Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/boucherhayes/status/1201596326590525443

i've certainly noticed a jump in the 'cattle are not a source of greenhouse gases' articles in the last few weeks.

I’ve not seen articles saying cattle are not a source of greenhouse gasses. But there is definitely come correcting being published as information is available.

Not all cattle farming is equal, same as not all cereal farming is equal.

Farming animals at lower densities and in mixed swarth covers combined with trees on pasture is benifecial both in terms of environment and biodiversity.

Even the IPCC figures show that fossil fuel usage is much more of an issue regarding emissions than animal farming.

We seriously need Teagasc here to re-evaluate their position of commoditisation of farming, move them away from a mantra of “increase numbers and improve efficiency” to deliver units at lower costs. We need a less intense improved price improved product shift.

The crux of the problem with information regarding animal farming is that a small well funded lobby group with ethical problems regarding animal farming are clouding the information to meet their own ends.
All farming and land use age is about 24% of all emissions, animal farming is only a portion of that. Yet fossil fuel usage related emissions are in excess of 50% of emissions. Four or five times the problematic child than animal farming is.

From my reading of the current situation the populations of China, India, African and South America countries are growing rapidly and I don't care what stats are thrown up to prove otherwise. Population levels are well beyond sustainable already and inevitably will lead to war, famine and more pandemics.

Funsterdelux wrote: »

EU's farm animals 'produce more emissions than cars and vans combined'
It also includes the feedstuff

Good job I didnt expand on the post. Seems to be the weather forum is where the climate debate is raging.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Burping cows are old news.

And by adding some new gut bacteria it might be easily reduced.

Oddly enough you can make food out of methane. Microbes can grown on methanol from natural gas. Not sure if the overall greenhouse is less because of the increased carbon dioxide.

Oh I know its old but it needs to be repeated for some people.

From an Irish point of view I think the whole climate/carbon response should be connected with the biodiversity crisis. Theres far too much of our agri land devoted to beef and dairy.
Where I live its like a green desert.

Every technical problem we create (too many cows etc) requires a further technical solution which then in most cases creates more problems. We need to go back and simplfy things.

magicbastarder wrote: »

People plan to fly and drive more post-Covid, climate poll shows
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/10/people-drive-fly-climate-crisis-global-poll-green-recovery-covid-pandemic

i have two issues with the headline used - the results show people in *some* countries, and certainly far from all of them, intend to fly more.

and i'd be curious about the use of the word 'plan', as i don't know how the question was phrased. is it that people *plan* to drive more, or *expect* to drive more?

It seems perfectly clear to me from reading the article That by 'plan' they mean exactly that; a clear intention to do something.

This bit was great:

The apparent disconnect between beliefs and actions raises fears that without strong political intervention, these actions could undermine efforts to meet the targets set in the Paris agreement and hopes of a green recovery from the coronavirus crisis.

So, people who plan to drive or fly more must be prevented from doing so. Lovely.

I simply post two recent observations, regarding people's attitude to taking a local interest in,and applying themselves personally to actually doing something about the problems.

I posted in Boards technology, a simple cheap,around €50 , way to charge smart phones tabs etc, using a small solar panel and battery..

Almost 200 people were interested enough to take a look..

One person replied.

I charge an electric vehicle close

to a secondary school, and teenage students, some no doubt following Greta, regularly pass the car.

The school has 900 pupils and over an 8 year period ,not one has shown an interest in or asked a question about EVs..

Thanks,most interesting,maybe I shouldn't care,and get my facts right.Thanks.

Why are governments not considering the use of aircraft to spray a substance (along the lines of cloud-seeding) throughout the atmosphere in order to lower the global temperature? Would the use of dry ice work?

I find it equally depressing the schilling solar gets in a country which only sees 14% of the hours in year having actual sunlight. 50% of the hours in a year are darkness, leaving 36% of cloud obstructed gloom. If you look at the production charts the solar hobbyists post, the energy output drops about 70-80% when clouds obscure the panels, which means to get an average of 7 KW, you probably have to put in 14 KW area of panels.

The pay-back break even point is double that of sunnier countries that actually get some sunlight. Then of course there is the nonsense of solar producing energy when it's least needed and none when it is - which is winter.

50% of Europe's energy usage goes to heating buildings. Try working out how to heat a building using solar energy in winter. It's possible with a house built to passive specs, but lets get real, 99.99% aren't.

The real way to measure solar cost is to add the expense of an accompanying energy storage system that allows for 24/7/365 energy output. All over the wolrd, large amounts of solar generated electricity is thrown away because it is generated when demand is low. California, for example. Then you have Ireland's little problem, cloud cover and winter. These little issues mean you probably need at least 10+ times the quoted rating of the panel in area to get that rated output from the system consistently. Renewable like solar and wind are touted as producing 'cheap' electricity, and it's true, but this only applies under optimum conditions, which are rare. If you have to buy 10 hectares of panels in Ireland to match the output of one in Australia or the Sahara, the cost is 10 times what solar proponents say it is. And that's even before adding the cost of storage solutions.

They real kw cost of solar in Ireland is uneconomic, which is why there are sharks currently circling in the water, hoping for a lifetimes supply of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies so they can become very wealthy at taxpayer expense. A third of Scottish wind farm 'owners' are in the Cayman Islands. In Germany, the real retail cost of energy has doubled due to renewables. They have lots of solar, not because it's technically wise to try and generate electricity in Europe from it, but because it's subsidised. Same for wind. German consumers have been paying a massive charge on their power bills to subsidise renewables. If the energy were actually chepaer, their pwer bills, and ours, should have been falling. I know mine hasn't

This claim of greater solar panel efficiency at Irish temperatures is self-deceit that hobbyist PV enthusiast here engage in. A PV in Algeria generates 3 times as much power as it would in Germany, so likely 4-5 times as much as one in Ireland, despite being probably 7-8 times hotter.

The greater temperature efficiency of cold PV's doesn't even begin to compensate for the lack of light, which is one reason it's cold. So contrary to the lies, Ireland is not one of the best places in Europe for solar because it's cold, it's one of the worst.

As I have said, Boardsies with PV installations reporting their Oct production results have days of only 1.7kw and sunny days with 23kw. Trying to pretend that actually cloud isn't as bad as I or Met Eireann make out, is dishonest. I have some solar panels I acquired for a remote power project. I was completely shocked by the difference in output between naked exposure to sunlight and that from when they were behind just a double glazed window. They lost nearly 30%. Cloud is much worse. A UK site flogging PV systems claims cloud only reduces output by between 80-90%.

Here is some local data:

October Stats - galway

TOTAL 7.2kWp (4.3 south/2.88 west ) - Total production 420.3 KWH

4.3 Kwp (3.6 inverter) S/SW array -- 260.3 Kwh

2,88 Kwp (2.5 inverter) West array -- 160 Kwh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058050685/solar-pv-performance-thread-post-your-monthly-output/p31

Mid Oct there are about 10hrs of daylight, for ease, lets imagine there is no dawn or twilight tapering. So a 7.2 Kwh system can in theory produce 31x10x7.2 = 2232kw. 420 is 18%

If you think cloudcover is insignificant, rather than something that brings the whole system to it's 18% knees, then keep on trucking. As for nanowires and other pie in the sky; fantastic, but it's not real until it is. And becoming real can not be assumed as a given.

7 years ago materials science researchers at UL announced a Li-ion battery breakthrough, doubling their capacity and increasing cycles to at least 1000.https://irelandstechnologyblog.com/irish-breakthrough-in-battery-technology-doubles-battery-life-3a784f1b60ef?gi=9a586bd271ab

Do we have this? No. While research can sound promissing, as with 40% PV cells, using vertically stacked GaAs fibres grown with multi million dollar metal-organic vapor deposition machines, I doubt that process is currently fast or cheap.

Quoting the latest research as proof of something being industrially or realistically achievable and as a counter argument is juvenile.

Have you heard of micro LED TVs? Well they are the next big thing in display tech. They are they bees knees - landing any day now. Don't waste your money on a big old fashioned OLED, like I just did. They will be here any day now; just wait.

Micro LEDs were invented in 2000; 21 years later and even Samsung hasn't managed to mass produce displays using them.

Most interesting, I concentrate on small scale ,but avoided going from 20 v dc up to 230 ac and back down again,inverters and all that.Also avoiding the use of pulse mode power supplies to get back from 230 ac to USB, 5v dc. Some say possible cause of "Dirty electricity", a big problem in the States,if you look at sales of filters.

I suppose I'm talking Elon Musks Power wall idea,but staying DC, supplying the property only with 12v and 5v dc. Its just an educational hobby,costs virtually nothing,and is now supplemented with a 100 w turbine 20v off load.

It's interesting how many of our devices only require a small dc voltage,at reasonable current draw.

Moving from 12v lead acid to lipo EV batteries has reduced size and weight but complicates battery cell balancing.

It occurs to me , that when I see the awful scenes of power lines coming down during storms in the US, if they were 220v and not 110v,then the heavy cables would be half as thick, but it's not as simple as that ,when you take current and wattage requirements etc.

With all the PV talk here I thought I should share this with ye.

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2021/10/how-to-build-a-low-tech-solar-panel.html

Brilliant,well researched and not much has changed. Good to keep a sense of humour,and beware the arrogance of the Engineer,thanks.