[alancalverd]

You are drifting off the point that population explosion is responsible for increased CO2 emissions.

It's certainly responsible for increasing anthropogenic CO2, but I don't think CO2 is the driver of climate change.

IMHO climate change is as inevitable now as it always has been. We just happen to be reaching the end of a period during which the planet was able to sustain a huge increase in human population and an enormous increase in the per capita consumption of resources which itself led to an increase in human longevity. Problem is that for the foreseeable future the climate will not permit such luxury for so many people, so we will have to reduce the number of people voluntarily to an indefinitely sustainable level before nature imposes mass famine on our descendants.

As with all scientific advances, it's a good idea to carry out a "tech scale" trial to explore and encourage major investment in a novel process, and the British Isles is an ideal pilot plant, being effectively isolated from every other part of the world. Whether anyone else follows is up to them.

[Bored chemist]

I don't think CO2 is the driver of climate change.

climate hoax.png (269.21 kB . 650x434 - viewed 632 times)

[Petrochemicals]

You are drifting off the point that population explosion is responsible for increased CO2 emissions.
 

Not necessarily just yet, Chinas population is decreasing, yet its co2 emissions are increacing rapidly, *many times what it was at their peak population, even if we deduct the co2 that is used for export of goods, it is still more.

*it will be

[alancalverd]

Energy independence, preserve rainforests, etc., are all desiderata sui generarum, precisely because climate change is inevitable - they won't prevent it.

[Bored chemist]

Energy independence, preserve rainforests, etc., are all desiderata sui generarum, precisely because climate change is inevitable - they won't prevent it.

Alan, I'm sure you are capable of being equally unclear in English.

[alancalverd]

Desirable on their own account, without external reference.

It's a good idea to live in a clean and tidy world, and bequeath an indefinitely sustainable infrastructure to your descendants. As the climate becomes increasingly inimical to human life, the few survivors will be grateful for your foresight in preserving the best aspects of civilisation. 

You can't stop the train, but you can get off the track.

[Bored chemist]

As the climate becomes increasingly inimical to human life, the few survivors will be grateful for your foresight in preserving the best aspects of civilisation. 

And if they see that we failed to even try to stop making it worse, they will despise our generation for eternity.

[alancalverd]

All the actions on the "climate hoax" screen are worth doing, as I said earlier, and will indeed reduce CO2 emissions. The problem arises when you (or more likely your grandchildren) discover that they haven't halted climate change and you still have too many people to feed, but no longer have the technology to increase production or clean up the sewage.

It would therefore seem logical to pursue a zero-cost demonstration of damage mitigation whilst doing whatever the Faithful think might influence the laws of geophysics.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Chris Packham seems to want us to demonstrate about the abandonment of unobtainable targets in the reductions of CO2 emissions . 
He appeared not to have understood that we cannot ban oil without replacing its versatile energy with some other form of energy source.
Renewable wind and solar are not sufficient to power our electric grid 24/7.  We should certainly consider starting to rehabilitate our existing and closed nuclear power stations.
Development of electric vehicles for inner city use is advancing well but motorway vehicles will realistically remain hybrid and continue to use diesel and petrol as their exhaust gases can be absorbed by roadside green vegetation which will photosynthesise the CO2 and produce oxygen for us or our animals to breath.

[Bored chemist]

motorway vehicles will realistically remain hybrid and continue to use diesel and petrol as their exhaust gases can be absorbed by roadside green vegetation which will photosynthesise the CO2 and produce oxygen for us or our animals to breath.

How wide do the green verges need to be to achieve that goal?

[alancalverd]

The problem with hybrid petrol and diesel vehicles is that they generally emit as much CO2 per ton-mile of payload as nonhybrids. The small gain from regenerative braking is offset by the additional mass of the battery. The original purpose of hybrids was to reduce inner-city pollution by running electric at low speeds and using the battery to boost acceleration, to meet California standards, but they offer no advantage on motorways and just cost more - and their manufacture involves more CO2 emission than a nonhybrid. Great for taxis and delivery vans, but pure electric or hydrogen is much better.

[Petrochemicals]

The problem with hybrid petrol and diesel vehicles is that they generally emit as much CO2 per ton-mile of payload as nonhybrids. The small gain from regenerative braking is offset by the additional mass of the battery. The original purpose of hybrids was to reduce inner-city pollution by running electric at low speeds and using the battery to boost acceleration, to meet California standards, but they offer no advantage on motorways and just cost more - and their manufacture involves more CO2 emission than a nonhybrid. Great for taxis and delivery vans, but pure electric or hydrogen is much better.

They also wear tyres, roads and themselves faster due to their weight.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Transport of add types will always require a fuel to energise it.  Our objective is to get clean fuel at minimum cost.

So IMHO we have sensibly agreed to open a coal mine and now to resume exploiting oil in the north sea all of which will bring jobs for our children and save foreign currency.
 
It is a shame that the Welsh coal mines and power stations are not still operating or that Port Talbot steel works cannot also be brought back on line

Number one priority however, is to get the nuclear plants built to drive the base load of 20 GW or so all of which gives our kids more work and assists industry to expand economically.

Population explosion caused CO2 emissions to rise and drives global warming but using clean fuels help us all.

[Petrochemicals]

Population explosion caused CO2 emissions to rise and drives global warming but using clean fuels help us all.

Not necesarry as I said China has a falling population but it's co2 is rising as they seek western lifestyle standards, co2 per person if you subtract shipping and manufacture of western goods from China is still beneath that of the UK, even though China is mostly coal powered.

[alancalverd]

It is doubtful whether nuclear power is still affordable. Back in the 1950s and 60s the energy breakeven period for a nuke was between 5 and 10 years - beyond the horizon for private investment  but a sensible investment of cheap fuel and political capital for a government.

Privatisation of electricity supply, and the increased cost (in "real" terms) of every aspect of building and decommissioning a nuclear power station, plus the complete absence of cost control in major public works and the steadily decreasing cost of electricity on the days when the wind blows, means that you will just be burning fossil fuel (to make concrete , steel, and all the other stuff you need for a nuclear reactor)  with no likelihood of ever generating more energy or money than you spent on the project. Better to use it for road and air transport until the hydrogen grid is built. 

[Bored chemist]

Our objective is to get clean fuel

we have sensibly agreed to open a coal mine and now to resume exploiting oil

Do you know what "clean" means?

[alancalverd]

It means whatever the seller wants it to mean. Like every other adjective in politics and economics.

[Petrochemicals]

. Better to use it for road and air transport until the hydrogen grid is built. 

We used to have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

[alancalverd]

My point precisely. The change to methane hasn't diminished the grid's capability to handle pure hydrogen, and the change was managed very efficiently in regional sectors thanks to it being a nationalised utility at the time, so no scientific reason for not changing back.

It will of course need investment in gas storage to replace the LPG farms (but that technology is well-established) and electrolysis plant (plenty of commercial suppliers available).  Less efficient conversion of wind to useful power than batteries, admittedly, but vastly more flexible, no need to replace all domestic and industrial boilers and furnaces - just change the burner jets - and much better power to weight ratio and recharge times for surface vehicles and aircraft.

[Petrochemicals]

My point precisely. The change to methane hasn't diminished the grid's capability to handle pure hydrogen, and the change was managed very efficiently in regional sectors thanks to it being a nationalised utility at the time, so no scientific reason for not changing back.

It will of course need investment in gas storage to replace the LPG farms (but that technology is well-established) and electrolysis plant (plenty of commercial suppliers available).  Less efficient conversion of wind to useful power than batteries, admittedly, but vastly more flexible, no need to replace all domestic and industrial boilers and furnaces - just change the burner jets - and much better power to weight ratio and recharge times for surface vehicles and aircraft.

Surely the order of hydrogen conversion is houses first, half of all Uk energy use is natural gas at present. I don't think that steel is going to be a big factor, given we don't really produce any, but maybe we could produce green steel at a lower price than coke and grow an industry that way.