Greta Thundberg

[Notch7]

Even the green protests are far from green, with the extra fuel use they caused during their protests and how much extra fuel did they burn getting to the protests?

Your flaw in your arguments is that the rich fossil fuel lobbyists put pressure on politicians.

Also politicians are doing too little too late.

The world population has triple in the last 70 years -that is a huge problem.

Greta has made a huge effort to bring a sense of urgency to the issue of global warning.

 

[wobs]

The one constant since the earth was formed, has been there has been constant climate change. It would be futile to attempt to suggest that it is not changing, the records prove otherwise, but the records do not prove what the cause is.

We know what causes it: Greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere. They are increasing in concentration, and the Earth is getting warmer.

We also know the bulk of it is coming from fossil fuels. And this is backed up by evidence:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm
See "Isotopic Signature", where we find:
"Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14. Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

Besides, some of the green policies are not really green at all - far from. The cure is often worse and less beneficial than the disease.

Wind generators, solar panels and etc. are far from green. The whole picture needs to be assessed, cost of manufacture, cost installation, cost of maintenance and cost of the standby plant for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. The environmental cost of batteries for cars needs to be assessed along with the environmental cost of the power to charge them. Even the green protests are far from green, with the extra fuel use they caused during their protests and how much extra fuel did they burn getting to the protests?

So you have no evidence then.

Wind turbines and solar panels are beneficial, along with nuclear power. While all have a carbon cost, they are minuscule compared with coal and other fossil fuel sources:

Taken from government guidance, but echoed by carbon footprint experts who I have met.

A commercial scale wind turbine will take a few months to pay back the carbon footprint of manufacture. This takes into account spin reserve of gas turbines and manufacture etc.

Also, Greta went on a boat to go to New York rather than fly, and yet she is still criticised.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It's impossible to go any distance without using some fuel one way or another. So are you suggesting that nobody should protest or make concerns heard because of that?

I'm fairly green, but I try not to be stupidly and obsessively so. I would not dream of burning lots of fuel, to go protest. You can only be genuinely green by assessing the overall picture, which is where many go so very wrong, including governments.

So we have a 16 year girl suffering from autism, jetting round the world, preaching to everyone about how they ought to be concerned about green issues and climate change - who is herself making a massive contribution to that change, even supposing it might be the cause. Sorry, but I find it all rather silly.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

So you have no evidence then.

Wind turbines and solar panels are beneficial, along with nuclear power. While all have a carbon cost, they are minuscule compared with coal and other fossil fuel sources:

For every 1Mw wind generator, there has to be conventional fossil fuelled generation on standby for when the wind doesn't blow. For every solar panel there has to be conventional ready to pick up the load, when the sun goes down. How is that green?

 

[JohnD]

For every 1Mw wind generator, there has to be conventional fossil fuelled generation on standby for when the wind doesn't blow. For every solar panel there has to be conventional ready to pick up the load, when the sun goes down. How is that green?

hahahahaha!

Remind me, how many tonnes of coal do we burn per year now?

How many did we burn ten years ago?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

We know what causes it: Greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere. They are increasing in concentration, and the Earth is getting warmer.

The earth has always warmed up and cooled down. The predictions for global warming have been miles out each year. There are vested interests in a green economy, wind generators and solar panels, just as there are in fossil fuels, with us the mugs in the middle paying the vast costs.

Now if you want truly green, support nuclear generation, which is cost effective for both us and the planet.

 

[Notch7]

For every 1Mw wind generator, there has to be conventional fossil fuelled generation on standby for when the wind doesn't blow. For every solar panel there has to be conventional ready to pick up the load, when the sun goes down. How is that green?

To be fair, that was the argument I used.

But think about it - for the times renewables are in use, there is no need for conventional to be producing.

Also mass electrical storage units are being added to the grid.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

hahahahaha!

Remind me, how many tonnes of coal do we burn per year now?

How many did we burn ten years ago?

Backup generation has diverted to gas, diesel and other forms of fossil fuel. The coal burners are now almost gone, so how is that really better?

Despite not having the heavy power consuming industries we once had, just last week there were wide area power cuts, affecting millions, due to loss of network capacity. The network runs with very little spare capacity, made much worse by relying on wind and solar.

 

[Notch7]

Now if you want truly green, support nuclear generation, which is cost effective for both us and the planet

I think Wobs knows about nuclear......

 

[wobs]

The earth has always warmed up and cooled down. The predictions for global warming have been miles out each year. There are vested interests in a green economy, wind generators and solar panels, just as there are in fossil fuels, with us the mugs in the middle paying the vast costs.

Have you got anything that is based on reality?
You have still to provide any evidence. Do you seriously think that its all a big conspiracy between climate scientists and solar panel manufacturers?

Now if you want truly green, support nuclear generation, which is cost effective for both us and the planet.

We indeed need more nuclear power, but we also need renewables.

 

[wobs]

Backup generation has diverted to gas, diesel and other forms of fossil fuel. The coal burners are now almost gone, so how is that really better?

See the graph above. Gas is cleaner than coal, and with renewables, it is used less.
Nuclear power is great for baseload supply, but not so economic for variable supply. We need both in a grid.

 

[JohnD]

How is that green?

how is that really better?

Because, thanks to the large and growing amount of energy coming from renewables, we are burning less fossil fuels.

Are you seriously saying you didn't know that?

 

[wobs]

So we have a 16 year girl suffering from autism, jetting round the world, preaching to everyone about how they ought to be concerned about green issues and climate change - who is herself making a massive contribution to that change, even supposing it might be the cause. Sorry, but I find it all rather silly.

Jetting?

 

[JP_]

What is also important is the amount of electricity we use. Yes, nuclear and renewables are helping reduce carbon emissions, but our demand for electricity is 4 times greater than in the 1940s. We really need to rethink how we live our lives. Not just because of global warming, but because like coal, gas and uranium are also finite. Nuclear is not infinite, it will run out, and there is a huge investment in building the power stations and then again in decommissioning them safely.

There's loads of graphs like this, and they are all a bit different, so not accurate. This one chosen for the nice colours.

We need more blue on this graph. Lots more. Another reason to install more insulation in your homes!

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Because, thanks to the large and growing amount of energy coming from renewables, we are burning less fossil fuels.

Are you seriously saying you didn't know that?

I know what are suggesting, but to a large extent it is wrong. There are a few percent of our energy needs coming from renewables, but the renewalable need conventional plant on standby to pick up the load, for when the renewables don't produce. We need most energy in winter and would you credit it, solar produces little energy in winter. What do we do in winter when the sun doesn't shine and there is no wind? Yep, that's right we use much more in the way of fossil fuels than had simply not bothered with the renewables. The renewable are massively expensive to create, massively expensive to maintain and contribute little in the way of useful power, when it is most needed - Pie in the sky, to line commercial pockets.