Global Warming (again)

My understanding is that at present, ethnanol based "green petrol" is only 5% plant based, the rest is oil based. The marketing boys don't actually spell that out on the forecourt though

See:
http://www.greenergy.com/1024_768.html

 

I don't think it is ethanol based though i think ethanol may be used in the process. There is biodioesel which is sometimes made from used cooking oil. Not sure about how much Carbon is given off to produce it, You have to be careful with some of the alternative fuels. Some of them produce more carbon in the manufacture and use than if you were to use fossil fuels. But I think this biodiesel is OK. Even if it is only 5% then at least that is something, but you can get it in 100% biodiesel. They have it in South Shropshire.
http://www.wasteless.co.uk/html/biodiesel.htm
This is quite a useful site
http://www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk/links.htm
An interesting thing is that the price/litre is just a little bit more than we are paying in Shropshire for ordinary diesel so why can't the government drop the tax on it so that it is equal in price? In America they are producing and selling biodiesel and some of the state authorities are using it for their vehicles, so it must be economic cause we know how cheap their ordianry fuel is. One problem is that it does act as a cleansing solution so when first used may flush out all the gunk that ordinary diesel leaves in your engine, so can block the filter - details on the web site. Does appear to be cleaner and better for the engine.
Interesting that 1/4 of our Carbon is produced from transport, 1/2 from our use of electricity, coal and gas and the remaining 1/4 is I suppose generated by our throwaway consumer society.
In terms of our contribution to pollution and use of resources we are one of the world leaders. Leading the pack in order/ capita is UAR, US, France, Canada, Kuwait, Australia, Estonia, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway. We are just outside the top 10 but China and India are nowhere near.
China and India do create a lot of pollution because of sheer size of population but in terms of being overpopulated they are nowhere near our own country. we have a population that is probably 3-4 times too big for the country's resources, so really if any country needs to cut down its population then it should be ours. China has done an incredible job to cut its population growth, but it was only possible to apply that policy in an undemocratic society. India has high population growth and is simply going through the stage in development that we did 100 years ago when large families were the norm. People have smaller families once they get wealthier and have security. I think if we had poverty and a lack of social security then i think probably all of us here would have large families, just like our Victorian ancestors did. a good example of this is Singapore which has gone from being a developing country to a highly developed country in a short period of time. Originally they were trying to curtail popualtion growth but since they have become a wealthy developed society they have the opposite problem of an aging population that is likely to stifle economic growth due to a lack of workers.

 

So who's for nuclear power then?
It would seem to be the only real alternative at the moment as opposed to fossil fuel.
Or do we disappear under a mountain of windmills?

 

oops i live by the the sea watch this space

 

The big hope seems to be nuclear fusion (not nuclear fission) Apparently it's what fuels the sun, is not radio active and doesn't produce green house gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627237.stm

 

We will all just have to manage without using so many appliances. I don't suppose many on GC remember we managed without vacuum cleaners (good old brush) washing machines (Monday was washing day and it took nearly all day) fridges(shop almost every day) cars (shanks pony) and the like so it is quite possible to live without them but of course a lot harder work.

Whatever, something must be sorted out before long and as they say "necessity is the mother of invention!"

But please don't make me stop using my computer.

 

If you ever want to be scared about the rate of global warming - take a look at the study on global dimming . A catch 22 situation if ever there was one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

I watched the programme a year or so back, and it frightened the heck out of me.

 

Very interesting Fran, cold fusion has been researched for years Hornbeam its the holy grail the answer to all our problems but we don't seem to have made much progress I think in the meantime we have to use fission and get away from fossil fuels, we can faff around with wind and solar power but to meet our demands we have to go nuclear or go back to the dark ages

 

I tend to agree, Walnut.

 

Very interesting link HB

 

If its a choice between wind farms all over the country side (its cheaper than at sea) or nuclear - I'll go for nuclear.

But the question has to be - just why are we going for the cheapest option - most profitable to the installers. Wind is a powerful resource - but windfarms in the sea would be far better. However add to that a grant aided wind turbine and solar panels on every single roof then - . Making it mandatory within a year that all new builds are carbon neutral, or any carbon foot print is off set within its land perimeter - making it carbon neutral - now your starting inovate.

I know what will happen, and I deplore it. This government is into cheap short term fixes whatever the effect on its populations - well the effect on the UK (unles the Gulf Stream turns off) will not be catastrophic for humans, except on coastal area . But then there is London - now that should focus a few minds.

.

 

Windfarms in the sea seems the obvious thing to do especially as the seas around Britain are shallow - the continental shelf. The winds are pretty strong and persistant from the SW.

Only snag is that the seas around Britain are also very busy and we still get shipwrecks. There is a proposal to put masses of wind turbnes in the Thames Estuary - right across from Essex to Kent. Supposing ships bump into them...

 

Years ago they used to talk about damming the Severn estuary. We have about the highest tide movement of anywhere in the world, and it could produce massive amounts of clean and reliable power. The problem with politicians and most businessmen is that they are not willing to take on long term projects. Everything must have a payback within 2 or 3 years whilst they are still in power.

Sadly the channel tunnel (the last big project) has made things worse. To us as a nation it has been a brilliant success. We will reap the benefit for hundreds of years. But to the businessmen it has been a failure. It was saddled with a large amount of debt at unrealistically high interest rates so as to pay the debt of quickly, which was unrealistic.

 

Sorry Peter, I think the channel tunnel is the worst thing thats happened to us in years.
Its created a massive amount of development and house building in this corner of the country, along with a rail link that caused lots of people to have their houses become worthless overnight.
And as far as it appears around here its all one way traffic, with our roads flooded with continental trucks bringing in imports, and lots of other undesirables.
I keep hoping the whole set up will go broke, but I suppose the government wont let that happen.
French government that is.