26 replies to this topic

[stevewinn]

freetoroam, on 14 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

I agree, but who knows what will be the best solution, with a population on our wee biddy island already reaching 70 million (that figure includes some our government do not know about} I can only see our biggest problem is not on how we can keep ourselves warm, especially in a climate which is going to get hotter, but on how we are going to be able to feed everyone when our countryside is being built on left right and centre to house everyone.
But so far, i see nuclear is the best.

The problem is every economy works on population growth the two are linked. as for feeding ourselves the UK as the ability to feed the nation, obviously the luxury items would still need importing. but maybe the price of food is to cheap. an example can be seen in the western world, we are seeing in greater and greater numbers  people becoming overweight especially being classed as obese we are indulging far to much. eating to excess. as for homes, there are plenty of 'brown' sites that could be built on but these sites which have remained derelict for years are generally in a area people dont want to live. i think we see the old style of building upwards, flats/apartments.

freetoroam, on 14 November 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

ps: did you enjoy your cup final draw with Chelsea on Sunday?

Before the game i thought we'd struggle, but you have to give credit were credit is due, we hung in there and got a good result, from being one-nil down we changed it, took off Sahin and brought on a up and coming star in Suso and the game changed so much so i felt disappointed with the draw, yet before the game i'd have taken a draw. its a shame that right near the end Suarez didnt take it past Cech for the win.

What a player Luis Suarez is, world class. just imagine he was originally bought to play along side Torres. as for Torres i feel he himself knows he made a mistake leaving liverpool and for Chelsea. you can tell. - he only looks half the player he was for us. i'd welcome him back to Anfield. we should put in a loan bid or even a money bid to bring him back in January.

[Br Cornelius]

Large areas of the UK have heavily erroded and degraded soils;

"Defra's chief scientist says safeguarding soil is 'critical' if food production is to increase in the UK in the next 20-30 years
More than 2m tonnes of topsoil from farms and forests is being eroded by wind and rain each year, jeopardising efforts to increase food production, the UK government said today.
The soil erosion is reducing the amount of food grown, increasing the risk of flooding and undermining efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
UK land has been steadily degraded by 200 years of intensive farming and industrial pollution, warned the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in a major study of soils. But it said the situation is not nearly as bad as in many Asian and African countries, where soil erosion due to overgrazing and poor farming practices is now seriously threatening food production."
http://www.guardian....l-farming-defra

I was shocked when I saw soil erosion taking place in Devon. I was walking down a country lane where a pig farming enterprise was underway and noticed little rivers of red sandy soil down the sides of the lane. I followed the lane down to the estuary and looked out to see a river of red water running out into the sea. Before this I imagined that soil erosion was a crisis only seen in the third world, but this changed my opinion on this. I subsequently did some research on the subject and found that something like half of the soils in the UK were subject to erosion to some degree. I also discovered that many soils were subject to nutrient leaching which mainly effected the micro-nutrients on which plants relied for healthy growth - and which are completely absent from commercial fertilizers.

Loss of agricultural productivity due to soil and water mismanagement is one of the most pressing (and unknown) problems facing man as a civilization and it is as significant here at home as anywhere in the world. If we were required to become self sufficent in agriculture, I am certain that we could do it in the short term, but it would inevitably lead to an accelleration of the already significant soil crisis.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 15 November 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[TheLastLazyGun]

I would rather we use nuclear power and things like oil and gas to provide our heat and electricity.

The global warming doomsayers keep telling us that we are running out of oil and other fossil fuels and, as a result, we have to use more "green" energy sources.

However,  there is much more oil and gas about than the Global Warmists think.

It has just emerged that the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as an oil producer by 2020.  Why?  Because the US is investing heavily in fracking and some new technologies to extract oil other than by conventional means.  These methods will allow oil to be extracted in ways that have never been possible before.  It will mean that from five years after 2020 the US will be the biggest producer of oil and will be almost SELF-RELIANT in oil.

So I think the British Government should start following in America's footsteps and make fracking for oil big in Britain, too.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 15 November 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[freetoroam]

Stevewinn,
The problem is every economy works on population growth the two are linked. as for feeding ourselves the UK as the ability to feed the nation, obviously the luxury items would still need importing. but maybe the price of food is to cheap. an example can be seen in the western world, we are seeing in greater and greater numbers  people becoming overweight especially being classed as obese we are indulging far to much. eating to excess. as for homes, there are plenty of 'brown' sites that could be built on but these sites which have remained derelict for years are generally in a area people dont want to live. i think we see the old style of building upwards, flats/apartments.
===============================================================
Luxery items? that will depend on taste. I thrive on coffee, thats my luxery item which needs to be imported, but could easily live off the land.
I agree with the building up bit, but that will not slow down the excess breeding happening here. Unlike China, we do not have the space or money to rely on imports to feed the millions in the future if we can not export ourselves to hold up our economy.
Building more is not going to help our aggricultural land and we do not have that much really to feed the ever growing population.
We can not rely on imports alone.

ps: not everyone wants to live in a skyrise flat.

[Br Cornelius]

TheLastLazyGun, on 15 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

I would rather we use nuclear power and things like oil and gas to provide our heat and electricity.

The global warming doomsayers keep telling us that we are running out of oil and other fossil fuels and, as a result, we have to use more "green" energy sources.

However,  there is much more oil and gas about than the Global Warmists think.

It has just emerged that the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as an oil producer by 2020.  Why?  Because the US is investing heavily in fracking and some new technologies to extract oil other than by conventional means.  These methods will allow oil to be extracted in ways that have never been possible before.  It will mean that from five years after 2020 the US will be the biggest producer of oil and will be almost SELF-RELIANT in oil.

So I think the British Government should start following in America's footsteps and make fracking for oil big in Britain, too.

Peak Oil doesn't say we are running at of oil at the moment - that is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation. Peak oil says we have passed a bell curve profile of production. That means that we still have over 50% of all the oil/gas left in the ground. So we have used just half.

The problem is that we have extracted all of the easy high quality oil and gas and so each new field that we put into production is increasingly more expensive. Fracking is a perfect example. It takes dozens if not hundreds of wells to produce the same amount of gas as a conventional field - which means that the gas is massively more expensive than conventional gas, The situation with oil is even worse since we have now fallen to the depths of having to consider tar sand. it takes nearly as much energy to extract oil from Tar Sands as you actually get out which means it is massively more expensive than Saudi Oil (thats not even mentioning the horrendous environmental damage it causes).

The issue here is that everything in our society is built on cheap oil and the continued supply of cheap oil. What happens when oil quadruples in price as it has recently - large sections of society stops working and we are plunged into recessions. This has always happened when oil shocks have occured - 2-3yrs later we are in deep recession. So in an expensive oil/gas future we can expect the world economy to slump to a state of perminent recession.

None of that even touches on the economic costs associated with climate change which is an inevitable consequence of business as usual.

I really don't think you know the first thing about what you are proposing.

Br Cornelius

[TheLastLazyGun]

Br Cornelius, on 15 November 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Peak Oil doesn't say we are running at of oil at the moment - that is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation. Peak oil says we have passed a bell curve profile of production. That means that we still have over 50% of all the oil/gas left in the ground. So we have used just half.

People have been telling us we only have "25 to 30 years of oil left" for the last 40 years, and they are still saying it.

Quote

The problem is that we have extracted all of the easy high quality oil and gas and so each new field that we put into production is increasingly more expensive. Fracking is a perfect example. It takes dozens if not hundreds of wells to produce the same amount of gas as a conventional field - which means that the gas is massively more expensive than conventional gas,

I disagree.  Gas obtained from fracking is cheaper.

Quote

I really don't think you know the first thing about what you are proposing.

Well, the United States doesn't seem to have too great a problem with it.

[Br Cornelius]

TheLastLazyGun, on 15 November 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

People have been telling us we only have "25 to 30 years of oil left" for the last 40 years, and they are still saying it.



I disagree.  Gas obtained from fracking is cheaper.




Well, the United States doesn't seem to have too great a problem with it.

The people who predicted the peak in American conventional production in the 1970's (which happened right on prediction - despite the bleating of people like you) are also the same experts who have predicted global peak oil production. No amount of Fracked wells and Tar sands is going to keep the pumps flowing at the rate they have been up to now. This is all in a world where 50% of the oil/gas is still waiting for extraction.

Its the economics of the situation which is the problem - causing global fuel poverty. There are substantial portions of the Irish and British population who have oil central heating who are now classed as been in fuel poverty and cannot afford to adequately heat their homes.

If you were correct (which you most certainly are not), then Fracking and Tar Sands would not be cost effective. They are only cost effective because the cheap oil is gone and we are stuck with a €100.00 a barrel oil.

Can you explain how a single well costs as much as 25 wells - remember also that most fracked wells need to be re-fracked at regular intervals to maintain any sort of production. Each Frack costs about a million to perform. The whole thing has been expanded as a grand investment ponzy scheme. Once the investors stopped flooding in the ponzy has collapsed. The largest fracking company has gone into administration because its costs of drilling exceed its gas revenues.

Wishful thinking will not change a single one of those economic facts.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Ultimately the point of all this is that countries like Germany and Iceland can see the writing on the wall for the fossil fuel industry. They have made the hard and nationally expensive decision to divest of Nuclear and fossil fuel dependency whilst they have the wealth and resources to make the change. This will hurt their economy in the short term, but ultimately when fuel prices become impossible to afford to carry on doing heavy industry and manufacturing - they will have cheap and stable energy supplies which are not dependent on unstable suppliers.

Countries like Britain have decided that they can not afford to make that hard strategic choice and so have pushed it out into the future. When fuel becomes unaffordable they will not be able to muster the industry or resources to divest from their dependency on expensive foreign fuel imports and the economy will become grossly uncompetitive with Germany.

The inability to mobilize the British economy to achieve a grand strategic objective will ultimately be her undoing, and that really represents the story of the difference between Germany and Britain in the post war period.

And to rely on Nuclear as the saviour guarantees three things;
- unlimited and uncalculated future liabilities which will be socialized onto the state (thats you)
- replacement of one limited energy resource by another limited energy resource - yes Plutonium has its own peak supply problem which can only get worse as more countries pile into the game
- a massive energy crisis in the medium term as the new nuclear fails to come on line before oil becomes unaffordable

Of course there is also the statistical certainty that at some point a significant nuclear accident makes a sizable portion of the motherland look like Japan. Nuclear accidents can be planned for and all best measures put in place to avoid - but ultimately they will still happen.

I wish we all had the foresight of countries like Germany and Iceland.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Br Cornelius, on 16 November 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Ultimately the point of all this is that countries like Germany and Iceland can see the writing on the wall for the fossil fuel industry. They have made the hard and nationally expensive decision to divest of Nuclear and fossil fuel dependency whilst they have the wealth and resources to make the change. This will hurt their economy in the short term, but ultimately when fuel prices become impossible to afford to carry on doing heavy industry and manufacturing - they will have cheap and stable energy supplies which are not dependent on unstable suppliers.

Countries like Britain have decided that they can not afford to make that hard strategic choice and so have pushed it out into the future. When fuel becomes unaffordable they will not be able to muster the industry or resources to divest from their dependency on expensive foreign fuel imports and the economy will become grossly uncompetitive with Germany.

The inability to mobilize the British economy to achieve a grand strategic objective will ultimately be her undoing, and that really represents the story of the difference between Germany and Britain in the post war period.

And to rely on Nuclear as the saviour guarantees three things;
- unlimited and uncalculated future liabilities which will be socialized onto the state (thats you)
- replacement of one limited energy resource by another limited energy resource - yes Plutonium has its own peak supply problem which can only get worse as more countries pile into the game
- a massive energy crisis in the medium term as the new nuclear fails to come on line before oil becomes unaffordable

Of course there is also the statistical certainty that at some point a significant nuclear accident makes a sizable portion of the motherland look like Japan. Nuclear accidents can be planned for and all best measures put in place to avoid - but ultimately they will still happen.

I wish we all had the foresight of countries like Germany and Iceland.

Br Cornelius

I read your post went away done a bit of reading on this, and i have to highlight the errors in the above, Its correct Germany is to close its nuclear plants. but when it does the use of coal will double. 65% of Germany's power will come from coal fired power stations. they are using the cheap coal mined from open cast mines. and importing more coal threatening C02 emissions. which is terrible news for someone like yourself whose concerned with such.

so when you said 'quote 'I wish we all had the foresight of countries like Germany and Iceland'. - question is Do you really wish others were like Germany. i think not.

German coal power revival poses new emissions threat
Is Germany's Green Revolution about to turn black with coal dust?
As the country moves away from nuclear, the builders of coal-fired power stations are moving into action.
When Chancellor Merkel announced the closure of all the country's 17 nuclear reactors by 2022, there were loud cheers from environmentalists Germany energy minister is allowing the building of more coal-fired power stations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-19168574

German surface mines expanding
A year on from the German chancellor's historic decision to renounce nuclear power within 10 years, one of the big winners so far is coal.
One of Germany's biggest power companies is now producing 12% more electricity from coal than in 2011.
It comes as old, traditional mines are closing, while surface mines are expanding

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-20383177

Germany To use imported Energy from France and Czech Republic which is generated by nuclear stations,

So seeing how you was quick to praise Germany versus Great Britain, the Germans being forward thinking moving away from fossil/nuclear fuels is false notion. the truth is Germany wants reliable energy something which you need for manufacturing something else you need is cheap energy for the same reasons. something i pointed out in another thread but was dismissed as folly.

[Br Cornelius]

stevewinn, on 18 November 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

I read your post went away done a bit of reading on this, and i have to highlight the errors in the above, Its correct Germany is to close its nuclear plants. but when it does the use of coal will double. 65% of Germany's power will come from coal fired power stations. they are using the cheap coal mined from open cast mines. and importing more coal threatening C02 emissions. which is terrible news for someone like yourself whose concerned with such.

so when you said 'quote 'I wish we all had the foresight of countries like Germany and Iceland'. - question is Do you really wish others were like Germany. i think not.

German coal power revival poses new emissions threat
Is Germany's Green Revolution about to turn black with coal dust?
As the country moves away from nuclear, the builders of coal-fired power stations are moving into action.
When Chancellor Merkel announced the closure of all the country's 17 nuclear reactors by 2022, there were loud cheers from environmentalists Germany energy minister is allowing the building of more coal-fired power stations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-19168574

German surface mines expanding
A year on from the German chancellor's historic decision to renounce nuclear power within 10 years, one of the big winners so far is coal.
One of Germany's biggest power companies is now producing 12% more electricity from coal than in 2011.
It comes as old, traditional mines are closing, while surface mines are expanding

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-20383177

Germany To use imported Energy from France and Czech Republic which is generated by nuclear stations,

So seeing how you was quick to praise Germany versus Great Britain, the Germans being forward thinking moving away from fossil/nuclear fuels is false notion. the truth is Germany wants reliable energy something which you need for manufacturing something else you need is cheap energy for the same reasons. something i pointed out in another thread but was dismissed as folly.

They are upping coal in the short term - an unfortunate consequence admittedly, but still part of an overall strategic plan to move into sustainable energy into the medium to long term. The same cannot be said of Britain who's only strategy it seems is to build more nuclear and more coal.

http://www.guardian....ergy-revolution

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 November 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Still Waters, on 12 November 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

The geothermal energy would be piped to Britain through the world's longest seabed power cable but would be no more expensive than the next generation of nuclear energy.

The man overseeing the project, Hörður Arnarson, the head of Iceland's state-owned power producer Landsvirkjun, said that it could be completed by 2020.

He told the Times: "This is a technically challenging project, there's no doubt, but there is no doubt in our mind that it is doable."

http://www.telegraph...tish-homes.html

Do we really need another area of our economy dependant on other nations?

Lets build some more nuclear power plants instead otherwise should the French or Germans come we wont just be starving. We wont have electricity either.

[stevewinn]

Br Cornelius, on 18 November 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

They are upping coal in the short term - an unfortunate consequence admittedly, but still part of an overall strategic plan to move into sustainable energy into the medium to long term. The same cannot be said of Britain who's only strategy it seems is to build more nuclear and more coal.

http://www.guardian....ergy-revolution

Br Cornelius

it all depends on what you consider sort term, according to the German minister on the BBC last night states 26 six new coal fired power stations will be built, each with a 50 year life span. he admitted the cost of renewable is to great. and unreliable due to the fluctuations, What is happening - Germany has tried the renewable option and come to the conclusion its unsustainable and so now turning to the tried and trusted method of fossil fuels. so like i've outlined which is up todate news. Germany is to burn more coal, releasing more C02 - the shutting down of nuclear is laughable when your still importing energy from the french and Czech nuclear plants. at the end of the day in your haste thinking Germany was going totally renewable was a misjudgment on your behalf. truth is Germany isnt going green anytime soon infact their taking steps backwards, they've seen their economy shrink so are taking the same road as the Chinese building new coal stations in a bid to help their economy. they've put renewable on the back burner for now.