help us by a power station !!

[Phil Pascoe]

It's much worse than either - it's an ideological commitment to doing nothing, or as little as possible based on a crackpot ideology of "free markets" ultimately serving everybodies needs; a.k.a. "neoliberalism".

I don't think it's so much an idealogical commitment to do nothing. Every opposition Party is honour bound to gainsay every government decision no matter how sensible and good and every government has to kick the can of major expenses further down the road.

“We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”

― Jean-Claude Juncker

 

[Spectric]

I just wish people in many contries including both Britain and Finland would stop throwing horse manure at one another and start building a new functional system instead.

A lot of the problem is as we say " lets not rock the boat " , ok so Borris has got that one very wrong but the people who are now licking his rear and supporting him most certainly are trying because they know there job is on the line if he falls. The problem with politics is politicians, they all seem to come out of the same moulds and have very similar traits such as saying one thing but meaning something else, never answering a question directly and having some measure of self importance. It has now become a farce, who can really take anything coming out of westminster seriously and we all know the current system is broken, it is more akin to a historical play with too many court jesters. Another issue that is prevalent is the attitude of I am all right jack, sod the rest of you which seems to be happening when it comes to global warming, they look at a problem and realise that no major impact should occur during their lifetime so just pay it lip service, this is why we need younger people involved in politics and government decisions because they are going to be the ones most affected.

 

[Jacob]

I don't think it's so much an idealogical commitment to do nothing.

It has been the basis of "Conservatism" from a long way back. "The Salisbury Group was set up set up in 1976, dedicated to the political vision of the Third Marquess of Salisbury who had famously declared that good government consisted in doing as little as possible."
This was taken up and run with by a new army of neo-liberals, talking of non intervention, de-regulation, bonfire of the red tape, free market economics. "Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."
They turned it into an ideology, over and above the familiar inertia of trad conservatives.

 

[D_W]

All energy sources have consequences - environmental and financial - eg:

Coal, gas, oil - atmospheric pollution, limited reserves/diminishing resource, climate change
Nuclear - risk of failure in operation, storage of waste, terrorism risk
Wind - landscape pollution, bird life
Solar - rare elements, land not available for housing or food, not 24x7
Dams - impact on landscape, agriculture, fisheries

This is not a complete and thoughtful list - merely demonstrating that there are competing impacts. Put cost into the equation and it is not just a trade off between different environmental impacts, but a trade off of environmental impact against cost, energy security and long term vs short term.

UK reliance on gas is in large part a legacy of North Sea production capability, for which we are now paying. Hinkley price per MWh at £92.50 seemed gross when originally negotiated a few years ago, and now seems like a good deal.

We need a coherent long term view of the future, not responding to short term pressures. Very complex and we will inevitably get it wrong. But we will probably have a better outcome if we have a strategy than not!

land for food isn't really an issue with solar. in fact, solar is so much more energy dense than biofuels that if you just took away land used for biofuels and replaced with solar, it may be enough power for the entire earth.

In the US, something like 40-50% of the corn crop gets used for ethanol. The whole thing is nothing but treading water - nobody wants the ethanol in the fuel beyond the amount needed as an oxygenate, and the inputs and land use are huge (especially fertilizer, but also the hauling of all of the bulk). I did a calculation of gross energy density of ethanol vs. solar (which is probably an OK approximation, as there are distiller's grains from ethanol that end up getting fed - i'm not counting them and will do a generous conversion of saying those and fodder baled and used may be a net zero against the inputs - it isn't , but let's say it is).

Here's the BTU per acre of ethanol (it's very difficult to burn it with much efficiency, but we'll ignore that for now) - 190 * 2.7 * 77000 (190 bushels per acre on average, 2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, 77000 btus per gallon) = 39.5MM btus. )

the current average production for solar installations per acre is 351MW/hr per year. The conversion to watt hours makes 39.5MM btus 11.576 MW/hr

So, the gross energy from solar is slightly over 30 times that of ethanol. All of the trucking and energy used for fertilizer is freed, and the only thing lost is the distiller's grain (which is used in a feed mix for cattle). I doubt you could make panels safe for cattle to graze, so I guess that would need to be solved, but figure for every 30 acres that were corn, you still have 29 to feed the cows or whatever the corn is going to be used for.

using the two current stats for corn (92.7MM acres of corn, 40% used for ethanol - goog's two general returns for those stats) - the solar output would be 13.02 billion mw/hr, or roughly 3 times the total electricity use in the US.

That may be a bit too much numerical noodling to follow, and it doesn't cover a lot of complexity (the idea of actually installing that much solar, distributing the power, storing it, etc.) Just an illustration of how much food acreage is used in the US for mostly waste (car fuel that in reality is just a political ploy as a farm subsidy).

-----------------------------

But, here's the real issue with solar - people in the US claim they're in favor of wind and solar, but as soon as it's placed in their township, then there's opposition. My parents had joint ownership of a 330 acre plot (a farm) and it's in a good spot for solar development. They've sold now because of the 15 sites being considered for solar development in their township, one got the go ahead and residents complained about not wanting to see panels from their back yard and installation of commercial solar sites has been shelved by township ordinance. Our farm had been rented for quite some time, and most of what gets grown on it is corn (the renter chooses, as long as they don't deplete the land).

-----

the TL/DR of that is I agree - everything has some environmental or other impact. It can be as simple in this case as people not wanting to see hillsides covered by solar panels. That may change a little over time as solar is getting cheaper to install than almost anything else in terms of generation capacity and a dispersed 1000 acre array is being installed closer to my parents' house property (farm and house were 10 miles apart - the farm will continue to be a farm, but it's owned by a couple of amish dudes now).

 

[D_W]

It has been the basis of "Conservatism" from a long way back e.g. "the Salisbury Group, which had been set up in 1976, dedicated to the political vision of the Third Marquess of Salisbury who had famously declared that good government consisted in doing as little as possible."
This was taken up and run with by a new army of neo-liberals, talking of non intervention, de-regulation, bonfire of the red tape, free market economics. "Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."
They turned it into an ideology, over and above the familiar inertia of trad conservatives.

What they really need is an about face so that coordinated economic successes like the soviet union, venezuela and cuba can be had.

The same folks who think that private business offers little to society would do well in those systems, too, blaming someone else for failed economies and bare shelves. I think their gas tank for pointing fingers is almost endless.

 

[Sachakins]

It seems that you haven't done sufficient research!

An 8Kw system would require 32 Solar panels - I have 16 panels and that covers the two faces of my roof that come close to the ideal facing direction on a three bed semi - and I'm lucky being on a corner plot. Most of the houses on the adjacent streets simply do not have roofs facing anywhere near south.

I haven't done any research regarding current costs but I doubt that there has been much of a reduction since August 2015 when my 4Kw system cost me £6k so even if there were some very large homes with sufficient roof space to take 32 panels that were facing in the right direction, the cost would likely approach £11k if not more. Totally impractical as a 'Freeby'!

Quick check, 4kw around £3,950, also low user 2.5kwh, med user 3.9kwh, so installing 4kw system seems best option to give a bit of overhead for EV future.

 

[heimlaga]

Both modern capitalism and classic Soviet style communism are utterly unable to do something about the current system flaws. There is no point in bashing one more than the other. Neither a chainsaw nor a pneumatic rock drill does a good job of flattening a cast iron machine table. There is no point of bragging about one and bashing the other because none of them can do the job at hand.
It is time for some new thoughts appropriate for this new situation which mankind har never had to deal with nor ever imagined in the millions of years that have passed since we started lighting fires.
An old textbook solution is not going to help much.

I have met people aged anything between 16 and 95 who have had bits of knowledge or ideas that may be useful contributions or much needed warnings to avoid failiour.
The old have the knowledge from the 1930-ies and 40-ies and 50-ies of how things could be made work with a significantly smaller input of energy. The young are generally better at developing new ideas out of old ones.
My oppinion is that we should all work together trying to sort out the problems.

 

[Woodmatt]

Until there is population control and therefore less drain on the earths resources everything will continue to cost more and more at a faster and faster rate

 

[Woodmatt]

@joethedrummer This is a much help as I can give you. you don't own a whole powerstation but you do own a bit of one

https://rippleenergy.com/how-it-works

So what percentage do you think you are saving with your Ripple ownership?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It has been the basis of "Conservatism" from a long way back ...

The political diatribe isn't unexpected, but I was referring to all Parties' inertia.
Good government consisted in doing as little as possible? Perfectly logical and sensible in my book.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

We have eight miles of dual carriageway being built, without doubt it will have cycle paths. I wondered what the practicalities would be if instead of a central reservation as such a two way cycle lane was run down the middle - with armcos, obviously. All the services could be run under it and it could be roofed over with solar panels instead of the hundreds of acres of fields that are being taken for them.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Current average resource consumption requires 1.8 earths - USA levels would need over 5, Europe ~3, other parts of the world < 1. Resources includes fishing, mining, land, water etc.

Accepting this very simplistic overall figure means that for long term stability, total consumption needs to halve. High consumers (USA, Russia, Europe etc) need to cut by up to 80%. Bits of the world needing to improve basic facilities will need to do so with limited consumption increases.

There are only two ways in which this is likely to happen peacefully:

• existence becomes increasingly constrained - smaller housing, less freedoms, lower consumption, people interact digitally, rarely leave home, with a nutritionally balanced diet delivered by robot. A factory farm for humans!
• population control. This has always been too "difficult", despite being the obvious solution. It may now be too late anyway population growth for the next 20-30 years is "baked in"

So we are left with the inevitable alternatives - war, pandemics, starvation, water shortages. The wealthy and powerful will generally prevail, the rest will perish. Not an attractive prospect - "sunlit uplands" may be emotionally comforting but detached from reality.

 

[Spectric]

We have eight miles of dual carriageway being built, without doubt it will have cycle paths.

That is how urban sprawl creeps across the countryside, one minute you are driving small roads with fields both sides, then someone decides to build a bypass or another road and the next thing you get are the property developers building hundreds of new houses that just returns the traffic conjestion back to the same level it was before the new road was built so nothing gained but valuable countryside lost.

Until there is population control and therefore less drain on the earths resources everything will continue to cost more and more at a faster and faster rate

Population is the underlying issue with everything that is or has gone wrong on planet earth, but instead of accepting this as a potential problem and looking at some way to control it the people that could make these decisions just see them as potential future revenue and the local councils equate more people to more housing and more council tax and no one takes into account any negatives.

I dare say that many people round here can remember the days when having a kid equated to council accomodation, that really helped the population grow.

 

[heimlaga]

A growing population worldwide is a part of the problem but if we look at population statistics the population is slowly scrinking in pretty much every country that has democracy and rights and education for women as well as tax financed care for the old.
Women who have education and the freedom to decide for themselves and who can rely on the taxpayers to give them care in their old age if their childrendon't do it tend to give birth to around two children per woman on average. As some femele children don't reach reproductive age this results in a slowly schrinking population.
Unless there is a population surplus from elsewhere pouring in.

In other words. If we want the wold population to schrink in a slow and controlled manner without any unnecsessary suffering we should work hard to improve momen's rights and to provide education to women in Africa and India and the Middle East.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

That is how urban sprawl creeps across the countryside, one minute you are driving small roads with fields both sides, then someone decides to build a bypass or another road and the next thing you get are the property developers building hundreds of new houses...

I dare say that many people round here can remember the days when having a kid equated to council accomodation, that really helped the population grow.

That are being built by the thousand around here anyway by government decree, so need better roads.

The largest families here are invariably had by the people who can least afford them.

 

[John Brown]

That are being built by the thousand around here anyway by government decree, so need better roads.

The largest families here are invariably had by the people who can least afford them.

On the other hand, it's the richest folk who have the biggest carbon footprint, by quite a long way. So if we were to have a cull, to preserve the earth's resources, we'd should start with the billionaires.

 

[Jacob]

The political diatribe isn't unexpected,

Hardly a "diatribe" - just swapping facts and opinions. You don't have to join on if you don't want to!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatribe

but I was referring to all Parties' inertia.
Good government consisted in doing as little as possible? Perfectly logical and sensible in my book.

That makes you "a little conservative" then! No surprise there!

 

[John Brown]

I don't think it's so much an idealogical commitment to do nothing. Every opposition Party is honour bound to gainsay every government decision no matter how sensible and good and every government has to kick the can of major expenses further down the road.

“We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”

― Jean-Claude Juncker

Which is, of course, the widely acknowledged problem with a lot of governmental systems. The total focus on re-election, thus favouring short termism.
I do agree with the bit about opposition being honour bound to gainsay etc. It can be monumentally pointless and a giant waste of time. Maybe it's a particular problem with what is, in effect, a two party system.

 

[joethedrummer]

That is how urban sprawl creeps across the countryside, one minute you are driving small roads with fields both sides, then someone decides to build a bypass or another road and the next thing you get are the property developers building hundreds of new houses that just returns the traffic conjestion back to the same level it was before the new road was built so nothing gained but valuable countryside lost.



Population is the underlying issue with everything that is or has gone wrong on planet earth, but instead of accepting this as a potential problem and looking at some way to control it the people that could make these decisions just see them as potential future revenue and the local councils equate more people to more housing and more council tax and no one takes into account any negatives.

I dare say that many people round here can remember the days when having a kid equated to council accomodation, that really helped the population grow.

,,yes we,ve got a couple of miles of dual carriageway going in near us,about £21 million and thats a budget figure,, it,s to facilitate the construction of 9000 houses,, so agree with your first statement,,

 

[Spectric]

yes we,ve got a couple of miles of dual carriageway going in near us,

I know the A12 corridor well, I can remember it from the seventies when you had Chelmsford, Boreham, Hatfield Peveral, Witham, Kelvedon, Marks Tey and then Colchester but I went North thirty years later and by then all those places were merging as huge housing estates just joined them together and traffic conjestion was just ramping up. My commute changed from thirty five minutes to an hour and fifteen minutes, thousands more houses on the cards and for me enough was enough so got out.

In fact going further back to when living in Hornchurch as a kid we often visited Colchester zoo before the A12 was even built!

Now living up north I am now witnessing the same destruction as down south, once freindly small towns are just being swamped by housing development and their character ripped out forever, one local town that was once a desirable place to live and with property in demand has become just an urban ghetto where kids that have nothing to do just cause trouble, traffic queues throught the high street because the roads were never layed out with cars in mind and people have long commutes because there is no local work that pays a decent wage. Up here it is agriculture and farming, either livestock or holiday makers.