900kW per year, but it won’t do that at a constant rate through the year. In Rotherham in June, daylength peaks at about 17 hours whilst in December it will reach around 6 hours and 10 minutes. That is bad enough, but then you get onto the second reason, which is that the demand for electricity is at its lowest in June and peaks in the winter. That means that you are going to need an awful lot more panelling than you calculate to meet winter demand or you ae going to have a lot of non-renewable capacity doing nothing during the summer. That is the point that I am making – solar is useful, but is not a solution, because it is good at producing energy when it is not needed.

A third problem with your calculation is that you assume that it is possible to utilise 100% of the electricity produced by your panel. You can’t – there are conversion losses, a symptom of which is that inverters get warm.

Everybody is pursuing the better battery at the moment, but physics limits what can be achieved. That’s why electric cars are barely a practical proposition for anyone doing more than a local commute - the fact is that diesel or petrol carries more energy per kg than any battery – and the batteries still weigh the same even when they have been discharged.

As for battery power – I haven’t dug out your skiing posts, but if memory serves me correctly – you went late season? I would be interested to hear how you get on if you travel in January. In addition, I am not sure whether you were parked at resort level or in a valley. If you were at resort level, you would probably be at around 6000 feet above sea level – where sunlight is far more energetic than a couple of hundred feet above sea level, which would be typical in the UK. I would be surprise if you don’t wear sun lotion when skiing – I certainly have to.

If you do go in January, be very careful about how low you run your batteries. You will be aware that completely running them down shortens their already limited life span.

Don’t get me wrong – I think solar has its place, but it is not the panacea that it is (mis)sold to be. The Green Party largely reject a battery based solution to the uneven output issue and go for using electricity to produce hydrogen when the sun is shining or storing the energy as heat. I don’t know if either is a practical proposition , but I suspect both make more sense than a large battery approach.

To get back to the OP, I too am not convinced that there is an unacceptable risk associated with fracking. If - as even the Green Party accept - there has to be a reliable back up for when renewables don’t deliver then gas is the only real option. Wouldn’t we be better off producing it locally and, perhaps, coupling it with carbon capture technology rather than shipping it from Qatar?

Waffle waffle waffle waffle, spent ages writing that waffle mate didn't yer, please stop trying to be better than everyone and just post what you think...