Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
EssKay

Austerity and Millenial Socialists

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

Yes, that would make it carbon neutral. As long as we regrow the trees chopped down. Not sure how feasible it would be though.

Not remotely I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kzb said:

Some calculations find that wood chips INCREASE CO2 emissions versus coal....

Well that wouldn't surprise me. It just sounds like a stupid idea anyway, especially when you've got coal available. I wasn't suggesting it was a good idea but rather explaining how it could be considered carbon neutral at a push. But really all it does is just makes our energy bills a lot higher so a few climate change fanatics can feel good about themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kzb said:

No, because the wood comes from growing trees, which are cut down.

It takes decades for a replacement tree to grow.  Cutting down mature trees increases CO2 whilst the replacements (if any) grow back.

Some calculations find that wood chips INCREASE CO2 emissions versus coal....

It needs managed forestry, that's definitely true. You need to grow the trees first, so that part of it still shouldn't result in any net CO2 change. Any proposal to cut down existing non-managed already mature forest should be instantly rejected.

AIUI wood grown for a fuel crop wasn't being grown for decades into full-sized trees, it was a few years of fast growing species, maybe 10-15' high (I used to pass a few fields of it fairly regularly, I'll have to take a look at Streetview to see if it's still growing or has been harvested).

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wayward said:

Yes but isn't this simply because we have exported our manufacturing to Asia?  The demand / consumption for the tat  is here and despite being made in Asia the pollution associated with the manufacture of that tat should be logged against the consumer...

So much hypocrisy out there - folks bragging about using paper straws to drink their G&T whilst looking at ripping out a completely fine and functioning bathroom suite to replace with one more fashionable...creating a mountain of landfill and a lot of CO2 other pollution without a thought or care in the world.  It is all a sham.

Yes we've offshored the production of CO2. Overall world emissions are higher than ever and getting higher each year with no signs of slowing. We will definitely miss all targets and reap the consequences.  'Brutal news': global carbon emissions jump to all-time high in 2018

The issue of PLASTIC POLLUTION (the reason people are switching to non-plastic straws) shouldn't be confused with CO2/emissions though. Plastics are Big Oil and we've been conditioned since the 50s to desire and accept them in every area of our lives. They've been very successful with this scheme, who would have thought people loved plastic straws so very much? 

Microplastic pollution revealed ‘absolutely everywhere’ by new research but now that there are microplastics in our food and water (in our children's food and water) isn't it time we started wondering what it really does to our world and bodies? 

A molecular biologist warns chemicals in plastic can seep into food and lead to major health effects like obesity, heart disease, and diabetes

Pulling out a bathroom is just a symptom of the capitalist system that requires all producers/consumers to continually search for the temporary fulfilment received from spending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Kirk said:

Well that wouldn't surprise me. It just sounds like a stupid idea anyway, especially when you've got coal available. I wasn't suggesting it was a good idea but rather explaining how it could be considered carbon neutral at a push. But really all it does is just makes our energy bills a lot higher so a few climate change fanatics can feel good about themselves.

Well certain people on here think we should slap another 15% VAT on energy bills and that would mean we are not subsidising fossil fuels as much.  Thank the lord we have the EU to show us the way eh?

On the wood chips, you can Google a lot of material on this, most of it very sceptical that wood chips are anywhere near carbon neutral.  But that is the EU standard for emissions calculations.

There is about 15,000 years of coal left world-wide, and even in the UK we have mined only 15% of the coal underground.  In addition to that, there is a massive coal reserve under the North Sea.

However, I don't think we can just burn all this with impunity.  There is no shortage of fossil fuels and we will not run out in the foreseeable future.  But we can see we will run out of atmosphere.

Experts believe there is between 3 and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea.

In comparison: so far the world extracted ‘merely’ 0.135 trillion ton of oil, a small fraction of the coal reserves located beneath the North-Sea

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/

 

 

Edited by kzb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/03/2019 at 09:11, happyguy said:

Yes I understand that.  :)What I do not understand is where all the people who do not work get the money from to pay rent/

mortgage food cars a TV etc.

 

In the transitional phases it would be through a Citizen’s income.

In a true post scarcity civilisation though there would be no need for money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kzb said:

However, I don't think we can just burn all this with impunity.  There is no shortage of fossil fuels and we will not run out in the foreseeable future.  But we can see we will run out of atmosphere.

We definitely can’t burn it all with impunity- but we won’t “run out of atmosphere”.

The composition will continue to change if we don’t significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - resulting in increased temperatures and more extreme weather patterns. The atmosphere will still be there though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎08‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 16:05, EssKay said:

We definitely can’t burn it all with impunity- but we won’t “run out of atmosphere”.

The composition will continue to change if we don’t significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - resulting in increased temperatures and more extreme weather patterns. The atmosphere will still be there though.

It was poetic licence.

Yes you are correct, the composition will change but there will be an atmosphere.

Having said that there are serious proposals to extract CO2 from the atmosphere using solar power.  Liquid CO2 could then be pumped into old oil wells for storage, in fact we could charge the rest of the world for using north sea oil wells for CO2 storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/03/2019 at 12:49, kzb said:

Having said that there are serious proposals to extract CO2 from the atmosphere using solar power.  Liquid CO2 could then be pumped into old oil wells for storage, in fact we could charge the rest of the world for using north sea oil wells for CO2 storage.

 

That sounds mental.

How can it possibly be more efficient to use solar power to extract atmospheric CO2, compress it, transport it and then pump it underground vs just using the solar power for electricity generation and burning less fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, EssKay said:

That sounds mental.

How can it possibly be more efficient to use solar power to extract atmospheric CO2, compress it, transport it and then pump it underground vs just using the solar power for electricity generation and burning less fossil fuels.

Generally yes, although because of the energy density with fossil fuels they're much more practical in some applications (e.g. transport - don't get me started on the godawful mess that's railway electrification for example), whereas in theory at least if you've got enough power in fixed locations using that to counter-act the former may work, at least if you give a crap about more than just short-term 'efficiency'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/03/2019 at 09:46, EssKay said:

 

In the transitional phases it would be through a Citizen’s income.

In a true post scarcity civilisation though there would be no need for money. 

There is no such thing as a 'post-scarcity society'. When I send my robot army to England to turn it into a medieval theme park, where do you think you're gonna live?

As for the 'Citizen's income' nonsense, the reason the 0.1% want everyone on a 'Citizen's Income' is so that, once people are used to it, the 0.1% can shut off the money and watch everyone starve.

I used to feel bad for Millennials because they'd been screwed over by the Boomers even more than we were in Gen-X. But as those Millennials vote for their own destruction, I really can't care about them any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MarkG said:

There is no such thing as a 'post-scarcity society'. When I send my robot army to England to turn it into a medieval theme park, where do you think you're gonna live?

As for the 'Citizen's income' nonsense, the reason the 0.1% want everyone on a 'Citizen's Income' is so that, once people are used to it, the 0.1% can shut off the money and watch everyone starve.

I used to feel bad for Millennials because they'd been screwed over by the Boomers even more than we were in Gen-X. But as those Millennials vote for their own destruction, I really can't care about them any more.

Humans are just inherent stupid, greedy and short-sighted in general.

 Millenials can moan all they like about 'boomers' but they themselves are not in any way less 'bad' than the boomers that they like to criticise .. they were just unlucky enough to be born into the time when the 'West' that we know is coming off the rails.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Most Millennials were raised by Boomers, so they're basically Boomers 2.0... except the Boomers took a thriving society and wrecked it, while Boomers 2.0 are starting with a society that the Boomers wrecked and just playing among the wreckage.

Marx was at least right about history repeating as tragedy, then farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 17:16, EssKay said:

 

That sounds mental.

How can it possibly be more efficient to use solar power to extract atmospheric CO2, compress it, transport it and then pump it underground vs just using the solar power for electricity generation and burning less fossil fuels.

It can.  There is nothing in thermodynamics that says this is not possible.

Also, heat retention is not directly proportional to CO2 content.  Look up "Beers Law".   IR transmission through the atmosphere is a logarithmic relation. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kzb said:

It can.  There is nothing in thermodynamics that says this is not possible.

Also, heat retention is not directly proportional to CO2 content.  Look up "Beers Law".   IR transmission through the atmosphere is a logarithmic relation. 

Uh oh this sounds like verifiable science - can't have that! No, no, we must defend the dominant paradigm, because only a 100+ year old technology is suitable for living in 2019. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PeanutButter said:

Uh oh this sounds like verifiable science - can't have that! No, no, we must defend the dominant paradigm, because only a 100+ year old technology is suitable for living in 2019. :D 

Well considering that 2019 isn't suitable for living in... Could do with a big technological wind back really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Uh oh this sounds like verifiable science - can't have that! No, no, we must defend the dominant paradigm, because only a 100+ year old technology is suitable for living in 2019. :D 

What dominant paradigm?  Thermodynamics?

 I'm simply trying to ascertain if something breaks the laws of thermodynamics or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/03/2019 at 17:29, Riedquat said:

Generally yes, although because of the energy density with fossil fuels they're much more practical in some applications (e.g. transport - don't get me started on the godawful mess that's railway electrification for example), whereas in theory at least if you've got enough power in fixed locations using that to counter-act the former may work, at least if you give a crap about more than just short-term 'efficiency'.

I was chatting to a friend who designs/engineers electric vehicles, mostly big stuff like bin lorries and busses. I remarked that rangewise battery powered vehicles would never be able to fully replace their diesel equivalents like HGVs. He told me that they were ideal in many ways - they had loads of space to store several of the coffin sized batteries that they use. Especially when the huge diesel engines, cooling plumbing, fuel tanks etc. were removed.  Even trains are viable candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/03/2019 at 15:59, PeanutButter said:

Yes we've offshored the production of CO2. Overall world emissions are higher than ever and getting higher each year with no signs of slowing. We will definitely miss all targets and reap the consequences.  'Brutal news': global carbon emissions jump to all-time high in 2018

The issue of PLASTIC POLLUTION (the reason people are switching to non-plastic straws) shouldn't be confused with CO2/emissions though. Plastics are Big Oil and we've been conditioned since the 50s to desire and accept them in every area of our lives. They've been very successful with this scheme, who would have thought people loved plastic straws so very much? 

Microplastic pollution revealed ‘absolutely everywhere’ by new research but now that there are microplastics in our food and water (in our children's food and water) isn't it time we started wondering what it really does to our world and bodies? 

A molecular biologist warns chemicals in plastic can seep into food and lead to major health effects like obesity, heart disease, and diabetes

Pulling out a bathroom is just a symptom of the capitalist system that requires all producers/consumers to continually search for the temporary fulfilment received from spending. 

If you wear polyester clothing or have polypropylene carpet you are breathing and ingesting plastic every day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Well considering that 2019 isn't suitable for living in... Could do with a big technological wind back really.

It's not the technology that makes Current Year such a crappy place. It's the massive population of assholes telling everyone else what to do.

Just think where we'd be if all the time, effort and money we've spent since WWII just dealing with assholes had been invested in better technology instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MarkG said:

It's not the technology that makes Current Year such a crappy place. It's the massive population of assholes telling everyone else what to do.

Just think where we'd be if all the time, effort and money we've spent since WWII just dealing with assholes had been invested in better technology instead.

That doesn't help. The technology dependency and obsession is just my personal grudge, even though some of it's fun to play around with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, newbonic said:

I was chatting to a friend who designs/engineers electric vehicles, mostly big stuff like bin lorries and busses. I remarked that rangewise battery powered vehicles would never be able to fully replace their diesel equivalents like HGVs. He told me that they were ideal in many ways - they had loads of space to store several of the coffin sized batteries that they use. Especially when the huge diesel engines, cooling plumbing, fuel tanks etc. were removed.  Even trains are viable candidates.

For a train I suppose you could go back to the locomotive model instead of multiple units and pile all the batteries in there (although there's no reason that couldn't then distribute power back to powered carriages - would let them accelerate faster but cost more). I'd like to see it happen but if it does it'll only be on a few minor lines, the rest it's rather more efficient to make a complete ugly depressing mess of by stringing wires up above them. No need to carry the power at all then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/03/2019 at 01:25, MarkG said:

There is no such thing as a 'post-scarcity society'. When I send my robot army to England to turn it into a medieval theme park, where do you think you're gonna live?

As for the 'Citizen's income' nonsense, the reason the 0.1% want everyone on a 'Citizen's Income' is so that, once people are used to it, the 0.1% can shut off the money and watch everyone starve.

I used to feel bad for Millennials because they'd been screwed over by the Boomers even more than we were in Gen-X. But as those Millennials vote for their own destruction, I really can't care about them any more.

You must have missed my earlier posts in the thread. I was replying to a question on where the money comes from in this highly optimistic post scarcity scenario.

 

My own worldview is much more pessimistic. I don’t think the potential benefits of AI and automation will be shared with the plebs (not without a fight anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2019 at 10:22, kzb said:

It can.  There is nothing in thermodynamics that says this is not possible.

Also, heat retention is not directly proportional to CO2 content.  Look up "Beers Law".   IR transmission through the atmosphere is a logarithmic relation. 

I’ll take your word for it. It just seemed counter intuitive to me that dealing with the CO2 problem in the way you suggested would be more efficient than just reducing our use of fossil fuels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, newbonic said:

I was chatting to a friend who designs/engineers electric vehicles, mostly big stuff like bin lorries and busses. I remarked that rangewise battery powered vehicles would never be able to fully replace their diesel equivalents like HGVs. He told me that they were ideal in many ways - they had loads of space to store several of the coffin sized batteries that they use. Especially when the huge diesel engines, cooling plumbing, fuel tanks etc. were removed.  Even trains are viable candidates.

I was on safari once and the ranger told me they trialled electric 4x4s but had to swap them back. I asked if they weren't strong enough and he laughed, no they were perfect vehicles for the short distances involved, great power and manoeuvrability, all the rangers loved them, but the animals were used to the sound of combustion engines approaching and didn't appreciate being sneaked up on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 354 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.