This may go slightly off topic in some aspects and I'll try to be brief
in my thoughts and concerns, but I don't know whether it's guilt or just
a case of not being able to make sense of it, that I can't get it out
of my head, hence the posting as I present myself on usw's couch for
therapy :-)

It appears to me "we" are saying one thing and doing another in the wide
scheme of things. On one hand we are getting a daily bashing about the
greenhouse emission we are all producing with our cars, homes and planes
etc, yet how ever much we as individuals can reduce our own levels, both
the increase in usage and global spread of industrialization turns the
ratio into a one step forward two steps back scenario. Only this week
the European Countries have been putting pressure on Putin (Russia)
about securing a free market and subsequent supplies of Gas from the
east. Have we now come to the point where the UK/Europe can no longer
support itself with the fossil fuels it requires and will depend more
and more on Countries further afield? Politically this is extremely
worrying and is the makings of wars in the big scheme of things if
things spiral out of control for whatever reason. The Iraq conflict
arguably fits into this scenario.

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet got left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.

--
Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
e-mail: kreh at southendweather dot net

In message , "Keith (Southend)"
writes

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet got left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.


There's huge amounts of fossil fuels apart from conventional oil and
gas. There's coal. There's oil shales and tar sands. There's orimulsion.
(I recently saw a statement that the Orinoco Belt, not the Persian Gulf,
has the world's largest oil reserves, which I guess comes down to
whether or not you count orimulsion.) There's methane clathrates. We
might run out of clean and cheap fossil fuels, but we aren't going to
run out of fossil fuels in general in the near future.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Keith (Southend) wrote:
This may go slightly off topic in some aspects and I'll try to be brief
in my thoughts and concerns [...]

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet got left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.

There remains (allegedly) 30+ years of oil and gas in the North Sea.
The plan is indeed to burn the lot. There is also a plan to do so using a
carbon capture method, with my local power station destined to be the first to
be converted.
I have no view on whether carbon capture 'works' in planetary terms.

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan.


It is not unreasonable that if 'we' mess with the planetary systems, then the
systems will in turn mess with us. It seems that evolution demands extinction
at some point, especially for species with no other form of population
limitation controls (no predators). If that is the case, then it does not need
to be worried about.


I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!


Again, population explosion may be considered the cause, rather than the
emissions themselves. By that, I mean it is the scale of say the CO2, not the CO2.

I think some 20% of Scotland's energy is from 'alternative' sources, and given
that Scotland produces several times more energy than it uses, it is a good
model for viable alternatives. However, electricity is of less use if the oil
runs out as many electrical devices are made from oil products.

I note that 'people' do not want wind farms etc., but they don't want nuclear
power stations either, or even 'ordinary' power stations. My local power
station is large and unsightly, warms the sea locally and affects wildlife, and
its chimney belches yellow smoke occasionally, and it (the chimmney) is visible
for miles around. Equally, 'people' do not want the lights to go out but do not
want to do anything about it.

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,

Not me!


--
Gianna

It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable
power generation source most of the time.
Enough investment into Hydrogen fuel systems for our automobile usage etc
would mean zero CO2 outputs in the long term.

Leaving the oil for making children's toys.

Ross

-------------------------------------------------


I think some 20% of Scotland's energy is from 'alternative' sources, and
given
that Scotland produces several times more energy than it uses, it is a
good
model for viable alternatives. However, electricity is of less use if the
oil
runs out as many electrical devices are made from oil products.

Gianna

"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a lot
of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts of
energy

David b

David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a lot
of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts of
energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is considered both
viable and highly significant. The possibility of exporting surplus to the
mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

Global warming does not have to be a problem for mankind as long as we
prepare for what we will need to do to adapt, and start preparing now. I
think we are too far gone to stop anthropogenic global warming, not with the
likes of China and India only now just beginning to come online
economically. They will follow the easiest route to industrialisation, which
is burning fossil fuels, and we can't deny them that route. It does'nt mean
that we should not bother to take into greater consideration the environment
today, I just think we now need to prepare and realise that we are going to
have to face the repurcussions of past and present industrialisation. I
think we'll need to learn to accept and adapt to the fact that we're going
to lose large areas of several of our major cities to the sea, we'll lose
our present landscape as trees die etc, not being able to deal with the
speed of the change, but agriculturally by changing the crops we use, in
areas of the world where agriculture remains or newly becomes viable, it is
feasable we could manage. I reckon global warming will no doubt cause
conflict, but if we are going to adapt and survive the world will have to
take globalisation up a gear and come togethor politically globally, so that
we can work togethor so that people don't starve in some countries (while
other countries reap the benefits, e.g more advantagous growing seasons).
Who knows, us guys in the UK may all have to move to Spain or North Africa
to escape those advancing glaciers if the Gulf Stream shuts off, that will
take a fair bit of political co-operation! I saw a programme a BBC couple of
years ago which said that mankind was nearly wiped out by some natural
disaster tens of thousand years ago (may have been disease), and numbers
fell to just a couple of thousand, only the strongest most adaptable and
innovative survived. But with foresight (we know it's probably on its way),
science, technology, and political dexterity, we have developed the tools
over the past 6,000 years to limit the natural repurcussions we will
experience in the new few hundred years. Realistically I think it's going to
take a few more Hurricane Katrina style wake up calls before the poilticians
are driven into action because the people have the will. Unfortunately the
biggest losers will be the flora and fauna, that won't be able to adapt,
we're probably going to see a lot of diversity being destroyed, and the
world will be a lot duller for it. But for mankind I think there will be
winners and losers. And it will be a valuable test for how to deal with
natural climate change when that eventually happens!


"Gianna" wrote in message
...
David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a
lot of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts
of energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is
considered both viable and highly significant. The possibility of
exporting surplus to the mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a
lot of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts
of energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is
considered both viable and highly significant. The possibility of
exporting surplus to the mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

You got a reference I could look at.
Google comes up mainly with academic references
The Engineering Business did a lot of testing on Orkney
David B

Some useful references are in this document.
http://www.wave-energy.net/Library/T...Renewables.pdf
quoting
"The accessible resource (wave power) in deep water was estimated to be
600-700 TWh/year and that for the nearshore at 100-140 TWh/year."

"The accessible tidal stream resource for the most suitable sites in the UK
(including the Channel Islands) is estimated to be approximately 36
TWh/year."

So, the potential harvest is enormous & only limited by technology,
investment and nimbyism. One little bonus of tidal and wave systems I'd also
guess is the possibilty of creating a safe haven for North Sea fish stocks
to regenerate without dredge netting pressure. That should please the
puffin-watchers ;o) .

From wiki : - By 2004, total electricity production stood at 382.7 TWh (up
23.7% compared to 309.4 TWh in 1990), generated from the following sources:
a.. gas - 39.93% (0.05% in 1990)
b.. coal - 33.08% (67.22% in 1990)
c.. nuclear - 19.26% (18.97% in 1990)
d.. renewables - 3.55% (0% in 1990)
e.. hydroelectric - 1.10% (2.55% in 1990)
f.. imports - 1.96% (3.85% in 1990)
g.. oil - 1.12% (6.82% in 1990)
Ross


"David B" wrote in message
news

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely
predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a
lot of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant
amounts
of energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is
considered both viable and highly significant. The possibility of
exporting surplus to the mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

You got a reference I could look at.
Google comes up mainly with academic references
The Engineering Business did a lot of testing on Orkney
David B

Keith (Southend) wrote:
[...]

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.


And suddenly, a solution was at hand ...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2033071.html?menu=

.... or not.

--
Gianna