View previous topic | View next topic

Global Warming is a Hoax

Page 21 of 22
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 20, 21, 22  Next


What do you think?
Global Warming is a hoax
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
It's real, but is mostly natural
26%
 26%  [ 18 ]
It's real, and is mostly affected by man
58%
 58%  [ 39 ]
Ooh look, a brown dog outside my window...
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 67

dr.bob
1350737.  Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:02 am Reply with quote

More interest will certainly result in reduced prices. However, as far as I'm aware, the problems with hydrogen fuel cells aren't solely limited to the price.

According to this article, storing hydrogen as a gas is expensive and energy intensive thereby hugely reducing the efficiency of the process. Hydrogen is also the smallest molecule there is, making it very easy for it to escape confinement. I've heard reports that if you leave a hydrogen-powered car on your driveway for an extended period of time, you're likely to return and find your "fuel tank" empty. This is not a problem that affects petrol/diesel powered cars, or battery powered EVs.

The article also points out that regulating temperatures is vital for a hydrogen fuel cell, making it more difficult to operate in extreme cold or heat. It concludes that, while fuel cells have several advantages, they won't be a viable power source for cars until many of the problems have been ironed out.

Another article refers to a report compiled by management consultancy Horváth & Partners, which looked at the energy efficiency of battery-powered EVs compared to Hydrogen fuel cell cars.

Since he mentioned it before, PDR might be interested to read their figures for energy loss when charging and using an EV (they claim 8% of the electricity is lost in transmission from the source to the car's battery pack, while 18% of what remains is lost between the battery pack and the drive wheels, though how variable those figures are I don't know). The same study found that producing, storing, and transporting hydrogen resulted in a loss of more than 65% of the energy used to make it.

This study has been viewed by Volkswagen as sufficiently convincing that they have chosen to focus their research efforts into pursuing battery technology rather than fuel-cells. However, other car manufacturers disagree. The article states that Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota are all developing fuel cells. However, all three seem to be focussing a lot of effort on developing commercial vehicles rather than cars. This makes sense since a vehicle that's in constant use would at least avoid the problem of having their fuel evaporating while left unused for a while. I guess ultimately time will tell.

So, in short, while the technology "is there", it still needs work. And while it may remove the “inconvenience” around filling up times, it does appear to introduce a bunch of other “inconveniences” which would be similarly unpalatable to the average private car owner.

 
vlatimiro
1392379.  Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:13 am Reply with quote

Global warming is not a scam. It is a scam to require other countries to limit carbon emissions on the grounds of global warming to limit the increase in GDP of other countries, and even the inexplicable tax collection of carbon taxes is a scam.


Spammy link removed

 
Jenny
1392397.  Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 am Reply with quote

Hi vlatimiro. Would you care to defend that particular assertion without the aid of a spammy link?

 
Alexander Howard
1392415.  Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:38 am Reply with quote

Maybe it is along the lines "We in Britain, Western Europe and North America launched the Industrial Revolution with steam power, burning coal to drive industry, turning our skies black to turn our cities into gold, then we invented new machines burning oil to drive the next stage of the revolution, and out of those fires we have made ourselves richer than ever imagination could reach. Now these petty countries, those which we found crawling on their bellies barely in the Iron Age when we met them, they too want riches? They must be kept in their place."

That is not what Westerners actually think, but it must look very much like that from the outside - denying poorer peoples the very means by which we became wealthy and calling it progress.

 
suze
1392437.  Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:44 pm Reply with quote

It is rather what Donald Trump thinks, and he is definitely of the Western world.

 
CB27
1393075.  Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:29 pm Reply with quote

Somewhat related, but perhaps deserves it's own thread, is some Government research which was accidentally published and and quickly withdrawn in case some people thought this was a policy guide.

Among a number of headlines from this paper was that we should shift our diets to more plant based diets to helps sustainability and the environment.

I actually do eat more plant based food than most omnivorous people because I was vegetarian for some years and I still like to cook vegetarian meals, so I'm as far removed from those who demand the right to eat meat.

However, I have some difficulty with organisations (and pundits) calling for people to ditch meat due to sustainability or ethics.

First, let's get ethics out of the way. Plants are living creatures, they are not some lab grown organic compound. Many plants (and we should bring fungi into this as well) display reactions to stimuli, threats and have mating techniques which are as elaborate as many of their animal cousins.

Then there's sustainability. While it's true to say that many fruits and vegetables are more sustainable than meats, this is not always the case, and you need to consider several measurements, such as use of land, use of water, CO2 and other gas emissions during up to the point of process. Then there's the labour intensive rate and yield per year, as well as other factors. And of course there's impact on environment if yields need to be increased.

For example, soy beans are often considered the among the most sustainable foods in terms of land, water and gas emissions, but the need to take over land already used by other flora and fauna means they have an impact on other species' environments.

If we take normal beans as another example, they are also seen as fairly sustainable, with a low use of water and carbon footprint, compared to chicken. However, if you compare the yield for equivalent amount of protein, beans will use about 50% more land than chicken. Quinoa uses twice as much land as chicken, but a quarter of the amount of water.

Other meats are less sustainable than chicken, but even then there are examples of vegetarian foods which are even less sustainable than them. For example, while pork will use more land and water than rice, it's actually got a slightly lighter carbon footprint.

And when it comes to nuts, it's all about which ones you have. While most have a low carbon footprint, some have very high land and water use. The worst is probably pistachios (which I admit I love), might have a low carbon foot print compared to most meats, and the land use is much lower than beef or lamb (and a little lower than pork), but they use up massive amounts of water (12 times as much as beef).

It's not as simple telling people to have a more plant based diet.

 
Jenny
1393126.  Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:33 am Reply with quote

That is really interesting and should be more widely known.

 
dr.bob
1393131.  Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:53 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
For example, soy beans are often considered the among the most sustainable foods in terms of land, water and gas emissions, but the need to take over land already used by other flora and fauna means they have an impact on other species' environments.


Indeed so. I saw a TV programme once talking about biodiversity which highlighted the problem of large scale farming. They pointed at a huge field planted with rapeseed and explained that while, to the untrained eye, it looks like a lovely expanse of green, exactly the kind of thing that springs to mind when you think of "nature", in reality biodiversity experts refer to such fields as "green deserts". The expanse of monoculture make it almost impossible for the vast majority of native wildlife to survive in that kind of environment.

Another article I read somewhere noted that one of the most sustainable foodstuffs currently available is wild venison. These animals are not fed or watered and are given no pharmaceuticals. They eat wild plants and drink rainwater. They live in uncultivated landscapes which provide environments for a huge range of other animals and insects. On top of that, they breed like crazy so the regular culling of the animals is necessary to prevent them from completely destroying the environment in which they live.

 
crissdee
1393141.  Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:56 am Reply with quote

Also, and I admit this is only of relevance to us carnivores, wild venison is bl**dy delicious!!!

 
PDR
1393142.  Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:07 am Reply with quote

So those of us here in the Farnham Ghetto have actually been living the exemplar sustainable lifestyle with our predilection for venison cooked in recycled decaying fruit*...

PDR

* Merlot for preference

 
Leith
1393166.  Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:09 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
CB27 wrote:
For example, soy beans are often considered the among the most sustainable foods in terms of land, water and gas emissions, but the need to take over land already used by other flora and fauna means they have an impact on other species' environments.


Indeed so. I saw a TV programme once talking about biodiversity which highlighted the problem of large scale farming. They pointed at a huge field planted with rapeseed and explained that while, to the untrained eye, it looks like a lovely expanse of green, exactly the kind of thing that springs to mind when you think of "nature", in reality biodiversity experts refer to such fields as "green deserts". The expanse of monoculture make it almost impossible for the vast majority of native wildlife to survive in that kind of environment.

The extent of soy farming is indeed a serious environmental concern, but it would be a grave error to consider this an argument against plant-based diets.

The explosion in soy production is almost entirely driven by the meat and dairy industry - 77% of it is used for animal feed.
A further 17% goes to vegetable oil production and industrial uses, in particular the fast-growing bio-fuels sector.

Only 7% of soy production goes directly to human foodstuffs.
A reduction of meat in our diets could significantly reduce demand for soy production.

https://ourworldindata.org/soy

 
Leith
1393169.  Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:13 pm Reply with quote

The same goes for many of the other claims in CB's post 1393075, which seem out of step with the figures typcially quoted by experienced environmentalists. I'd be interested to see the source - I suspect the figures again do not take into account land-use for plant crops grown to feed animals, which is very inefficient way of producing human food calorie-for-calorie.

This study is widely quoted in the field:
http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

By these figures:
- Legumes generally, including beans use only slightly more land than poultry (7.3 m^2 per 100g protein vs 7.1) and dramatically less than most meats.
- Pork has 2.5 times the land use and 2.5 to 5 times the carbon footprint of rice*.

Across the board, the vast majority of plant food crops are far less land-use and carbon intensive than typical animal food sources.

Taking the meat and plant use in typical human diets holistically rather than cherry-picking outliers, analyses like this one suggest that agricultural land use could be reduced by 75%.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Yes, monoculture crop-farming has serious environmental consequences - particularly for species diversity, but there is no reason an increase in plant-based diets should excerbate this. Humans tend to like much more diverse diets than those we force on the farm animals that most crops are currently grown for.

* https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane

 
Alexander Howard
1393283.  Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:58 am Reply with quote

It seems to me, and do shoot me down on this, that as winter takes a grip and gas prices are rocketing, and the 'eco' alternative, namely heat-pumps, turn out to be worse than useless in a northern climate, then the better solution would be to encourage the environment to warm up so we do not need to spend the family fortune on heating.

It would also reopen valuable trade routes through the Canadian and Russian Arctic that have been clogged with ice since the Middle Ages, and encourage better crop yields.

 
tetsabb
1393296.  Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:33 am Reply with quote

We watched a programme on Smithsonian last night that looked at a broad range of environmental issues, which mentioned that the average USAnian eats 265lbs of beef a year, which seems an awful lot. Beef production, of course, requires large amounts of land, and produces huge amounts of methane, which is a very nasty greenhouse gas , very bad for the planet

 
Dix
1393300.  Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:06 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
, and the 'eco' alternative, namely heat-pumps, turn out to be worse than useless in a northern climate

How do we know that heat pumps are worse than useless?
Is heat pumps the only alternative available?

 

Page 21 of 22
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group