Severn barrage

[Peter Burgess]

Perhaps I'll buy up some land in Greenland and flog it off in small plots after the ice has melted. Might be a good place to live in a few years time!

 

[whitelackington]

And GREEN too

 

[AndyF]

I belive that there is enough carbon burried in the Earth to last us centuries

Sadly though, the atmosphere won't last the same ammount of time....

We are putting 20 million tons of CO2 a DAY into the atmosphere, day-in, day-out. We are releasing 40 million years worth of CO2 trapping into the atmosphere over a period of a hundred years or so.

It's 33 Celcius outside my office today. It's the hottest July day on record....

Unrelated??  :-\

 

[paul]

As Andy says - the problem isn't about fossil fuel running out - it's about the consequences of burning all that fosil fuel.

I'm sure the fact that there was plenty of fuel left on the Titanic was of little consolation to the Crew and Passengers as it sunk below the waves...

 

[hoehlenforscher]

i was going to say the same as Andy but am afraid it would have taken me forever to get my point across. So thanks Andy, an important point well made.

 

[Dep]

A point I made early on in this thread which I probably put badly...

An idea that is gaining ground is the idea of turbines in the water, like wind-turbines in principle but below the surface. Their effects are highly localised, no effect on natural water level, produce lots of power, can be built one at a time or many, added to over time. Lots of benefits and very few disadvantages, probably the best way to harness tidal power without using dams.

IIRC a single gramme of matter converted to energy with 100% efficiency every second is all it takes to supply the current World energy requirement - think on that the next time your government puts (or doesn't!) money into nuclear research, especially in fusion.

 

[AndyF]

It's difficult to see fusion as a way forward, the temperatures invloved are just so high that no sensible containment is possible.

Scientists still encourage research on it because it keeps them interested and in a job.

The real solutions are much simpler, spend the multi-million pound research budget on insulation, double glazing, ban manufacture of cars above 80BHP, fit speed limiters to all cars of 70MPH. Zero rate VAT on energy efficient bulbs. Slap 50% tax on non-efficient ones. Make "Stand by" modes on consumer goods illegal.... etc etc.

Problem is governments won't do it because of consumer backlash, and therein lies the real problem. Your average consumer doens't actually give a to55 as long as he can drive his kids to school in a 4x4 and buy a tropical hardwood patio set from B&Q, and in that attitude lies the destruction of the planet. They actually do think that "science will come up with something"

 

[gus horsley]

I would guess that the vast majority of people couldn't give a monkeys about climate change because, even though we're experiencing the early effects of it now, the human race specialises in denial (particularly in the USA).  I think it might take a series of catastrophes to finally give politicians the will to impose some changes in our society, and those catastrophes will have to be close to home, rather than in some country in Africa. 

What this has to do with the Severn Barrage is beyond me, but there you go.

 

[tubby two]

What this has to do with the Severn Barrage is beyond me, but there you go.

There is a link, apparently, between the severn barrage and the human races speciality in denial. I think there was even a thread about it somewhere... lets see if i can find the topic...

:-\

tt.

 

[Dep]

It's difficult to see fusion as a way forward, the temperatures invloved are just so high that no sensible containment is possible.

Scientists still encourage research on it because it keeps them interested and in a job.

The real solutions are much simpler, spend the multi-million pound research budget on insulation, double glazing, ban manufacture of cars above 80BHP, fit speed limiters to all cars of 70MPH. Zero rate VAT on energy efficient bulbs. Slap 50% tax on non-efficient ones. Make "Stand by" modes on consumer goods illegal.... etc etc.

Problem is governments won't do it because of consumer backlash, and therein lies the real problem. Your average consumer doens't actually give a to55 as long as he can drive his kids to school in a 4x4 and buy a tropical hardwood patio set from B&Q, and in that attitude lies the destruction of the planet. They actually do think that "science will come up with something"

The high tempertaure containment issue is not unsolvable - this is what current and near future experiments are about.
Whilst I agree in part about getting governments to push efficient energy usage it does not solve the problem, a source of energy is still required - a simple stark choice:

Fossil fuel - finite resource + global warming
Fission - costly + can be messy
Fusion - too hard!
Tidal/geothermal/hydroelectric - environmental issues

Proof only that we cannot have our cake and eat it.

Ultimately I believe the problem will sort itself out.
The human population has boomed in the last century - we haven't experienced the bust yet, but it will come when resource competition or shortages start to become significant enough for warfare.

It should also be noted that energy shortage is not a human problem but a 'western or first world' problem.
To less technical societies there are still limitless resources out there that will last for millenia, only us in the western/industrialised world are greedy enough to want everything now!

 

[cap n chris]

The boom and bust of the human population has been written about widely and basically goes like this:

Human beings are the only creature which metabolises energy outside its body which enables us to lead productive/pointless busy lives - since the discovery and exploitation of oil this has meant a world population increase from 500million to 6000million (12 fold) which is due to increase to 10000million by 2050.

In 2009 peak oil production will have been reached and it's all downhill from there.

Dwindling resources (oil) will go to the highest bidder(s).

Famines will be the first obvious effect (they already are BTW), with estimates that half the world's population will have starved to death by 2050 with further billions to follow until the level returns closer to its pre-oil quantity.

Russia (gas reserves) and China (3 gorges project) will be energy rich and able to charge whatever the market will stand for their products.

US housing in rural areas is already being hit by rising fuel costs; similar will occur in Europe/UK (second homes) with a commensurate knock on house values (which will impact on surety/collateral for loans); everything's in place for an unpleasant economic situation. The FT described the UK £1,000,000million indebtedness last week as bringing our economy to the edge of "meltdown". Hmm....

Have a nice day. 

 

[graham]

US housing in rural areas is already being hit by rising fuel costs; similar will occur in Europe/UK (second homes) with a commensurate knock on house values (which will impact on surety/collateral for loans); everything's in place for an unpleasant economic situation. The FT described the UK £1,000,000million indebtedness last week as bringing our economy to the edge of "meltdown". Hmm....

The housing "market" is in an amazingly unstable situation. One site I read yesterday had calculated that, had the government introduced the full HIPS package as planned next year - before it was watered down this week - that this could have knocked a trillion quid off the "value" of UK housing stock.

Amazing eh?

 

[AndyF]

It is possible that we have already passed "Peak oil", and it may have occured in 2004...

Most models have a bit of a jagged top around this time, so there may be blips of higher production, and it is arguable that the peak was a bit early due to Iraq loss of production and Hurricane Katrina. Nonetheless it's close...

It is predicted that this year, for the first time since 1974, net car-miles in the UK will decrease as people actually begin to try to minimze travel.

So maybe the Iraq war is a good thing for the environment  :-\

 

[whitelackington]

This may seem simplistic but I am sure population control, ie not have too many children is the only long term answer.
Now in Europe and Russia we have achieved that, natural poulation levels are not rising.
Recently it was annonced that 85% of U.K. population increase was by  wait for it   
Immigration.
That 85% does not include the increase by children of none U.K. born people,
probably does not include illegal immigration which could be more than half a million last year---no one knows or it seems cares.

No being selfish, I think this thread has pointed out that humans are selfish
If we had the willpower to absalutely stop any immagration into this country  no matter that the goverment tells us they are necessary for the economy
we would at least stabilize the population at its present level.

It is obvious, if you have more people, ypu will need more of everything including water and power.

 

[graham]

Would that it were that simple. This country has an aging population. That being the case, the country would become economically unviable if it were not for immigration (including legal and illegal) of younger economically active people.

I agree that the population needs to be stabilised, but that cannot simply be done by stopping people coming in, it needs to be stabilised throughout the demographic.

If not, it becomes a bit like the caving population: getting older and just talking about it instead of doing it.

 

[cap n chris]

Doing what?

Caving, talking about it, or having children?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Immigration, emigration, all relate to the population of one country. The problem lies surely with the population of the whole world. No-one is migrating here from another planet (with a few exceptions, active on this forum). Stopping people coming to the UK is not a global solution. Do we not need a global solution, applied at a local level? Preventing immigration/emigration might only stop the problem coming to our doorstep. I fear that the only way world population will drop to a sustainable level is by the natural process of death, on a very widespread scale, through starvation, primarily. Other species are dying out. What makes us think that homo sapiens will be any different in the future? Other species die out from lack of resources (habitat, broken food chains, etc). Something as humble as the bumble bee disappearing may create a serious problem, as our food crops fail due to lack of pollenation. As we rely increasingly on other countries for our food supply, we shouldn't be surprised when one of them finds that it would rather feed its own people than sell it's crops to us.

 

[whitelackington]

I largely agreee.
Of course it is the ever increasing World population that is the main trouble.
Why is it not more discussed by World leaders.
They just had The G8 yacking in Petersburg, I haven't heard anything imprtant that came out of it.
Is that because they are keeping it a secret.
Several countries have attempted to control their populations and some have succeded.
China managed to pin theirs at just over a billion.
Whoever, probablly no other country is economically expanding faster.

Next some will say, "They need more people to sustain the economy"

Can we not see, that herein lies the road to ruin.

:idea:

 

[AndyF]

Would that it were that simple. This country has an aging population. That being the case, the country would become economically unviable if it were not for immigration (including legal and illegal) of younger economically active people.

I agree that the population needs to be stabilised, but that cannot simply be done by stopping people coming in, it needs to be stabilised throughout the demographic.

The govenment have done an excellent job of spin on the immigration issue. Being totally unable to control it, they have now tried to present it as a vitrue economically. They have said it so many times that people (eg here!) are starting to repeat it.

Here are the facts. We have 1,000,000 people unemployed. We have 600,000 job vacancies. Therefore, need for immigration to fill jobs is zero. We need to match/train the people already here first, before 'needing' a single person from abroad.

Secondly, as fewer people are available for work, wages go up. Tax goes up to match. The tax going up offsets the need to fund pensions etc. A balance is acheived naturally. Again this blows the "'need' for cheap labour arguement away.

I'd like to see an immigration policy in the UK similar to the USA. It's simple: arrive without documents, you are on the next plane home, at the expense of the carrier who brought you. Thats it. It works for the USA and no-one has a go at them.

I don't want to sound like some mad right winger ( i'm not), and this is a sensitive subject, but the we are a small island, and we are "full".

 

[graham]

Again, would that it were that simple. Two quick points as this veering further off topic:

There are many jobs in this country that "we" do not have either the skills or the desire to fill.

The US may turn people back at airports, but that doesn't matter given that their land border with Mexico leaks like a sieve. There is a wide debate in the US at the moment as to how to move forward on this issue and maybe this will surprise you but

The Senate passed a bill that combines tougher enforcement rules and border security with a guest worker program and a plan to give many of the more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the country a path to U.S. citizenship.

Washington Post