> Not necessarily. It's generally accepted that the
> Paris Accord, while being the best international
> agreement we have so far, will do very little to
> solve climate change.
The Paris Accord is constructed as a precurser to an effective solution that will emanate from the PA over time. It seeks to align many different attitudes & circumstances so that future agreements can be negotiated within an agreed framework & flexible timetables. As such it is better that all the squabbling, ducking & diving that went before it as it will lead each country to set down defined criteria whereby they intend to operate.
> At the moment we have green technology subsidised
> by tax payers that doesn't work. Wind turbines
> that need to be turned off if it's too windy.
> Solar panels that cost more to produce and run
> than the energy they provide.
A lot of the product of wind turbines is unused or underused due to much of the power is being produced at nighttime [generated at night when demand is lowest]. This is currently being worked on by way of refining the costs & methodologies of storage [batteries & electricity to gas/hydrogen] that show some economic promise [timeshifting - produce @ 2.5P at night & sell @ 9.5p during the day - the differential more than pays for the storage] This will reduce the number of thermal generators during peak demand. Little by little it will get refined & CO2 reduced significently. Water can be split to raw hydrogen & oxygen at 40% of the stored power - It can be combined with CO2 to form CH4 [methane] in a virtuous circle, in both streams the surplus oxygen can be used to combust the hydrogen/methane leading to a 'sweeter' mix & less dioxins produced - it will come on stream within the next 5 years or so as the processes are refined & become more economic. The economics are already promising & the savings in CO2 significent.
Modern solar panels vary in their carbon footprint including the embodied energy of mining the materials & production.
For the UK this approximates to about 60grams/kWh of electricity produced & for southern Europe it approximates to 35 grams/kWh of electricity produced. This is 10 times lower than the output of fossil fuels [typically 500 grams/kWh in the UK & over 1000 grams/kWh for coal fired generators.
Maintenance of PV panels is minimal - mostly a bucket & sponge for cleaning & replacement of some minor electronics & rectifiers. Most PV panels for industrial use come with 20/30 year guarantees both for performance & breakdown.
The environmental payback for the UK is down to 2.5 years or thereabouts & the economic payback is currently down to about 5 years @ 900 kWh/M2/year. For southern Europe the equivalent is 1.5 years for environmental payback & about 3.5 years for economic payback.
Its best to interrogate the actualities of these technologies before you jump to criticize the efforts being made to date. It is a work in progress & has been better than doing nothing.
> It amuses me that Facebook and Apple are
> pretending to be outraged. Between them they have
> probably been responsible or more electricity
> consumption (in the West at least) manufacturing
> tablets and phones, constantly recharging them, to
> engage in social media.
Apple, Amazon & Facebook are at the forefront of reducing their footprints & also at the leading edge of energy storage not only for environmental reasons but for continued security of supply.
Greater reduction can be achieved by reducing demand mainly through increasing insulation but the conservative government abandoned the near Zero/Sustainability 6 requirements for new homes. This was a retrograde step lobbied for by Tory backing major developers so they could save a very small amount of money [about £5,000 to £10,000 per unit] that they want to go directly to their bottom line.
> Resist the knee-jerk reaction malumbu.
keano77 - Methinks that it is yourself that excels at the kneejerks..!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2017:06:05:18:31:45 by Lordship 516.
Very informative Lordship 516. I agree that all these technologies show promise and hopefully one day will be fit for purpose.
What you conveniently fail to mention is all this nascent technology is hugely subsidised by the tax payer. As it doesn't really work yet companies are not spending huge R&D in the field unless governments cough up because there's no profit in it.
An interesting post-US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement row on Newsnight cited figures from the International Energy Agency that current global subsidies are $150Bn a year and that the IEA estimates that over the next 25 years $3 Trillion will go in subsidies. (A counter argument here is those subsidies create green industries and jobs but it is still inefficient technology).
> But very easy to be a foolish rightwing
> libertarian, clearly... Don't
> give me some old guff about whether I had a shower
> today or not, answer a grownup question.
> By the way, in response to your nonsense above, I
> cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go today,
> I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, I
> use a broom not a vacuum cleaner, I don't have a
> dishwasher, I get my electricity (which I use
> sparingly) from the greenest supplier possible
> despite the fact that it's not the cheapest... Of
> course, to you that's being sanctimonious - a
> cheap and stupid word used by people who don't
> like the idea that other people might make more
> effort to be environmentally sound than them. Ooh
> aren't I holier than thou - damn' right I am.
Ha! Now I'm beginning to understand why you seem so miserable the whole time Rendel. I'll make sure I'm extra nice to you in future! Chin up.
Keeping an eye on the live feed of the Comey hearing...no definite evidence of wrongdoing as yet (plenty of circumstantial, much seems to hinge on whether saying "I hope you can drop the investigation" was the expression of a personal hope or a veiled order) - pretty extraordinary statement from Comey though that although he never kept notes of his meetings with Obama or Bush he did with Trump because "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting."
> I don't know if I might miss Trump when he is
> I'm quite enjoying watching him go insane.
Know what you mean but I'd sooner watch him go insane a little further away from the button - terrifying interview on PM last year with the guy who co-wrote The Art of the Deal with him, "Trump would be quite capable of starting a nuclear war just because he thought he wasn't being shown enough respect."
I'm quite convinced the Republican Party has him firmly under control. I believe they already have a dossier that would sink him; there's no way they would allow him to even slightly undermine their plans. Power rests inside the beltway and Trump has learned that, if he starts to leave the reservation they'll deal with him, one way or another.