Re: Domestic wind turbine

["Mal Lansell" <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Mark Harrison (Groups)" <mph@a...>
wrote:
>
> You take a view point that I am understanding as "whether it's
100
or
> 200 years, it's all irrelevant in the long term." Please correct
me if
> I'm mis-representing you. (I may be slightly exaggerating your
views.)
>

That's a fair summary of my main point, yes.


8< snipped a bit.

> In the next 100 years, we can reasonably expect to see changes in
> technology that are a similar order of magnitude in breadth to
those of
> the 20th century. Already many South American cars run
on "biodiesel",
> which is processed directly from plant material rather than fossil
> fuels. Whether this will become big enough to dramatically reduce
the
> amount of fossil fuels extracted within the next 100 years, I have
no
> idea. However, it was one concept currently in production that
sprang to
> mind immediately.

I don't see biodiesel as a viable solution, for several reasons:

1) The amount of land required.  The world appears to struggle to
grow sufficient food, let alone additional crops for fuel.

2) Water.  We are seeing water shortages in many areas - biodiesel
crops will require a lot of additional irrigation.

3) Global Warming and CO2 is not the only pollution issue.  What
about the damage caused by the fertilisers used on biodiesel crops,
or the other by products of combustion - nitrogen and sulphur
compounds, as well as particulates.

>
> Likewise, hybrid cars that run on electricity in traffic and fossil
> fuels on the fast roads are already in use - I know of at least one
> UKHAer who drives one! I personally am pro nuclear, although the
> cultural Imperialism of the US in building their dated
"domestic"
> designs instead of some of the newer, cleaner, safer Canadian
models is
> a bit scarey, to say the least.
>

I too am pro-nuclear.  I would happily drive an electric car when
the time comes.  As for the issue of radioactive waste, I see the
the need to build a new generation of nulear power plants as just a
stop-gap until fusion has been scaled up - i.e just a few more
decades of waste to deal with.  The volumes of waste aren't all that
great, so it should be manageable.

> It strikes me as possible that within the next 100 years, we will
have
> supplanted fossil fuels for 90% of their current uses, which would
mean
> that the outstanding reserves last for a further 4-500 years from
that
> point.
>
> The difference between 100 and 200 years is significant to me in
terms
> of the time it gives to research and refine further alternatives.
I can
> easily see hybrid vehicles that run on nuclear-generated
electricity at
> low to medium (say, 50 mph) speeds, and rely on biodiesel above
that.
>

Maybe, but the only way to stop all the available fossil fuels
ending up in the atmosphere is to completely stop using them - just
cutting down is not enough.  We've already used most of it up, and I
can't see a complete halt to all fossil fuel burning occurring
before they run out.


> I can also see the real chance that, in the next 100-200 years,
there
> will be sufficient advances in biotech to have opposite processes
at
> different parts of the carbon cycle, engineered to refix
atmospheric CO2
> back into plants genetically engineered to be efficient for
biodiesel.
>

That should be as scary a concept as global warming.  Talks of
attempting to reverse global warming should set off alarm bells in
any sane person's mind.  I'd rather leave things as they are than
have "experts" meddling with the climate trying to reverse an
effect
they don't fully understand.


> What will drive this will, as ever, be economics. It's my belief
that
> fossil fuels will become more expensive each decade at a rate that
far
> outpaces other types of inflation. That will tilt the economic
balance
> in favour of other types of "fuel" gradually, and make the
decision to
> cut over more likely for more consumers each and every year. It
may be
> that by next year, we only have 2 UKHAers with hybrid cars rather
than
> the 1 I know of at the moment... it may be, however, that by 2020,
we
> have 50% of the group running such vehicles. (It may be, that
rather
> more than 1 already does!)

Agreed - the difference is that I believe we can be patient and can
wait for that to happen on its own.

Mal