The Great Climate Debate takes place in Scunthorpe on Friday

“@Scientist
at last! .. someone who agrees with me and doesn't read the Daily Mail and/or support UKip!

ON-shore wind power is certainly the cheapest source of renewable energy with off-shore wind costing twice as much but even that is comparable with the current cost of gas (setting the 'discount rate' of future costs set to 0%). Interestingly, with the discount rate set at 0%, the cost of nuclear power rises towards infinity!

10% of our energy could be derived from processing waste properly instead of simply dumping it all in land-fill. We should do this or we'll eventually run out of new places to bury stuff. Agricultural, sewage and food waste can be fermented to release methane. The remainder can be incinerated to provide heat & power but only if sufficient measures are possible to prevent toxic emissions (eg dioxins and oxides of nitrogen & sulfur etc)

Cultivating algae is a technology worth developing since it is already TEN TIMES more efficient at capturing solar energy than growing crops to burn. It also has the advantages that sea water can be used instead of valuable fresh water, and that farming grade land can be used for its proper purpose i.e. growing food!

Farmers leap at the opportunity to grow crops for fuel because the income is far greater than they could get from growing turnips, despite the lamentable energy yield, due to the death-grip that Tesco et al have on food-producers coupled with the public expectation and feeling of entitlement, that food should be ridiculously cheap.

Other means of gathering renewable energy can contribute to the mix but would have to submit to a full cost and fuel-cycle analysis. Wind power currently is the cheapest and also has the sheer capacity needed to allow us to maintain our affluent life-style which is contingent on the availability of 300GW or so of primary input power.

Wind power is of course highly variable, but imaginative engineering can overcome this problem. The massive slews in wind output could be absorbed instantaneously by switch-mode power conversion driving electrolysis of water yielding hydrogen with efficiency of more than 80%.

CO2 can be captured from air or sea water and reduced by hydrogen to either methane (for which we already have infrastructure for storage, distribution and use) or methanol which can be used in cars instead of petrol derived from oil. The synthetic methane and liquid transport fuels obtained this way would be truly zero-carbon and available for as long as the sun shines and the wind blows.

Gaudemus igitur”

“@Scientist
at last! .. someone who agrees with me and doesn't read the Daily Mail and/or support UKip!

ON-shore wind power is certainly the cheapest source of renewable energy with off-shore wind costing twice as much but even that is comparable with the current cost of gas (setting the 'discount rate' of future costs set to 0%). Interestingly, with the discount rate set at 0%, the cost of nuclear power rises towards infinity!

10% of our energy could be derived from processing waste properly instead of simply dumping it all in land-fill. We should do this or we'll eventually run out of new places to bury stuff. Agricultural, sewage and food waste can be fermented to release methane. The remainder can be incinerated to provide heat & power but only if sufficient measures are possible to prevent toxic emissions (eg dioxins and oxides of nitrogen & sulfur etc)

Cultivating algae is a technology worth developing since it is already TEN TIMES more efficient at capturing solar energy than growing crops to burn. It also has the advantages that sea water can be used instead of valuable fresh water, and that farming grade land can be used for its proper purpose i.e. growing food!

Farmers leap at the opportunity to grow crops for fuel because the income is far greater than they could get from growing turnips, despite the lamentable energy yield, due to the death-grip that Tesco et al have on food-producers coupled with the public expectation and feeling of entitlement, that food should be ridiculously cheap.

Other means of gathering renewable energy can contribute to the mix but would have to submit to a full cost and fuel-cycle analysis. Wind power currently is the cheapest and also has the sheer capacity needed to allow us to maintain our affluent life-style which is contingent on the availability of 300GW or so of primary input power.

Wind power is of course highly variable, but imaginative engineering can overcome this problem. The massive slews in wind output could be absorbed instantaneously by switch-mode power conversion driving electrolysis of water yielding hydrogen with efficiency of more than 80%.

CO2 can be captured from air or sea water and reduced by hydrogen to either methane (for which we already have infrastructure for storage, distribution and use) or methanol which can be used in cars instead of petrol derived from oil. The synthetic methane and liquid transport fuels obtained this way would be truly zero-carbon and available for as long as the sun shines and the wind blows.

Gaudemus igitur”

“@Scientist
at last! .. someone who agrees with me and doesn't read the Daily Mail and/or support UKip!

ON-shore wind power is certainly the cheapest source of renewable energy with off-shore wind costing twice as much but even that is comparable with the current cost of gas (setting the 'discount rate' of future costs set to 0%). Interestingly, with the discount rate set at 0%, the cost of nuclear power rises towards infinity!

10% of our energy could be derived from processing waste properly instead of simply dumping it all in land-fill. We should do this or we'll eventually run out of new places to bury stuff. Agricultural, sewage and food waste can be fermented to release methane. The remainder can be incinerated to provide heat & power but only if sufficient measures are possible to prevent toxic emissions (eg dioxins and oxides of nitrogen & sulfur etc)

Cultivating algae is a technology worth developing since it is already TEN TIMES more efficient at capturing solar energy than growing crops to burn. It also has the advantages that sea water can be used instead of valuable fresh water, and that farming grade land can be used for its proper purpose i.e. growing food!

Farmers leap at the opportunity to grow crops for fuel because the income is far greater than they could get from growing turnips, despite the lamentable energy yield, due to the death-grip that Tesco et al have on food-producers coupled with the public expectation and feeling of entitlement, that food should be ridiculously cheap.

Other means of gathering renewable energy can contribute to the mix but would have to submit to a full cost and fuel-cycle analysis. Wind power currently is the cheapest and also has the sheer capacity needed to allow us to maintain our affluent life-style which is contingent on the availability of 300GW or so of primary input power.

Wind power is of course highly variable, but imaginative engineering can overcome this problem. The massive slews in wind output could be absorbed instantaneously by switch-mode power conversion driving electrolysis of water yielding hydrogen with efficiency of more than 80%.

CO2 can be captured from air or sea water and reduced by hydrogen to either methane (for which we already have infrastructure for storage, distribution and use) or methanol which can be used in cars instead of petrol derived from oil. The synthetic methane and liquid transport fuels obtained this way would be truly zero-carbon and available for as long as the sun shines and the wind blows.

Gaudemus igitur”

“The planet is getting torn apart by greedy big business capitalists. They and their servile lackeys, the politicians and "journalists" et al are stupidly sanctioning the destruction of our habitat by using up all our natural resources and converting these precious materials to ghastly pollution. The effects of this are highly unpredictable so therefore the alarming climate changes are a severe warning that something catastrophic might happen. It is stupid not to use wind-power technology as it is extremely clean, free and benign. If this had been done before instead of developing non-sustainable technologies then we would have very cheap energy by now instead of soaring fuel prices, looming shortages, pollution and nuclear waste stockpiles leaking lethal radioactive materials. Wind-power is definitely the way forward, we have the means to implement it on a huge scale but we have to fight against the interests of a few greedy billionaires who make their money by destroying our Mother Earth.
The wind cannot fail, the sun cannot fail, the massive amount of geothermal heat that our planet holds cannot fail, the waves in the sea cannot fail, the gravity which causes the tides cannot fail etc. All this energy is up for grabs, there for our taking.
What can fail are non-renewable resources like gas, oil, coal etc. which are rapidly running out but are being pumped out of the ground as fast as possible by private concerns. Nuclear power stations produce large amounts of deadly radio-active waste which must be stored. This can fail. Nuclear reactors can fail catastrophically causing terrible suffering and devastation with gigantic clean up costs. The facts are staring at us in our faces. It is time to do something for ourselves and future generations in order to avoid the terrible consequences of complacency in this very dangerous situation for the Human Race.”

“the quick answers to the 5 questions above are:

1. - Yes, 2. - Yes, 3. - No, 4. - Probably Not and 5. - Maybe

lets look at each question in detail...

1. "is man affecting climate change" ... well there seems to be alot of physical evidence that the planet is heating up and plausible mechanisms as to how and why human activity is at least contributing to this. Climate scientists all over the world are pretty much in agreement that the case is solid but the 'controversy' is a thing which is imagined or even deliberately manufactured by various un-informed groups or vested interests. The CEO of Exxon is on record as having said that they wish to instil doubt in people's minds in much the same way as tobacco companies tried to suggest that there was disagreement among medical experts that smoking is harmful.

Right wing people, including most of the Tory Party, ALL of UKip and journalists such as Melanie Philips and Peter Hitchens (who i'm guessing would struggle to pass GCSE General Science even working together) seem to think that there is some left-wing conspiracy at work and react with predictable revulsion at the idea that massive international intervention is going to be necessary to fix/save the planet. This is so contrary to their central, almost religious faith in liberal, free-market capitalism that they simply cannot bring themselves to believe that it could possibly be true.

Religious people appear to be preoccupied with whether women should be allowed to be priests, or what God thinks about gays. Those that do turn their attention towards the problem of Global Warming/Climate change seem to think either that God will save us (he/she wont! .. not least because he/she doesn't actually exist), or else crave the carnage foretold in Revelations!

2. "do we need wind farms?" .. please refer to my many previous postings but if you want me to I can go through it all again.

3. "Is nuclear power the answer to our energy needs? .. nuclear power isn't 'cheap' unless you ignore the massive future costs of decommissioning and waste disposal/storage for tens of thousands of years. It also fails to address the problem of how we can de-carbonise our energy infrastructure since electricity accounts for only 20% of energy used by consumers, commerce and industry.

4. "is intensive farming sustainable?" .. if this includes the world-wide issue of chopping down rain-forests to graze cattle, then probably not since rain-forests are part of the furniture which affects climate.

5. "should gas-fracking be used to help meet Britain's energy needs?" .. there may be significant reserves of shale gas under Lancashire and elsewhere but it is uncertain as yet how much is technically or economically recoverable.

There appears to be an impending crisis in the electricity generation industry. This has largely been caused by privatisation of the former CEGB and subsequent lack of strategic planning, while privatised energy companies have been more concerned with going around everyone's houses trying to get them to change the logo on their electricity/gas bills. Since nuclear power stations take several years to build (even if we wanted them .. do we?), we may have to resort to using gas to keep the lights on over the next 10 years.

Even renewable energy plant (mainly wind since this appears to be the cheapest at present) cannot be installed fast enough to bridge the short term gap.

If we don't get gas from fracking, then we'll have to import it. International gas price is already expensive (~$10 per GJ) and may become more so due to international demand or if the £ loses value thanks to our failing domestic economy. There is no certainty that gas from fracking will be cheap, and there are environmental risks .. methane release (40 times more damaging than CO2 emission), aquifer contamination or possibly even earthquakes!”

“Spot on Porkmiester , When the wind fails we can top up our supply from the french grid at a increased cost , They have the most nuclear power plants in Europe , As for globule warming natural happening .”

“They've all been brainwashed into thinking wind is the way forward, the evil BBC has seen to that.”