Due to the general economic slowdown oil is no longer in such demand right now. This had resulted in a drop in the price of crude oil. Now OPEC want to restrict supply in the hope of driving prices back up.
Now I am not generally in favour of what the Green’s are. Their science often seems dubious, their policies ill thought out. Their motives anti progress, anti people. To the point where the mere fact that they may endorse something is enough to raise suspicions about it.
Never-the-less I do sometimes involuntarily find myself marching in parallel with them. Their dislike of oil is one of those occasions. Needless to say I am not demonising 4 wheel drive vehicles and their drivers, wanting to impose punitive taxation on air travel, or want to see Tata forced to stop selling cheap cars in India.
Still it would be nice to wean the world off carbon fuels. This is difficult as there is a massive existing technology and infrastructure. It is not like starting out from scratch.
The thing is, a standard car/truck, preferably made with a stainless steel engine parts and exhaust could run almost unmodified on hydrogen gas, producing nothing but water in the way of emissions. Zero Pollution.
Now Hydrogen can be ticklish stuff, but so can petrol. Surely it can not be beyond the wit of the worlds engineers to come up with a relatively 'safe' (as safe as petrol) means of storage, if only a really tough tank/bottle.
If it could be accomplished it would be an easy win in so many areas and has the potential to grant energy self sufficiency.
With sufficient power it would be possible to crack hydrogen from water.
So then, lots of power… atomic power stations anyone? Follow the French lead?
That would certainly cut green house emissions, but having power to spare is probably not sufficiently hair shirt for the Greens. Obviously not hair shirts for them personally, just the rest of us who would get to live in mud huts and die before 45.
Showing posts with label Green Scapegoats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Scapegoats. Show all posts
Monday, 3 November 2008
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Founder of weather channel says global warming is a scam
Some interesting comments on Global warming from the weather channel man John Coleman. Coleman, now the weather anchor on KUSI-TV, San Diego, California and the meteorologist who made it his business to be right about the weather founding the weather channel.
So presumably he must know a thing or two about the climate.
That is why it is so interesting when he says that manmade climate change is a scam. You can see him here if the video above does not work.
Monday, 29 October 2007
New Labour's Benn Barking up wrong tree
Nu-Lab’s Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, son of Anthony starey eyed Wedgewood Benn is planning to put forward what he describes as a ‘tougher, more effective and more transparent bill to help tackle climate change’.
There is much talk of various environ-mentalist measures that will probably do the economy no good and will probably involve stealth taxes.
Yet again Nu-Lab unerringly gallop off in the direction of controls, regulation, social engineering and punitive taxation.
Assuming that climate change is in fact down to Manmade CO2 rather than say variation in solar output. If the Governemnet are really serious about reducing CO2 emissions then they should be encouraging the building of new generation nuclear power plants. It is estimated that, in total in 2003, the UK produced 786 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
If all of the UK’s power needs were taken care of by nuclear, wind, tide, etc. then this could be reduced to close to nothing
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen.
But touching on the subject of things nuclear – Remember the threat of the nuclear winter? Or the depression of global temperatures, as a result of major volcanic events?
Just a thought, but if climate change is indeed a threat, down to CO2 or not, maybe someone should be looking into the possibility of duplicating the effect of a nuclear winter on a non toxic controllable scale?
There is much talk of various environ-mentalist measures that will probably do the economy no good and will probably involve stealth taxes.
Yet again Nu-Lab unerringly gallop off in the direction of controls, regulation, social engineering and punitive taxation.
Assuming that climate change is in fact down to Manmade CO2 rather than say variation in solar output. If the Governemnet are really serious about reducing CO2 emissions then they should be encouraging the building of new generation nuclear power plants. It is estimated that, in total in 2003, the UK produced 786 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
If all of the UK’s power needs were taken care of by nuclear, wind, tide, etc. then this could be reduced to close to nothing
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen.
But touching on the subject of things nuclear – Remember the threat of the nuclear winter? Or the depression of global temperatures, as a result of major volcanic events?
Just a thought, but if climate change is indeed a threat, down to CO2 or not, maybe someone should be looking into the possibility of duplicating the effect of a nuclear winter on a non toxic controllable scale?
Monday, 18 June 2007
Air Travel is Green 'Scapegoat'
The British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) has presented a report to the UK Government, warning that air transport is ‘being used as a scapegoat’ for anthropomorphic global warming.
They say "half truths and untruths" (very diplomatic - misdirection and lies to the rest of us) are making air passengers feel guilty when they have no need to.
BALPA says air travel accounts for no more than 3% of the world’s human generated carbon dioxide emissions.
Some environmentalists are claiming that this will increase significantly because of a greater number of flights, but BALPA disagree with this estimating a possible rise of up to 6% by 2050. They also pointed out that the latest jets were more carbon efficient than high-speed trains over long distances.
Plane manufacturers like Boeing are working on more fuel efficient airliners all the time it makes good financial sense.
BALPA Chairman Mervyn Granshaw said:
"Our report clearly shows that technological advances now being researched will cut aircraft emissions still further,"
"It would be inappropriate and premature to restrict air transport at this time. “
"The damage that would be done not only to our industry but to tourism and to the economies of developing nations would be enormous." and he pointed out, air travel had become, "an easy target".
Weather you accept the theory of Anthropocentric global warming, or not, it must be clear to even the most ardent infra-green that, on the basis of saving costs alone, it makes good business sense to increase the fuel efficiency of passenger jets as much as possible.
If you are really that concerned about UK carbon emissions, then you need to look first at power stations, over the last 6 years, carbon emissions from coal fired power stations have increased by 6%, to reach 178m tonnes.
There is the effectively zero carbon, nuclear power option available right now. The French are on this route. This idea is even backed by James Lovelock the British environmental scientist who postulated the Gaia Theory. He says:
"There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world."
With a concerted push it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to be producing most of the UK’s electricity by nuclear power within 15 years.
They say "half truths and untruths" (very diplomatic - misdirection and lies to the rest of us) are making air passengers feel guilty when they have no need to.
BALPA says air travel accounts for no more than 3% of the world’s human generated carbon dioxide emissions.
Some environmentalists are claiming that this will increase significantly because of a greater number of flights, but BALPA disagree with this estimating a possible rise of up to 6% by 2050. They also pointed out that the latest jets were more carbon efficient than high-speed trains over long distances.
Plane manufacturers like Boeing are working on more fuel efficient airliners all the time it makes good financial sense.
BALPA Chairman Mervyn Granshaw said:
"Our report clearly shows that technological advances now being researched will cut aircraft emissions still further,"
"It would be inappropriate and premature to restrict air transport at this time. “
"The damage that would be done not only to our industry but to tourism and to the economies of developing nations would be enormous." and he pointed out, air travel had become, "an easy target".
Weather you accept the theory of Anthropocentric global warming, or not, it must be clear to even the most ardent infra-green that, on the basis of saving costs alone, it makes good business sense to increase the fuel efficiency of passenger jets as much as possible.
If you are really that concerned about UK carbon emissions, then you need to look first at power stations, over the last 6 years, carbon emissions from coal fired power stations have increased by 6%, to reach 178m tonnes.
There is the effectively zero carbon, nuclear power option available right now. The French are on this route. This idea is even backed by James Lovelock the British environmental scientist who postulated the Gaia Theory. He says:
"There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world."
With a concerted push it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to be producing most of the UK’s electricity by nuclear power within 15 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)