Extinction Rebellion

Also wtf is the extinction rebellion internal conflict team? Who decides on a punishment if there's no leader and it's some communist clique? Is there voting?

Tbf, and I can't stand the bloke and his army of runts but I would suggest his point is being taken out of context; he's not downplaying it, just simply pointing out humans have been genocidal c()nts since day dot.

Which is, quite frankly, true.

Apparently they're planning to shut down the Hamble and Hythe terminals (amongst other sites nationwide) from next weekend. Dread to think what that's going to do to fuel supply/prices (and energy prices generally), as well as harming businesses. Feel its very ill timed with everything else that is going on.

33 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Apparently they're planning to shut down the Hamble and Hythe terminals (amongst other sites nationwide) from next weekend. Dread to think what that's going to do to fuel supply/prices (and energy prices generally), as well as harming businesses. Feel its very ill timed with everything else that is going on.

I wonder how many of them drove to the protests.

Just warn them that in 20 minutes time a snow plough will be deployed to clear the road, and anybody refusing to get out of the way does so of their own volition and with full knowledge and acceptance that they are responsible for the consequences.

About time they piped up again..

2 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Apparently they're planning to shut down the Hamble and Hythe terminals (amongst other sites nationwide) from next weekend. Dread to think what that's going to do to fuel supply/prices (and energy prices generally), as well as harming businesses. Feel its very ill timed with everything else that is going on.

The Hamble terminal is right next to me. If they try anything I shall let them have both barrels.

6 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The Hamble terminal is right next to me. If they try anything I shall let them have both barrels.

Ohh, suit you sir !

On 01/04/2022 at 14:27, Whitey Grandad said:

The Hamble terminal is right next to me. If they try anything I shall let them have both barrels.

That didnt work out so well in Belgorod 

6 hours ago, buctootim said:

That didnt work out so well in Belgorod 

There’s a tank of unleaded about 50 metres from my desk. Despite the moat the people at the terminal tell me not to bother trying to get away if anything goes up.

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

There’s a tank of unleaded about 50 metres from my desk. Despite the moat the people at the terminal tell me not to bother trying to get away if anything goes up.

Didnt the IRA blow up a terminal once - but they just split the tank and the fuel gushed out without igniting. There is a certain knack to it apparently.  

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

Didnt the IRA blow up a terminal once - but they just split the tank and the fuel gushed out without igniting. There is a certain knack to it apparently.  

I had a guided tour of Hamble Oil Terminal many years ago. In the manager’s office there is an aerial photograph of the terminal which had been taken by the Luftwaffe complete with instructions that it was not to be bombed. The Germans wanted to use it as a source of fuel if they ever invaded.

On 08/11/2019 at 14:41, sadoldgit said:

 

If what you say is true nothing would ever change. Do you ever go into supermarkets? Have you noticed anything different regarding the use of carrier bags? Things are already changing even if you can’t see it.

The issue of storing renewable energy has proved an expensive problem that has so far hindered its ascension to the most relied-upon sources of power.

Estimates suggest that to store a week's supply of solar or wind power, a household would have to obtain a battery the maintenance of which would triple their electricity bill.

Though activists have made it clear that fossil fuels must be discontinued in the near future, they have not provided alternative solutions for energy.

2 minutes ago, OldNick said:

The issue of storing renewable energy has proved an expensive problem that has so far hindered its ascension to the most relied-upon sources of power.

Estimates suggest that to store a week's supply of solar or wind power, a household would have to obtain a battery the maintenance of which would triple their electricity bill.

Though activists have made it clear that fossil fuels must be discontinued in the near future, they have not provided alternative solutions for energy.

That doesn't seem right.  Is that your view @OldNickor quoted from a source?  (In which case can you name the source?). Battery storage for recyclables has come a long way since I first got solar so I'd be surprised if what you are saying is true.

On 09/11/2019 at 13:33, Lighthouse said:

 

All very philosophical and not wrong in itself but you're talking about long terms patterns over thousands, or tens of thousands of years.

 

We're talking about the very real and immediate issues facing us in the next 50 years or less.

As I have mentioned before, in my lifetime (60+) the worlds population has more than doubled. That is the major contributor to pollution. 

Each and every one of the worlds population adds to the carbon footprint, all want a car, phone and plastic products. 

I have no solution to the problem but we all have to use 50% less to get back to 1960's levels of consumption, more in fact as the modern consumer uses more.

Has anyone done research how the worlds pollution and carbon has changed in the last 3 years due to Covid , where aircraft , road usage and industrial out put has been reduced dramatically. That would show whether we can haul back the carbon problem I would think

Just now, The Left Back said:

That doesn't seem right.  Is that your view @OldNickor quoted from a source?  (In which case can you name the source?). Battery storage for recyclables has come a long way since I first got solar so I'd be surprised if what you are saying is true.

I've seen zero evidence that battery tech has progressed to the extent that the planet needs to eradicate fossil fuels. There's also the issue of how much energy and environmental damage goes into mining for the battery raw ingredients. The bottom line is that batteries themselves cause all sorts of environmental damage. This drive to renewables is an unrealistic pipe dream. 

3 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

That doesn't seem right.  Is that your view @OldNickor quoted from a source?  (In which case can you name the source?). Battery storage for recyclables has come a long way since I first got solar so I'd be surprised if what you are saying is true.

It is what I picked up on an article online. It didnt show where the claims are from. 

Do you store a weeks supply of electric or does the excess get put back onto the grid?

1 hour ago, egg said:

This drive to renewables is an unrealistic pipe dream. 

We will likely always need some proportion of nuclear or some other backup but there is no reason renewables can't supply 90% of our needs 90% of the time. There are lots of fixes we can use - including making hydrogen and oxygen using renewables electricity when its plentiful - which essentially turning of the moment energy into a storable form; dynamic demand and management and battery storage like this 

https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/01/26/amp-energy-gets-green-light-for-800mw-battery-projects-in-scotland/   

1 hour ago, OldNick said:

As I have mentioned before, in my lifetime (60+) the worlds population has more than doubled. That is the major contributor to pollution. 

Each and every one of the worlds population adds to the carbon footprint, all want a car, phone and plastic products. 

I have no solution to the problem but we all have to use 50% less to get back to 1960's levels of consumption, more in fact as the modern consumer uses more.

Has anyone done research how the worlds pollution and carbon has changed in the last 3 years due to Covid , where aircraft , road usage and industrial out put has been reduced dramatically. That would show whether we can haul back the carbon problem I would think

 

I cant recall the exact figures but covid definitely kicked us off the ever increasing carbon emissions trendline. They didnt reduce but did flatten. 

What I find it difficult to understand is if we were to live like monks and give up most/all of our polluting ways and produce zero emissions, it will have a very minimal effect on the world's pollution.
It is estimated that the UK is responsible for between 1-1.5% of the world's emissions, equivalent to that produced in the process of mining Bitcoin.
Coal consumption remains at 8.5 billion tonnes pa with China tripling its mining of coal since 2000.
Poland is one of the countries deciding that it would rather increase pollution than run short of energy and ignores a daily $50,000 EU fine for using highly polluting brown coal (lignite)
So, on that basis, it seems that spending a lot of time and energy to protest in the UK is not going to achieve too much and irritate the hell out of a lot of us caught up in the protests.

1 hour ago, spyinthesky said:

What I find it difficult to understand is if we were to live like monks and give up most/all of our polluting ways and produce zero emissions, it will have a very minimal effect on the world's pollution.
It is estimated that the UK is responsible for between 1-1.5% of the world's emissions, equivalent to that produced in the process of mining Bitcoin.
Coal consumption remains at 8.5 billion tonnes pa with China tripling its mining of coal since 2000.
Poland is one of the countries deciding that it would rather increase pollution than run short of energy and ignores a daily $50,000 EU fine for using highly polluting brown coal (lignite)
So, on that basis, it seems that spending a lot of time and energy to protest in the UK is not going to achieve too much and irritate the hell out of a lot of us caught up in the protests.

But every country can say that and you end up with nothing getting done. Surely it is worth moving to renewables even if it is just to stop us relying on Russia and scummy places in the middle east?

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

But every country can say that and you end up with nothing getting done. Surely it is worth moving to renewables even if it is just to stop us relying on Russia and scummy places in the middle east?

It is, but it won’t make any diff to the climate.

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

But every country can say that and you end up with nothing getting done. Surely it is worth moving to renewables even if it is just to stop us relying on Russia and scummy places in the middle east?

Fair comment.
However I think, by and large, as a country we have done OK with the reduction in fossil fuel usage and moving onto Offshore and Solar power generation.
That sends out a reasonable message to others.
But what if the major emission producers like China, India, Russia, USA etc dont comply?

1 hour ago, spyinthesky said:

Fair comment.
However I think, by and large, as a country we have done OK with the reduction in fossil fuel usage and moving onto Offshore and Solar power generation.
That sends out a reasonable message to others.
But what if the major emission producers like China, India, Russia, USA etc dont comply?

No one will ever do anything if they are all waiting for each other, which is pretty much what is happening. We’ve done OK in comparison but the World’s effort as a whole has been piss poor. To be honest I think we are fucked anyway, the capitalist system we have where countries compete against each other instead of work together is just fundamentally incompatible with dealing with a problem like this. In my opinion it’s a no brainier to at least try and be a leader in saving the planet and give ourselves energy security at the same time.

19 hours ago, egg said:

I've seen zero evidence that battery tech has progressed to the extent that the planet needs to eradicate fossil fuels. There's also the issue of how much energy and environmental damage goes into mining for the battery raw ingredients. The bottom line is that batteries themselves cause all sorts of environmental damage. This drive to renewables is an unrealistic pipe dream. 

Project Drawdown is a good source of up to date scientific data on this.  There's plenty of evidence there that things are not as hopeless as you suggest.  Off-shore wind in particular is showing good signs.  Onshore wind and solar also look hopeful.

19 hours ago, OldNick said:

It is what I picked up on an article online. It didnt show where the claims are from. 

Do you store a weeks supply of electric or does the excess get put back onto the grid?

I've moved house since, my old system had no storage so it all went back in the grid.  I've been doing some research with a view to getting solar again (and a ground source heat pump) and I was surprised how far the battery technology had moved on.

12 hours ago, aintforever said:

No one will ever do anything if they are all waiting for each other, which is pretty much what is happening. We’ve done OK in comparison but the World’s effort as a whole has been piss poor. To be honest I think we are fucked anyway, the capitalist system we have where countries compete against each other instead of work together is just fundamentally incompatible with dealing with a problem like this. In my opinion it’s a no brainier to at least try and be a leader in saving the planet and give ourselves energy security at the same time.

I'm not as pessimistic as you.  I agree the current system, based on competition more than collaboration, is not ideally suited to solving the problem.  But the current system is what we have and there is enough technological development being scaled up to offer some hope. Granted it might all be too late, but I don't see the point in thinking like that as it just causes paralysis (and misery).

1 hour ago, The Left Back said:

Project Drawdown is a good source of up to date scientific data on this.  There's plenty of evidence there that things are not as hopeless as you suggest.  Off-shore wind in particular is showing good signs.  Onshore wind and solar also look hopeful.

I've moved house since, my old system had no storage so it all went back in the grid.  I've been doing some research with a view to getting solar again (and a ground source heat pump) and I was surprised how far the battery technology had moved on.

I'm not as pessimistic as you.  I agree the current system, based on competition more than collaboration, is not ideally suited to solving the problem.  But the current system is what we have and there is enough technological development being scaled up to offer some hope. Granted it might all be too late, but I don't see the point in thinking like that as it just causes paralysis (and misery).

Is there evidence out there that energy from solar and wind is sufficient to meet needs, and that the battery tech is sufficient to store it? What's the environmental impact of making those batteries? 

I'd love to see the world move away from fossil fuels, but I can't see that it's realistic. Nuclear and Hydrogen gives us our best chance, but solar/wind/batteries just isn't realistic. 

23 hours ago, OldNick said:

The issue of storing renewable energy has proved an expensive problem that has so far hindered its ascension to the most relied-upon sources of power.

Estimates suggest that to store a week's supply of solar or wind power, a household would have to obtain a battery the maintenance of which would triple their electricity bill.

Though activists have made it clear that fossil fuels must be discontinued in the near future, they have not provided alternative solutions for energy.

Attended a very interesting lecture on this recently. To paraphrase a global energy director from a leading global energy and construction consultancy:

To provide 3 days of power (excluding personal/commercial transport) for a city the size of Tokyo would require approx. a decade of the current global battery production. That in turn requires colossal environmental damage to largely untouched ecosystems to mine the raw resources, land area and new power generation to produce the batteries, and ofc the batteries themselves contain a not insignificant proportion of fundamentally toxic waste that is non recyclable. Plus, about 70% of the world's cobalt comes from child slave labour in the Congo. They wrapped up by terming the current drive for batteries as the next big environmental disaster.

Their verdict was that we should be pursuing life extension on existing plants, securing a reliable baseline supply (nuclear being a reasonable part of that), carbon capture where possible, and basically everything we can to push towards a hydrogen economy as soon as possible.

In short, said person was not a fan of the current direction of global energy strategies and particularly battery dependence.

But I guess its a case of "batteries" are where the money is now, so that is the way it will go. Some people will get very rich, and some people will get tremendous self worth out of their Tesla's etc. And the problems will be pushed down the road for the next generation.

16 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Attended a very interesting lecture on this recently. To paraphrase a global energy director from a leading global energy and construction consultancy:

To provide 3 days of power (excluding personal/commercial transport) for a city the size of Tokyo would require approx. a decade of the current global battery production. That in turn requires colossal environmental damage to largely untouched ecosystems to mine the raw resources, land area and new power generation to produce the batteries, and ofc the batteries themselves contain a not insignificant proportion of fundamentally toxic waste that is non recyclable. Plus, about 70% of the world's cobalt comes from child slave labour in the Congo. They wrapped up by terming the current drive for batteries as the next big environmental disaster.

Their verdict was that we should be pursuing life extension on existing plants, securing a reliable baseline supply (nuclear being a reasonable part of that), carbon capture where possible, and basically everything we can to push towards a hydrogen economy as soon as possible.

In short, said person was not a fan of the current direction of global energy strategies and particularly battery dependence.

But I guess its a case of "batteries" are where the money is now, so that is the way it will go. Some people will get very rich, and some people will get tremendous self worth out of their Tesla's etc. And the problems will be pushed down the road for the next generation.

Battery technology is improving rapidly at the moment though, and it doesn't appear that the host of the lecture you attended was up to date on some of the more recent advances, like this one...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211206220020.htm

5 hours ago, egg said:

Is there evidence out there that energy from solar and wind is sufficient to meet needs, and that the battery tech is sufficient to store it? What's the environmental impact of making those batteries? 

I'd love to see the world move away from fossil fuels, but I can't see that it's realistic. Nuclear and Hydrogen gives us our best chance, but solar/wind/batteries just isn't realistic. 

I'm no expert, but it's all contained in the stuff I suggested you read.  

I think it's about direction of travel.  If you look at the graphs on energy production we will have sufficient production capability at some point in the future, the only question being about how much we have to rely on nuclear to bridge the gap between fossil fuel and renewables.