SteamyTea

This is about where we are with global emissions. If you think shipping and flying is a problem, don't look at road transport.

Too right. We are still stuck on The Club Of Rome report from over 50 years ago. it was rubbished then, and should, along with Silent Spring be burned. I will keep Fahrenheit 451 though.

There is a problem if you rapidly replace homes, cars and consumer goods. Called 'the carbon burp'. If you put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere in a short time, then you get more rapid warming. And you are still left with most of the CO2 in the atmosphere for a number of decades. Wen it comes to improved housing, it is up to industry to think up ways to make thermal improvements via renovation (which may be major and involve the occupants moving out). It is another issue if grants and tax reliefs should be available for this, or just charge more for energy in the first place. My personal experience is that it is not hard, and certainly not expensive, to halve energy usage via better management. My biggest energy saving 'device, now costs half what it did 20 years ago, and I use it most days. It is a washing line from Poundland, for a £1.

Does not have to be low energy, energy is not the enermy. Fatih Birol interview: Using energy isn’t evil – creating emissions is People think using more energy is a bad thing, says International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol – but as long as we can make it cleanly, it needn’t be ENVIRONMENT 4 August 2021 By Adam Vaughan Adam Vaughan: How do we need to change the world’s energy systems to reach net-zero emissions by 2050? Fatih Birol: Between now and 2030, we have to make the most of the existing clean energy technologies: solar, wind, electric cars, energy efficiency. But this alone is not enough. To use renewables at a maximum level, in an economically efficient way, requires more than having solar photovoltaic panels and windmills. We need strong and distributed grids and storage – in batteries, hydrogen and hydropower. I think there is not enough attention on the second part. It is a major handicap of our push for renewable energies. Energy special How we can transform our energy system to achieve net-zero emissions How to understand world energy use – in 10 graphs How the fossil fuel era ends – and four possibilities for what follows Some 50 per cent of the reductions to reach net zero in 2050 will need to come from technologies not on the market today. We have a very short period to innovate those technologies, such as hydrogen, batteries and carbon capture, utilisation and storage. We will also need clean-energy technologies in the industrial sector, from cement to steel. [Use of] unabated coal, oil and gas will need to be extremely minimal. This is a major point. A total transformation of the energy system is needed, a Herculean task. How far off-track are we? We are not only off-track, the gap is widening and widening. With the rebound of the [global] economy, we expect an increase of about 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions this year, which would be the second largest increase in history. Most [emissions reduction] pledges are lacking what specific energy policies will be put in place, and how those policies will be financed. It will be much more difficult and much more costly if we do not start to abate emissions as soon as possible. For me, the biggest challenge is coal in Asia. China, India and Indonesia are altogether almost 45 per cent of the global population, and more than 60 per cent of their electricity comes from coal. How to retire those coal plants will be key. What progress has there been on ending coal? It’s going in the wrong direction. Even in the US, coal consumption is growing. Of course, this will change in the months and years to come. Germany, for example, has decided to phase out its coal plants by 2038. But the share of coal there is very small compared to those other countries where coal is a key source of employment. So the challenge is big. For me, coal, and the coal plants in Asia, are the nerve centre of the entire climate change debate. It is simple arithmetic. If we’re still burning coal, our chances to reach our climate goals will be more and more difficult, if at all attainable. What did you think of the promises made at US President Joe Biden’s climate summit earlier in the year? I have mixed feelings. I am very happy that some of the largest economies of the world, such as the US, China, Japan and Canada, came up with ambitious targets, and many governments around the world gave support to the fight against climate change. But I see the rhetoric and data are going in two different directions. I would very much like to see a detailed plan, especially between now and 2030, of how they are going to employ energy policies to reach targets and make those pledges credible. How realistic is the promise by China’s president, Xi Jinping, to see coal use there peak by 2025? It is one of the most important statements from the Biden summit, and I find it very encouraging. When I look at the challenges China has faced and has overcome on energy, I hope it can give the world a good outcome. Seven out of 10 solar panels are financed or manufactured by Chinese companies. China is number one in wind and hydropower. I hope, once again, China can achieve the target President Xi has highlighted. What role do you see oil companies playing as the energy sector decarbonises? No oil company will be unaffected by the energy transition, whether they are part of it, against it or neutral. In 2019, when we looked at international oil companies’ investments, the share of clean energy was about 1 per cent. As of today, this share has increased significantly, to about 5 per cent. This is a strong increase, but still far from enough to help the clean energy transition. The IEA forecasts the world will use about 97 million barrels of oil per day in 2021. What does reducing that number mean for big oil-producing nations? There are huge implications for countries who depend on oil and gas revenues. The amount of oil the world will need may go down to 24 million barrels of oil per day [by 2050]. The price of oil will go down substantially as well. The only way out for those countries is to diversify their economies as soon as possible. There has been a lot of hype about hydrogen as an alternative fuel in the past year. Is this hype cycle different to previous ones? I’ve been following the energy markets for many years. Whatever technologies are on the table, there are always people who like it and don’t like it. For the first time, I see a technology that everybody likes. South, north, producer, consumer – everyone loves hydrogen. What I would like to see is at least two things. One, clear strategies and financing secured for those strategies. And second, regulation. In both cases, there is a discrepancy between the hype on hydrogen and what is happening in real life. What are your hopes and messages for the COP26 climate summit this November? Energy is good, but emissions are bad. Energy is making our life better, more comfortable, more productive. If I had to choose two things [at COP26], one is credible energy policies to halve global emissions between now and 2030. The second is financing mechanisms put in place to accelerate the clean energy transitions in the emerging world. Why the distinction between energy and emissions? Do you worry fossil fuels are tarnishing the industry’s image? People think energy is a troublemaker. The emissions are the troublemaker. You can have a lot of energy, clean energy, which is good for all of us. Learn how to live a greener life Find out what sustainable living looks like with the latest New Scientist course academy.newscientist.com PROFILE Fatih Birol is executive director of the International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organisation formed to promote energy security after the oil crisis of 1973 to 1974, when an embargo by major oil-producing nations caused fuel shortages. In recent years, the IEA has increasingly focused on how the world’s energy systems can transition to meet international climate goals.

We can help there. Shall be boycott buying their food and products. The industries that we have exported. You can see who is good and bad here. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD?view=map

I was referring to coal only. That is why I quoted that part. (Exclamation marks should never be used, unlike question marks)

Putting a too small heating system in any home is pointless. Don't mix up the technology with the requirements. Not much coal generation left now. The rest will be phased out in the next few years. Replaced with off shore wind most probably, and possibly some nuclear, but that seems to be struggling.

Been looking, and struggling to find one. https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/

Many homeopaths may disagree with you here.

There has been nothing that surprised, or depressed, me in the latest report. I think there is so much going on behind the scenes that we forget that it can be done. Many developing areas are skipping the grid infrastructure phase and going for distributed RE generation. This is the best thing to do. We can cheaply and easily lift million, if not billions, out of fuel scarcity for very little cash, and certainly a lot less planning (remember we, in the UK cannot build the cheapest RE generation on our land). It is us old legacy industrialised countries that seem slow. The big question is what do we want to preserve, is it our existing lifestyles, cottages by the sea, Rangerovers and BMWs. Or do we want to help create a more equitable world. Sadly I think we voted to preserve what we think we deserve (in the UK). I could copy and past this weeks New Scientist, which is all about RE. OR YOU CAN GO OUT AND BUY A COPY.

Shopping trollies, cycles and beer bottles.

Border between Cornwall and everyone else.

Have you got evidence that this has happened, in the UK or globally?

Or report neighbours to the council.

Where, and are you certain.

Thank you. Thermodynamic is the pinnacle of it all. Just reading a book about quantum physics, it all goes back to thermodynamics, the Copenhagen interpretation has a lot to answer for.

Welcome. Are you a Red Dwarf fan my any chance?

Welcome. Sounds interesting what you are trying to achieve. Rather than look to 'the government ' for answers, try a physics book. Houses are very basic in reality, but they are messily constructed and are not designed to be modified after construction.

Like something out of The Blair Witch Project. At least the ASHP is quiet.

Considering they have been around for 80 years, I keep wonder why we don't use them more. Might be that the sodium ones have to sit at 100⁰C, and can catch fire. But they run at 300⁰C when discharging. That would be a higher temperature than the water combing out of a combi boiler, so must be 3 times better.

What does this actually mean?

Won't they just sell you the same tiles, just pretending they are new. We used to make tooling for concrete moulding. We specified a very complicated process for applying release agents, knowing that they would never be done on site. Still did not stop trucks driving over them and failure to remove retaining bolts. Made for an easy £1000 every time I had to go to site to point out it was the customer error.

That will be an acceleration then. A change in speed (scalar) or a change in direction is acceleration. Acceleration is either positive or negative, once direction is taken into account. Though it could be a momentum change if one rider gave a shove to another. One gains as the other looses. Energy cannot be created and momentum is always preserved in classical physics.

Energy is Half mass times velocity squared. Momentum is Mass times velocity. Force is Mass time acceleration. That should cover it as no need to worry about vectors.

Yes, by far the most cost effective way. Regarding the gym equipment, while they seem heavy, the static load is fairly low. The dynamic load is the problem.