[alancalverd]

We have already achieved the goal  you seek.

The goal is a UK population of 5 - 10,000,000. I don't think we have achieved that, or are likely to without some radical changes.

[Bored chemist]

We have already achieved the goal  you seek.

The goal is a UK population of 5 - 10,000,000. I don't think we have achieved that, or are likely to without some radical changes.

How do we do that quickly?

If your idea managed to get people to stop having children completely and we blocked immigration, how long would it take for the required 60,000,000 people to die?

[alancalverd]

About 60 years.

"Quickly" isn't essential. Any reduction in population is immediately beneficial, and a planned continuous reduction to a set target is best of all.

[Petrochemicals]

Report

The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,

https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156?fbclid=IwAR3vfPknEgAf6pxK934zG0P7Mia18wfSdUvsI8kt9qVfO52p3IQz6COe__U

Sadly, this is partly BS. If it were entirely true, there would have been serious blackouts in the recent past, but there haven't been.. Subsidies are paid whenever potential supply exceeds demand, and thereby hangs a significant problem.

Subsidies will only increace, more nuclear power with guaranteed price points and inflexible generation coupled with more wind is being installed. Wind is going to end up costing more than the touted 4pkwh at present. Fortunately many proposed offshore wind farms are being dropped because the price point is now just too low. Onshore is much cheaper, but in such a crowded little island finding an area where the noise is not a nuisance is difficult.

[alancalverd]

Nukes are not inflexible, as the French and Russians have shown. It just happens that the economically optimum run cycle is very long so nuclear provides a very cheap base load (which will become more important as industry and heavy transport decarbonise) and a technically feasible quick response capacity.

The use of hydrogen for transport and heating can simplify the transition to zero carbon, and either wind or nuclear can provide the primary source for a stored-hydrogen grid. The problem with nuclear is the very large investment of fossil fuel required to build and fuel a nuclear reactor - it's probably no longer economic to do so, and the absence of UK expertise and capital in this field, plus the recent history of budget and timetable overruns doesn't bode well even for a doubling of capacity this century.

[Bored chemist]

If we had 100% windpower and adequate distributin capackty the installed genrating capacity would have to support full demand on the least windy days, so we'd need at least 900% overcapacity to cope with, say, last week's weather (or lack of).

Last week's weather had far too much wind. It just wasn't in the right place.
E.g.
"In early August 2023, a series of wildfires broke out in the U.S. state of Hawaii, predominantly on the island of Maui. The wind-driven fires prompted evacuations".
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hawaii_wildfires

One way to look at the issue is as a storage problem, the other as a distribution problem.
For Hawaii, distribution is a non- starter but it's rather unusual in that regard.
Trying to do the whole lot by distribution is tricky too.
But to only focus on one option is short-sighted.

I'm not saying that getting the international agreements will be easy.
The question is are we more likely to get the people to agree to distribute electricity, or to stop having children?

Given how much effort people put into having kids, my money is, at the least, on a combination.

[Bored chemist]

"Quickly" isn't essential.

This is like saying we will have enough food when the truck arrives in six months.
Sure, but we will be dead by then.

Now, to some extent, that solves the problem of over-use of resources.
But the carbon dioxide we release is going to mess up the climate for the survivors long after we are gone.

Waiting 60 years is not an option.
It might have been 30 years ago.

[alancalverd]

You don't have to wait 60 years - the benefits begin immediately.

Much of the rest of the world will become very unpleasant during the remainder of this century, both climatically and politically, but it seems entirely sensible for the UK to mitigate the effects of climate change and resource depletion for the benefit of our own children and grandchildren - and indeed ourselves.

Any other options to offer?

[Bored chemist]

Any other options to offer?

Stop making excuses for continuing to make it worse.

[alancalverd]

I'm baffled. In what way is my  investment in heat pumps and hydrogen vehicles, campaigning against meat farming, and refusal to attend in-person conferences, making things worse?  I'm even promoting cold-cathode x-ray systems to save energy!

Or are you suggesting that I should promote a cull? 

[alancalverd]

The question is are we more likely to get the people to agree to distribute electricity, or to stop having children?

I'm sure everyone would be delighted if you were to improve electricity distribution. AFAIK over 99% of UK properties are connected to the mains and we haven't had any major blackouts in the last couple of years, but if you think we could do better at no cost or inconvenience, let's hear how.

You say that the birthrate is already below the death rate, so it seems that people are already making the choice. A little explanation and ?1000 per year would, in my opinion, only improve the situation.

[Bored chemist]

I'm baffled.  In what way is my  investment in heat pumps and hydrogen vehicles, campaigning against meat farming, and refusal to attend in-person conferences, making things worse?

They aren't, but this

My concern is that faffing about with the fuel mix is going to cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time

is

making excuses for continuing to make it worse.

[alancalverd]

So spending money and wasting time instead of solving the problem is a Good Thing? Are you an NHS administrator, by any chance?

[Bored chemist]

Calling cutting CO2 emissions "spending money and wasting time instead of solving the problem" is a bad thing.

[alancalverd]

But replacing existing vehicles with new ones that require fossil fuels to manufacture and run, doesn't reduce anthropogenic CO2.

Reducing future demand to a level that can be sustained indefinitely from renewables, would.

[paul cotter]

Alan, quick off topic question re cold cathode xray tubes: how do you get conduction with a cold cathode, I can only think of two ways, (1) imperfect vacuum or (2) beta emitter for cathode.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Well, having accepted that the global warming problem really is caused by global population increase we need to make a positive plan to correct the situation by assisting expanding countries to reduce their population growths.
The UN should be in the lead but not sure when they will respond with a plan.

[Bored chemist]

, doesn't reduce anthropogenic CO2.

Present tense

Reducing future demand to a level that can be sustained indefinitely from renewables, would.

Future conditional tense.
But we don't have time to wait.


If we don't introduce new standards/ paradigms for vehicles, people will still spend money on cars.
The manufacture will still contribute to AGW.

And the fuel use will continue to do so.
If we do change to EV (or whatever) people will still spend money on cars.
The manufacture will still contribute to AGW.
But the fuel use will not continue to do so.

[Petrochemicals]

As the population of a country expands then the requirement to feed, house and transport more people increases proportionally..

With regards co2 an efficient mass transit system in all major up areas(which would have come in at under the cost of hs2) , better insulated houses and more locally produced food may reduce co2 emissions.

[alancalverd]

Alan, quick off topic question re cold cathode xray tubes: how do you get conduction with a cold cathode, I can only think of two ways, (1) imperfect vacuum or (2) beta emitter for cathode.

(3) Field emission from carbon fiber cathodes.

But it's all a bit of a joke anyway since 90 - 99% of the energy dissipated in the anode is heat, however you do it!