Another one lost....

[Les Williams]

Ok,
I have been thinking about the argumenst against Fossil fuels and in favour of other "bio" solutions.

I think the problem is not which source of carbon you burn, it's just burning carbon at all. Bio fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from more recent times, fossil fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from millions of years ago. They both return CO2 to the atmosphere!
If we stop burning fossil fuels and derive all our energy from bio fuels we will still put the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, plus we will also deforest the planet at an ever increasing rate. I don't know the numbers but I'm certain we will use all the renewable bio fuels very quickly if we don't use any fossil fuels at all. I'm not against bio (unless I'm behind John's 101...  :silly: ) but it isn't the long term solution for the planet. It only works because a relatively small number of people use it. There isn't enough chip fat to run everybodys car and there isn't enough wood in the forests to heat everybodys house. There isn't enough space in this crowded country to site the required number of wind turbines (that only generate for a small part of the time) nor is there space for all the PV needed (that only generates during the day, and uses rare earth minerals that are themselves in short supply)to provide all the electricity we need.

The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins...

[Iestyn Rhys Pritchard]

[quote="NewStuff" post=12900]'94 HE 6.0L
I have a C plate XJS V12 as well.

If that's not to Your taste, I can turn up loads, I used to buy them to Trike the running gear, and still keep in touch with a lot of people.[/quote]

makes my 3.5 V8 look like a toy

[Ali Wiseman]

[quote="Iestyn999" post=12909][quote="NewStuff" post=12900]'94 HE 6.0L
I have a C plate XJS V12 as well.

If that's not to Your taste, I can turn up loads, I used to buy them to Trike the running gear, and still keep in touch with a lot of people.[/quote]

makes my 3.5 V8 look like a toy [/quote]

Bet yours is cheaper to run though  

20, *IF* You behave, on the rather laughably named "High Efficency" 6.0L
17 on the 5.3 Straight into low single digits if you play with the loud pedal.

I wouldn't care if it didn't cost so damn much. If I had a better job, I'd be keeping the Daimler, and triking the Jag. If I had a better job, I'f be having one of these baby's in a Trike...
[video width=425 height=344 type=youtube]HA6am0rCwAk[/video]

[mike leahy]

[quote="LesW" post=12908]Ok,
I have been thinking about the argumenst against Fossil fuels and in favour of other "bio" solutions.

I think the problem is not which source of carbon you burn, it's just burning carbon at all. Bio fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from more recent times, fossil fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from millions of years ago. They both return CO2 to the atmosphere!
If we stop burning fossil fuels and derive all our energy from bio fuels we will still put the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, plus we will also deforest the planet at an ever increasing rate. I don't know the numbers but I'm certain we will use all the renewable bio fuels very quickly if we don't use any fossil fuels at all. I'm not against bio (unless I'm behind John's 101...  :silly: ) but it isn't the long term solution for the planet. It only works because a relatively small number of people use it. There isn't enough chip fat to run everybodys car and there isn't enough wood in the forests to heat everybodys house. There isn't enough space in this crowded country to site the required number of wind turbines (that only generate for a small part of the time) nor is there space for all the PV needed (that only generates during the day, and uses rare earth minerals that are themselves in short supply)to provide all the electricity we need.

The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins...[/quote]
insulate your homes more ,buy a bike and walk more often . oh ye and live next door to a pub

[Ian A]

[quote="LesW" post=12908]

The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins.a..[/quote]

Are you suggesting that a significant reduction is a "solution" ?

... I would guess you actually mean it would slow down the effect (significantly?)

Ergo, you agree humans are an accelerant (or catalyst) and not the "cause" ?

 

Ian

[Ali Wiseman]

I just want big old engines that go fast and sound like that one ^^^
Please don't make me hug trees, I don't like splinters.

I don't honestly give a rats arse what makes it do that, as long as it does.

As much as I'm a big old Geek, leccy motor's don't exactly evoke any emotional response. Dirty great big V8's? Love em or hate em, they get a response.

[Doug Thompson]

Sooner or later the earth WILL correct itself, but make no mistake it will involve a much smaller human population, and perhaps no human poulation.

[Les Williams]

[quote="Ian" post=12912][quote="LesW" post=12908]

The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins.a..[/quote]

Are you suggesting that a significant reduction is a "solution" ?

... I would guess you actually mean it would slow down the effect (significantly?)

Ergo, you agree humans are an accelerant (or catalyst) and not the "cause" ?

 

Ian[/quote]

I think a significant reduction would be a solution. It's just not apparent how much of a reduction is required. I think there is a level of CO2 production that nature can effectively cope with and neutralise...

If we ant energy then we need to look at non carbon sources. At the moment they are very few and far between. For renewables to work effectively, presuming we can find enough space on our crowded island for them, we need to be able to efficiently store surplus energy for use in the times where they don't work (i.e at night, on windless or very windy days...), we don't have the technology to efficiently store any energy so there will be big losses in conversion. This means even more requirement for pointless windmills and solar PV that both only return a profit due to massive subsidies. The only current solution that adds up, if we don't burn carbon, is nuclear...

[Ian A]

Doug,

Yes and yes but is it not inevitable in either case regardless of our actions now ?


Les,

You are still using the word "solution" ... even if we went "nuclear" would the planet still not evolve/devolve/change/mutate (call it whatever you will) ... I'm with the Professor .... "Entropy"

 

Ian

[Adam]

To return to topic slightly - what a shame!  

Anyone know how many drift mines are left operating in Wales now?  Can't be many, surely?

A

[Tim Watts]

return to the topic?? are you mad??! ;-) After I so rigorously gave the bellows a good old pumping and started the flaming ;-) Perhaps it is time to blow on the embers.....

John, I work in the Oil industry for the time off! ;-) If i wasn't doing what i was doing someone else would be.

 Those who know me well will also know i'm certainly not PRO fossil fuels! In fact, quite the opposite.

However I am mindful that the reality of most situations most normally lies at the exact center of the extremes.

I'm not at all 'arguing' one way or the other i am just stating 'stuff' ;-)

It is true that plants grow (and therefore convert C02 back to carbon and O2) faster and 'better' when in an atmosphere of elevated C02. So provided we actually allow the planet to turn itself green, and stop cutting stuff down then we'll be ok.

Lets face it, if for every tonne of fossil fuel burnt we allowed a additional ton of plant life to grow we would be carbon neutral.

Lets face it, we're not gaining or loosing any carbon. We're just moving it about the place and we're getting panicy about releasing all this long term stored stuff up into the atmosphere all of a sudden (rightly so). Its is ultimately only returning it to the normal carbon cycle from which is came.

Carbon recovery and storage (the latest big thing) is an eons old concept, and tree's and plants have been doing it since the dawn of life itself.

I don't feel inclined to re-research the actual figures but if you weighed all the carbon on the planet, the quantity locked up in fossil fuels is a very small percentage. Releasing all of this fuel all in one go could be instantly (within growing time) be counteracted by growing that many billion tonns of extra forest.

Personally my view is that we need to focus our priority on regaining balance by returning the planet to a state of forestation and worry less (less not none) about the fossilized carbon we're returning to where it came.

One very important aspect of this is the TYPE of plants that we cover the surface of the planet with. As the human population increases a important aspect is that land needs to be allocated to food production. Lets remember that we ourselves are pretty good devices at storing carbon too.

There is a massive amount of work being done to investigate ways of making crops grown 'better' which in actual fact means making crops more efficient at converting C02 into food / per unit area. Genetic modification of crops is the next big thing (well its already happening) in restoring balance in our carbon cycle. To make 'space' on the planet for us maybe we should aim to genetically modify plant to become more efficient at balancing things.

Also with regards to self regulation, are you aware that the co2 effiency of plants increases with temperature? So if we get global warming, the plants become more efficient at growing and remove more C02 - i.e. a self regulatory process.

My belief is that the large scale deforestation of the planet (and lets not forget the man made effect of increased desertification which is very very hard to reverse through the mis-managed use of land- which includes the growing of crops, rapeseed included) plays a much bigger part in the argument than the burning of fossil fuels in terms of the long term future (and past!).

I believe that once the land is pushed beyond a certain critical limit of deforestation, leading to reduced fertile soils the process will be pretty much irrecoverable. Perhaps we should be learning more from mars.

Lets not forget also that C02 is not (by a long way) the only contributing factor to the green house effect.

Doug is right - Provided we don't push it too far, it will find balance as it has done time and time before. If mankind will be part of the balance equation is another question entirely.

[Les Williams]

Don't forget, throughout geological time there have been episodes of very high CO2, with percentages up to 17% and even higher. And nothing to do with man, as we were yet to evolve...
Nature/the planet regained the balance by sinking carbon into long term storage, coal/oil/gas is one such store. Other carbon sinks are the sea, the home of lots of CO2 long term and also rock...

Every time there has been high CO2 in the atmosphere there has been massive deposition of limestone, a rock that is quite important to us as cavers.
High CO2 = limestone deposition by algae and corals, higher temperatures also encourage algae and coral growth so it's a double whammy  B)

Todays high CO2 emissions are tomorrows new limestone, bring it on...  :silly:

[Ian A]

Better and better ....

Not only does more CO2 bring about equilbrium, not only is it fated to entropy, but we also get CAVES to play in.

Conservationists and politicians who are proponents of enviromental taxes should be re-employed within the fossil fuel industry so the rest of us can have a good time  :woohoo:

[Philip Scott]

[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12897]What you say Dan is correct about burning conifers, but my guess is that you live in Manchester and there may be problems actually burning any house fire.  

An even better solution would be to burn the chippings created by people like John Crazy when they cut the brushwood along roadsides, but let it dry out well and then blend it with waste palm oil, and the solid crap I remove form UCO.  Doug has just built a fantastic stove which can burn both logs and chippings.  This provides hinm with heat, hot water and cooking.  It is a most impressive feat of engineering design and practical craftsmanship.

I would be very interested in experimenting with mixtures of veg oil waste and wood waste.  It would be a great project with the various skills present between UCET members.[/quote]

I've found that my Clearview solid fuel stove runs very well on discarded hydraulic fluid filters from excavators. Saves the energy in crushing them  :evil:

[Philip Scott]

[quote="BeardedDragon" post=12934]To return to topic slightly - what a shame!  

Anyone know how many drift mines are left operating in Wales now?  Can't be many, surely?

A[/quote]

This depends on if you mean the legal ones, or the unofficial illegal ones! The Welsh Coal Mines website is a good reference for at least the legal ones....