Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What you fail to realise, is that the 'there is no CO2 driven global
warming' is another agenda driven by peole who have other ideas tat are
more about short term profit.

You have become their sock puppet.
But it could be said, and doubtless has been, that "What you fail to
realise, is that the 'there is CO2 driven global warming' is another
agenda driven by people who have other ideas that are more about
raising taxes. You have become their sock puppet."

Good game, this.
I totally agree Terry, but its babies and bathwater. Just because people
are running cynical marketing campaigns on the back of ecology, doesn't
mean the ecology itself is false.

If you look at my posts, you will find I have defined a word for it .
Ecobollox. I.e. my position is that the problem exists all right, but
the solutions on offer are just so much hot air and marketing fluff.

I'm trying to say something similar, in that the solutions proposed
deal with just one problem, that might turn out to be a minor
perturbation caused by the other eight or so problems about which very
little is known.

I don't think that is the case. However the argument is rapidly becoming
irrelevant: a crashing world economy will use less fuel, and buys us
more time, and in the end only nuclear power will work, and we should
have just about enough time to get it onstream before the lights go out.

Carbon fuel just got too expensive compared with nuclear. Bye Bye petroleum.


It used to be called 'putting all one's eggs in the basket', and I
can't see that that is a good way of going forward.


I dont think you are representing the situation accurately. For whatever
reason, the Age of Oil is dead. Over. Finished.

In this country oil/gas burning probably accounts for about 90% of
carbon emissions,. stop burning it and there is no argument. Use as many
ordinary lightbulbs as you like.
What we need to do is to build nuclear power stations and a bloody great
grid, and make everything that doesn't move run off electricity,
starting with home heating using heatpumps if possible.

That alone, if we had the nuclear capacity to generate it, would
probably knock 15-20% of the carbon we use, on the head: add in
industrial static use and its nearer 40%. Make sensible electric
commuter cars and we are probably over 55% reductions, and with a bit
more effort. long distance trucks and the like, and we are up to getting
on for 60-65%.

Whats left is hard to reduce: aircraft? well no suitable alternative
exists, on intercontinental stuff, but high speed trains are more than
fast enough for transcontinental journeys. So that might take us up to
maybe 70-75% reductions.

The bitst that are left include military and civil emergency forces,
that mauy have to operate without electricity for extended periods, some
intercontinental air travel, a few things like portable gas stoves and
blowlamps, and the petrochemicals industry.

Even these are possible to either synthesise fuel for, or do with
electricity..I mean a blowlamp is only a hot air gun write large..

WE dont actually NEED carbon fuel at all. We do need carbon as a
reducing agent and chemical component in e.g. steelmaking, but we
actually have nearly all the steel we need.

What we DO need is massive amounts of cheap energy, and there is only
one way we know how to do that that doesn't burn carbon fuel..