Anything is harmfull when concentrated, pure oxygen can kill.
So C02 is not harmful or toxic in any reasonable definition.
Ric2013's eco credentials
- Thread starter ekmdgrf
- Start date
Anything is harmfull when concentrated, pure oxygen can kill.
So C02 is not harmful or toxic in any reasonable definition.
Sponsored Links
R
RogueHanger
I appreciate that I'm not referring to the UK, but the last time I looked, a couple of years ago probably, here in France about 6% of energy comes from wind power.
Incidentally, the number of houses with solar panels on the roof far outweighs those in the UK. So my guess would be that solar generation here is far greater than UK also. I'm not talking about South of France either, I'm in the northern half, on a latitude about 250 miles south of Torquay.
There's nothing altruistic about energy efficiency. It simply improves our quality of life.
The less energy we consume in one area, the more it leaves us to spend elsewhere, and therefore consume more.
This phenomenon is well known through things like Jevons Paradox. Infact society has been becoming more efficient ever since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and yet energy consumption goes up each year.
And 98% of that 0.04% is natural. So human contribution is 0.04x0.02 = 0.0008% of the current concentration. Human rate of contribution has increased by about 30% since the industrial revolution. So that's 0.000008x0.3 = 0.0000024% real change over what it would have been had we not been such selfish reckless ba*tards. Lets say we could reduce that real change by 10% (not possible but let's say!) that would be a reduction of 0.0000024x0.1 = 0.0000002%. I tried to calculate what RIC's couple of metres of uPVC would save out of that number but there aren't enough zeros in the universe.
Sponsored Links
It’s not a reasonable comparison. The majority of the UK receives between 900 and 1000 kWh/m² solar insolation. This is comparable with Denmark, Norway, Sweden and not at all comparable with France, the majority of which receives between 1300 and 1400 kWh/m². The extreme South of England receives between 1000 and 1100 kWh/m² which is comparable with Northern Germany or the Netherlands.
Wow, you lot have been active!
Henry1:
You state:
This would depend on what you use to insulate with. Try something like Warmcel (a blown, recycled newspaper insulation) and the energy required to manufacture it is next to nil. It is treated with borax, but it remains a comparatively green product. It insulates about as well as fibreglass so it is a fair comparison in, say, loft applications.
On a new-build, you could use straw bale wall techniques. I was originally put off by the very alternative associations this has, but have been won over by the technical perspectives, the durability of a very badly neglected and designed straw bale building I have come across, and the fact that the Germans have made some very presentable modern houses that you would not know are straw bale from their looks!
Obviously urea-formaldehyde foam insulation is a different kettle of fish, but if we consider the pollution from energy production, then the pollution created by the insulant might still be outweighed by the pollution saved by the energy savings.
There are greenies who would agree that we should heat electric, if this were coupled with a MASSIVE drive for carbon neutral (not biomass) electricity production. However, this would be based on an equally massive drive to reduce energy consumption. I used to work for a company that toyed with the idea of selling radiant electric heaters as an energy efficient and affordable means of heating, something I was very critical about. Staff who had tested the heaters at home reported that they were too expensive to run and would not heat the areas claimed, as I had predicted. In the end, the MD accepted that 'those heaters were a load of c rap', and dropped the idea.
I mention this as I have seen dodgy companies promoting much the same stuff on much the same grounds. They even point to a Historic Scotland refurb of a listed building and the fuel savings made. When I looked at the Historic Scotland website and the actual case study, as detailed by Hist. Scot., I saw this was coupled with a comprehensive insulation programme, something the electric heater pedlar had not mentioned.
We do have hydro here. Sadly, the only way we could increase our hydro production significantly would be to flood our national parks. In any case, the C.A.T. does not really consider hydro to be particularly eco due to the large quantities of concrete used in construction and the fact that when a river valley is flooded, the usual practice is to leave the soil, plants etc under water. These rot in anaerobic conditions and so generate methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Insulation and draft proofing are the least sexy of the domestic eco technologies, but should take priority over installation of (often mis-sold) microgeneration. Of course, good draftproofing is easier said than done and not the simple bolt-on-retrofit the other technologies are.
You also mentioned that much of CO2 production is not man made. This is true. However, it is also true that the natural world tends to balance the CO2 it emits by rock weathering, and absorption into the sea, as well as the more obvious ways. Man does not balance his emissions.
Of course, we do not KNOW if anthropogenic climate change is a fact or if it is only a reasonable assumption (possibly as reasonable as the assumption that it is a myth). However, the problem is that our scientific method would normally rely on demonstrable and repeatable experiments with multiple identical planets, something not available to scientists.
(But my PVC issue wasn't particularly about CO2).
Henry1:
You state:
This would depend on what you use to insulate with. Try something like Warmcel (a blown, recycled newspaper insulation) and the energy required to manufacture it is next to nil. It is treated with borax, but it remains a comparatively green product. It insulates about as well as fibreglass so it is a fair comparison in, say, loft applications.
On a new-build, you could use straw bale wall techniques. I was originally put off by the very alternative associations this has, but have been won over by the technical perspectives, the durability of a very badly neglected and designed straw bale building I have come across, and the fact that the Germans have made some very presentable modern houses that you would not know are straw bale from their looks!
Obviously urea-formaldehyde foam insulation is a different kettle of fish, but if we consider the pollution from energy production, then the pollution created by the insulant might still be outweighed by the pollution saved by the energy savings.
There are greenies who would agree that we should heat electric, if this were coupled with a MASSIVE drive for carbon neutral (not biomass) electricity production. However, this would be based on an equally massive drive to reduce energy consumption. I used to work for a company that toyed with the idea of selling radiant electric heaters as an energy efficient and affordable means of heating, something I was very critical about. Staff who had tested the heaters at home reported that they were too expensive to run and would not heat the areas claimed, as I had predicted. In the end, the MD accepted that 'those heaters were a load of c rap', and dropped the idea.
I mention this as I have seen dodgy companies promoting much the same stuff on much the same grounds. They even point to a Historic Scotland refurb of a listed building and the fuel savings made. When I looked at the Historic Scotland website and the actual case study, as detailed by Hist. Scot., I saw this was coupled with a comprehensive insulation programme, something the electric heater pedlar had not mentioned.
We do have hydro here. Sadly, the only way we could increase our hydro production significantly would be to flood our national parks. In any case, the C.A.T. does not really consider hydro to be particularly eco due to the large quantities of concrete used in construction and the fact that when a river valley is flooded, the usual practice is to leave the soil, plants etc under water. These rot in anaerobic conditions and so generate methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Insulation and draft proofing are the least sexy of the domestic eco technologies, but should take priority over installation of (often mis-sold) microgeneration. Of course, good draftproofing is easier said than done and not the simple bolt-on-retrofit the other technologies are.
You also mentioned that much of CO2 production is not man made. This is true. However, it is also true that the natural world tends to balance the CO2 it emits by rock weathering, and absorption into the sea, as well as the more obvious ways. Man does not balance his emissions.
Of course, we do not KNOW if anthropogenic climate change is a fact or if it is only a reasonable assumption (possibly as reasonable as the assumption that it is a myth). However, the problem is that our scientific method would normally rely on demonstrable and repeatable experiments with multiple identical planets, something not available to scientists.
(But my PVC issue wasn't particularly about CO2).
Re. wind turbines.
Although in some ways of looking at it, any wind is better than none as we have a fantastic climate in the UK for it, I'm not personally a fan of offshore wind.
Because it so expensive compared with both the conventional fuels, and onshore wind. Onshore wind doesn't look nice? Maybe not, but if the alternative is no electricity at all, I know which I'd prefer.
Although in some ways of looking at it, any wind is better than none as we have a fantastic climate in the UK for it, I'm not personally a fan of offshore wind.
Because it so expensive compared with both the conventional fuels, and onshore wind. Onshore wind doesn't look nice? Maybe not, but if the alternative is no electricity at all, I know which I'd prefer.
R
RogueHanger
Over a pleasant lunch yesterday, with some new friends who teach permaculutre, (just east of Poitiers) I learned about composting showers.
Now we all know about composting toilets, but when composting showers were mentioned, I thought, yeah, but the waste water can just go to the sceptic tank or whatever.
It was the heat generation side that is the composting bit.
The water is heated by heat-exchangers using the warmth from the compost heap.
Apparently, I don't know if they're in use yet, but the next stage may be a fully self-contained shower/toilet cabin for pop concerts and similar venues.
The water for showers heated by the warmth poduced from the waste from the toilets.
Now we all know about composting toilets, but when composting showers were mentioned, I thought, yeah, but the waste water can just go to the sceptic tank or whatever.
It was the heat generation side that is the composting bit.
The water is heated by heat-exchangers using the warmth from the compost heap.
Apparently, I don't know if they're in use yet, but the next stage may be a fully self-contained shower/toilet cabin for pop concerts and similar venues.
The water for showers heated by the warmth poduced from the waste from the toilets.
Roguehanger: I had never considered the use of heat produced by a compost toilet!
I suppose a dung heap could well get the water to over 55°C, especially in the warmer French climate. It makes use of a wasted heatt, as you wouldn't want to use your toilet in a hotbed for growing food crops!
Did you find out on what sort of scale it could be practical? Sounds interesting!
I suppose a dung heap could well get the water to over 55°C, especially in the warmer French climate. It makes use of a wasted heatt, as you wouldn't want to use your toilet in a hotbed for growing food crops!
Did you find out on what sort of scale it could be practical? Sounds interesting!
R
RogueHanger
Sorry, Ric, it was only a friendly conversation over the dinner table, so we were only talking concepts.
If you want to make direct contact with them here's their website address:
http://www.permaculture.org.uk/educ...-permaculture-design-course-france-2013-09-29
Very pleasant, helpful people, Steve and Fiona.
If you want to make direct contact with them here's their website address:
http://www.permaculture.org.uk/educ...-permaculture-design-course-france-2013-09-29
Very pleasant, helpful people, Steve and Fiona.
Sponsored Links
