Climate change

[Dave2002]

This series Big Oil vs the World is worth watching. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...il-v-the-world There are three episodes.

I recently commented in these pages about the use of natural gas. Unfortunately most likely I was incorrect - having been misled. Natural gas is mostly methane - which is around 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. In my earlier post I assumed that any problems from methane - due to leaks would be small - but unfortunately that is not true - and indeed at the moment is probably unknown. If methane leaks were at the 1% level, then it possibly would be a better solution to use it than burning coal or oil, but it seems that methane leaks in production processes - such as fracking - are actually likely to be more than a few per cent, so it really is a big problem. The third part of the series of programmes deals with that, as well as reinforcing the continued denials and lies put about by members of the oil and gas industry. The sad thing is that much of the science was known within companies like Exxon even going back 40-50 years, and certainly within the last 20 years.

The Obama administration tried to address some of these issues, but even Obama's staff were given misleading information by the gas and oil industries regarding methane leak. The industries tried - and indeed may still be trying - to suppress information and to spread misinformation. Unlike oil and gas companies in Europe which at least are making some efforts to promote solar and wind energy as part of their business models, it seems that the US oil and gas industry is "happy" to continue as before.

To get a good handle on the problems it really is necessary to watch all three programmes, though particularly the last one.

This article doesn't seem too biased - though I can't be sure - but it does contain some interesting and disturbing details - https://www.ernstversusencana.ca/tha...obert-howarth/

[Serial_Apologist]

This series Big Oil vs the World is worth watching. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...il-v-the-world There are three episodes.

I recently commented in these pages about the use of natural gas. Unfortunately most likely I was incorrect - having been misled. Natural gas is mostly methane - which is around 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. In my earlier post I assumed that any problems from methane - due to leaks would be small - but unfortunately that is not true - and indeed at the moment is probably unknown. If methane leaks were at the 1% level, then it possibly would be a better solution to use it than burning coal or oil, but it seems that methane leaks in production processes - such as fracking - are actually likely to be more than a few per cent, so it really is a big problem. The third part of the series of programmes deals with that, as well as reinforcing the continued denials and lies put about by members of the oil and gas industry. The sad thing is that much of the science was known within companies like Exxon even going back 40-50 years, and certainly within the last 20 years.

The Obama administration tried to address some of these issues, but even Obama's staff were given misleading information by the gas and oil industries regarding methane leak. The industries tried - and indeed may still be trying - to suppress information and to spread misinformation. Unlike oil and gas companies in Europe which at least are making some efforts to promote solar and wind energy as part of their business models, it seems that the US oil and gas industry is "happy" to continue as before.

To get a good handle on the problems it really is necessary to watch all three programmes, though particularly the last one.

This article doesn't seem too biased - though I can't be sure - but it does contain some interesting and disturbing details - https://www.ernstversusencana.ca/tha...obert-howarth/

I watched this excellent series too and thought it one of the best exposés replete with unapologetics and belated acknowledgements since a Pilger series on Pentagon leading lights some 20 years ago. One half-wished it would all end well, bringing the picture optimistically up to date, but that wasn't to be. We can only hope for the success of the Biden initiative currently going through the US system, but it's a pretty pass we've arrived at in needing to support such compromised solutions so late in the day.

[kernelbogey]

I wonder about the emphasis being placed on electric vehicles. I don't know the figures, but a lot of electricity is produced from fossil fuel sources: in general, I believe nuclear power and renewable sources (solar, wind, tides et al) are a relatively small proportion. A man in the motor trade recently said to me that his view is that hydrogen power for vehicles had a more likely future than electric power. I suspect that all these solutions are 'fiddling while Rome burns': the shifts required of humanity are much deeper than finding alternative energy sources for our cars.

[RichardB]

the shifts required of humanity are much deeper than finding alternative energy sources for our cars.

Indeed. Fossil fuel profiteers did a highly organised and efficient job of convincing people that individual responsibility is of central importance when that profiteering itself is what still exacerbates the problem.

[oddoneout]

I wonder about the emphasis being placed on electric vehicles. I don't know the figures, but a lot of electricity is produced from fossil fuel sources: in general, I believe nuclear power and renewable sources (solar, wind, tides et al) are a relatively small proportion. A man in the motor trade recently said to me that his view is that hydrogen power for vehicles had a more likely future than electric power. I suspect that all these solutions are 'fiddling while Rome burns': the shifts required of humanity are much deeper than finding alternative energy sources for our cars.

This might be of interest https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
I had thought the renewables might be a bigger slice today but perhaps the current lack of wind isn't confined to these parts? I don't think the turbines around here will be doing much so I guess Sizewell is taking up the slack.
The push for electric vehicles has some drivers other than the ones loudly touted, in my view. They do reduce emissions in urban areas which has several benefits - but should it really depend so much on individuals? I'm thinking of the issue of providing a credible public transport alternative, which would need some form of state financial backing, to reduce car use, which would reduce poor air quality. However if the populace replace their ICE cars with EVs that means money the government doesn't have to put up to address the air quality issue. In the same vein ( and this one has gone beyond the stage of just me being cynical , an accusation I am used to by now but ignore having been proved at least partly right on several occasions and issues) getting the public to invest in energy storage capacity(aka car batteries) is of value to an administration that hasn't joined up the dots between generation and usage. There has recently been talk of offering incentives to EV owners to allow their batteries to accept surplus load - the flipside of that is to allow access to that energy when demand requires, such as at night, which might be a rather harder sell. Companies with coldstores and the like are already able in some cases to benefit from accepting surplus power, but from what I recall it isn't(as is often the way) anything approaching a national,thought-through, initiative - although I am happy to be corrected on that. Getting the public to fund storage themselves has appeal, but again, is such a piecemeal, behind the curve, scrappily implemented approach any way to manage a country's energy requirements? Even if the concerns abut range(which is improving rapidly) lessen it goes without saying that the continued issue of access to charging points that a) work, b) aren't run by numerous different interests all requiring different methods of payment arrangement and c)are available to enough users ( would-be and existing) still need to be addressed.
Hydrogen as an alternative fuel source comes with its own issues regarding generation; it isn't a case of just swap one fuel for another. I knew about blue and green but it seems, looking for a link just now, that there are other colours as well https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories...olour-spectrum. One lives and learns - pity those in control don't... Yet another example of the necessity of looking behind the headlines/sales patter; greenwashing is, unsurprisingly, big business these days. The ASA used to be effective in keeping a lid on green claims, but they seem to have thrown in the towel (been "leant" on or deliberately defunded as have other such organisations?) these days.

[french frank]

I'm thinking of the issue of providing a credible public transport alternative, which would need some form of state financial backing, to reduce car use, which would reduce poor air quality.

Bristol has an air pollution problem, but I'm interested to see that BCC, which will soon introduce a central Clean Air Zone similar to London's, has introduced various measures to get people out of their cars. Neighbour has just reported getting £50 worth of free bus tickets. The e-scooters are much used locally - and also much abused.

[ardcarp]

I wonder if this is a good place to bring up my thoughts about tidal power?

In the current (no pun intended) energy crisis, it is only natural that governments, including ours, should consider putting 'green-ness' on hold for a bit while we exploit our own oil and gas for a bit longer. But we need to plan urgently for the future. Leaving nuclear aside (which is green, barring catastrophes) wind power is wonderful and should be extended far more. However, tidal power tends to be overlooked. And when it is thought about, it seems to involve building huge dams which fill up at high tide and are used to generate electricity by turbine generators as the they empty at low tide. Unfortunately, this can have dreadful environmental impacts on wildlife, ruining habitats of birds, fish and even humans.

I am sure clever scientists and engineers must have thought about dynmaic tidal power, but why isn't it ever seriously considered? By 'dynamic tidal power' I mean the generation of electricity by harnessing not the up-and-down of the tide, but the very strong flow of tides along our coasts.

Here are some examples: https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/sail...de-races-75304 Just ignore the 'yachtie' aspects of the article.

These extremely powerful phenomena, unlike wind, would work for us all the time, as they are generated (mainly) by the rotation of the moon around the earth. Admittedly they are stronger at spring tides (two every month) than at neaps, but given the right locations, especially off headlands and within straits (e.g. Lizard Point, Menai Strait and many places to the North of Scotland) they go for 6 hours one way then 6 hours the opposite way, day after day, month after month and year after year without fail and for ever.

The dynamic way to make use of this truly huge amount of tidal energy is to have 'tubes' containing turbines on the sea bed. These would cause little disturbance to the environment, and in the same way as wind turbines, there could be many smallish units making routine maintenance easy.

I'm sure there would be much development and design work involved (if it isn't happening already) but it seems complete sense to harness this unfailing source of power.

[oddoneout]

I wonder if this is a good place to bring up my thoughts about tidal power?

In the current (no pun intended) energy crisis, it is only natural that governments, including ours, should consider putting 'green-ness' on hold for a bit while we exploit our own oil and gas for a bit longer. But we need to plan urgently for the future. Leaving nuclear aside (which is green, barring catastrophes) wind power is wonderful and should be extended far more. However, tidal power tends to be overlooked. And when it is thought about, it seems to involve building huge dams which fill up at high tide and are used to generate electricity by turbine generators as the they empty at low tide. Unfortunately, this can have dreadful environmental impacts on wildlife, ruining habitats of birds, fish and even humans.

I am sure clever scientists and engineers must have thought about dynmaic tidal power, but why isn't it ever seriously considered? By 'dynamic tidal power' I mean the generation of electricity by harnessing not the up-and-down of the tide, but the very strong flow of tides along our coasts.

Here are some examples: https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/sail...de-races-75304 Just ignore the 'yachtie' aspects of the article.

These extremely powerful phenomena, unlike wind, would work for us all the time, as they are generated (mainly) by the rotation of the moon around the earth. Admittedly they are stronger at spring tides (two every month) than at neaps, but given the right locations, especially off headlands and within straits (e.g. Lizard Point, Menai Strait and many places to the North of Scotland) they go for 6 hours one way then 6 hours the opposite way, day after day, month after month and year after year without fail and for ever.

The dynamic way to make use of this truly huge amount of tidal energy is to have 'tubes' containing turbines on the sea bed. These would cause little disturbance to the environment, and in the same way as wind turbines, there could be many smallish units making routine maintenance easy.

I'm sure there would be much development and design work involved (if it isn't happening already) but it seems complete sense to harness this unfailing source of power.

Some interesting stuff here https://physicsworld.com/a/turning-water-into-watts/
I can't find references at the moment but there are microscale tidal turbines in Scotland I think. My own view is that the inclination to "big is better/best" is not the way forward for this possible source of power. As you say the environmental impact of big schemes is massive and it is questionable whether the end justifies the means? There are times when using small opportunities where available may be preferable, not least for the chance it might give for a community to take responsibility for its needs.
I also think there needs to be a serious rethink about how electricity is used - do commercial/retail premises really need to be lit up at night for instance. There is a fairly upmarket estate agent in town which has its window displays illuminated 24/7. They have gradually swapped over to LED from halogen, but even so I question who is going to be property window shopping in the wee small hours and would sales really be lost if the lights weren't on? A figure which stuck in my mind from a good few years ago was that during the 10 years of Tony "Kyoto" Blair's reign electricity consumption increased by 20%. The likes of the Shard consume enormous quantities of power but to what end?

[Bryn]

This, from the latest Nature briefing, might be found of interest: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02894-3

[Bryn]

This, from the latest Nature briefing, might be found of interest: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02894-3

From the latest Nature Briefing, strange goings-on in Indian education: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01770-y