Most of the quality LED lights can be had in warm white, an almost perfect match for halogens, cool white, with no green tint any longer and day light which is pretty much balanced to daylight and is fantastic if you work with colour matching or are an artist etc. I use daylight in my fettling room as my eyes are not as good as they used to be and the bright light sharpens their focus.
renewable energy
- Thread starter graystoke4
- Start date
Most of the quality LED lights can be had in warm white, an almost perfect match for halogens, cool white, with no green tint any longer and day light which is pretty much balanced to daylight and is fantastic if you work with colour matching or are an artist etc. I use daylight in my fettling room as my eyes are not as good as they used to be and the bright light sharpens their focus.
chiily
PFM Special Builder
Ark B?
MJS
Technical Tinkerer
I think we have enough sanitisers doing the rounds at the moment without worrying if they were packed off on another ship.
calorgas
Generic middle-aged man
Probably, yes. I anticipate no meaningful response by Governments around the world until their own houses are on fire or disappearing under the waves. It's beyond depressing.
slavedata
pfm Member
i don't think its head in the sand. Previous threads here show most PFMers are well aware and except the issues. In their own way they are trying to do something about it. ( Use of LED lighting, Solar PV, Heat pumps etc.) The reality is governments worldwide have to really get on the case. Biden is doing his best in the States and is a breath of fresh air after Trump. Australia is dragging its feet due to the coal lobby which is madness given how much solar they have to play with. The UK needs to take a lead but currently seems to just make warm statements but sod all really happens. (But Johnson does that for everything)
Energy is the key to everything and recent reports on Fusion are looking much more encouraging. If mankind can crack that it is probably the key to sorting the issues from global warming.
More worrying are all the multi millionaires wanting to get into space so they can rape the moon and other planets to generate untold wealth.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
I think that's right. I donate to environmental groups and try and limit my consumption and travel. But it doesn't feel like it's enough and it doesn't feel like as a species we're doing anything like enough. But I'm not sure what else I can do.
I don't hold out much hope of radical action from governments. Telling people to consume less is a vote loser and our economies are all designed around ever increasing consumption ('growth').
My gut feeling is we're absolutely fvcked but I hope I'm wrong.
It is a gross simplification to only focus on the supply side when discussing emissions from burning fossil fuels.
I think Australia should certainly eliminate its domestic use of brown coal for power generation. However
77% of Australian coal is exported. As consumers in a global economy that is 78% reliant on fossil fuel energy we all share responsibility for reducing emissions.
I think a full lifecycle approach is needed to allocate CO2 emissions and make policy adjustments accordingly. For example if you buy an ipad that is made in China with raw materials extracted in Africa and energy from coal extracted in Australia, you should own the CO2 emissions related to the raw material extraction, product manufacture and shipping to the final location.
Global emissions will only be reduced if new policies address both supply and demand of consumer products that consume fossil fuel energy.
Last edited:
calorgas
Generic middle-aged man
True, it's a global issue obviously and as consumers we're responsible for our personal choices. Australia is still eye catching though being one of the countries at the sharp end of current climate extremes, yet they're more than happy to profit as much as possible from their coal reserves, while they can (plus are clearing forest faster than Brazil etc). I don't believe they export any coal to China at the moment though as China slapped a ban on that after Australia demanded an investigation into the origins of Covid. They've found other countries to sell it to though.
Tony L
Administrator
Wind farms are plentiful around here up on the moors etc, which is great to see. Huge amounts of turbines on the higher ground. The picture gives no sense of scale, these are really huge things! I went to a local presentation a decade or so ago. IIRC this farm on average delivers all the energy for the local area (obviously needs backup for still weather, but puts into the grid in other times). It was pegged as an investment opportunity and in hindsight I should maybe have stuck a couple of £k into it. No idea how such investment are tracking though, I’d expect well given the nation-wide investment in this technology (I think it was Peel Holdings or something, but I can’t remember).
China produces seven times more coal than Australia.
Although I used an example of a discretionary consumer product, the scope is much larger than that. The whole world economy is reliant on fossil fuel energy for agriculture, manufacturing, construction, international shipping and local transportation. The attention Australia gets is disproportionate to its contribution to global emissions on a lifecycle basis.
It is easy to single out extractors of raw materials as a root cause of the problem, but closing down the extractive industries would have a domino effect on the whole world economy that would directly effect the standard of living of the global population. People in poorer countries would die of starvation.
In my opinion a country by country solution will not work. Closing down raw material production in one country will just create a gap in the market that will be exploited by another country. We need global policy to reduce consumption in wealthy countries while still allowing less developed countries access to improved living standards.
Ponty
pfm Member
Agree with you. Western countries will have to accept and embrace lower consumption. Of course, this goes against the ‘growth’ models politicians love and cause huge problems in less developed countries. Unpopular decisions will have to be made for meaningful change, not just higher taxes. We’re tinkering around the margins really, not facing the fundamental issues of population explosion and ever increasing global consumption.
George J
Herefordshire member
With the massive differences between the richest and poorest populations of the nations of the world, at present, there is not a huge correlation between CO2 emissions and population. Some very poor countries have huge populations in relation to their emissions, so their per capita levels are very small. The richest economies of the world generate per capita emissions in orders of magnitude greater than the poorest. The real solution is to bring down emissions per capita among the worst offenders to the levels managed [by dint of poverty in reality] in the poorest nations. Nothing else can possibly have any effect - long or short terms.
Is this going to happen before it is too late? I doubt it. A miracle may happen, but it is about as likely as me winning the Lottery tomorrow.
Here is a list of the countries of the world listed according to CO2 emissions and usefully giving the per capita levels as well. It gives us a stark reason for why controlling the world population level is not going to have any significant effect in the necessary time-span.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Wishing everyone all the best, George
Is this going to happen before it is too late? I doubt it. A miracle may happen, but it is about as likely as me winning the Lottery tomorrow.
Here is a list of the countries of the world listed according to CO2 emissions and usefully giving the per capita levels as well. It gives us a stark reason for why controlling the world population level is not going to have any significant effect in the necessary time-span.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Wishing everyone all the best, George
Last edited:
darrenyeats
pfm Member
UK not doing that bad per capita for a large advanced country.
I'm shocked by Canada, higher than the USA.
I'm shocked by Canada, higher than the USA.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Darren,
Yes, and it’s one of our national shames.
Some of our energy use and the attributable greenhouse gas emissions can be pinned on Canada being a cold country in the winter and a hot one in the summer. A low of –35ºC in February and a high of 35ºC in July are not uncommon in some parts of Canada. Much heating and cooling of buildings and homes.
Canada is also a large country (Europe-sized, or ~41 times the size of the UK) with a small population (about 60% UK’s pop). We’re spread out, so add to the energy consumed for heating and cooling the ridiculous amounts of driving to get from here to there, and the long distances travelled to transport goods. The tar sands in Alberta don’t help either. It’s extremely energy intensive to extract and process goopy fossil fuels embedded in sand.
Not all of us are this bad, though. I’ve been a veggie since 1989, walk a lot and take public transit in the city. I also switched to a no-carbon, renewable energy source* for electricity about 15 years ago. But, yeah, we could and should be doing a helluva lot better.
Joe
* Yes, I know my source for electrical energy is not violating the laws of thermodynamics. Only a literal reading of renewable energy would equate it with magical energy that has skirted physical laws. Renewable energy is simply energy that comes from natural processes that are replenished at a rate equal to or faster than the rate at which they are consumed.
Yes, and it’s one of our national shames.
Some of our energy use and the attributable greenhouse gas emissions can be pinned on Canada being a cold country in the winter and a hot one in the summer. A low of –35ºC in February and a high of 35ºC in July are not uncommon in some parts of Canada. Much heating and cooling of buildings and homes.
Canada is also a large country (Europe-sized, or ~41 times the size of the UK) with a small population (about 60% UK’s pop). We’re spread out, so add to the energy consumed for heating and cooling the ridiculous amounts of driving to get from here to there, and the long distances travelled to transport goods. The tar sands in Alberta don’t help either. It’s extremely energy intensive to extract and process goopy fossil fuels embedded in sand.
Not all of us are this bad, though. I’ve been a veggie since 1989, walk a lot and take public transit in the city. I also switched to a no-carbon, renewable energy source* for electricity about 15 years ago. But, yeah, we could and should be doing a helluva lot better.
Joe
* Yes, I know my source for electrical energy is not violating the laws of thermodynamics. Only a literal reading of renewable energy would equate it with magical energy that has skirted physical laws. Renewable energy is simply energy that comes from natural processes that are replenished at a rate equal to or faster than the rate at which they are consumed.
kensalriser
pfm Member
The biggest obstacle is that climate change is a baked in effect of our unsustainable and rapacious, on all levels, economic system. The world can't exit fossil fuels quickly enough without a radical reset.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
What does the 'non-combustion' category include in the Worldmeters charts?
Canada seems to be doing much more of that than European countries but I'm not sure what it is.
P.S. I was surprised Japan was so high - excellent public transport, everyone lives in cities etc. Seems they're burning a lot of coal (even more so post-Fukushima).
edit: found it on another page:
Canada seems to be doing much more of that than European countries but I'm not sure what it is.
P.S. I was surprised Japan was so high - excellent public transport, everyone lives in cities etc. Seems they're burning a lot of coal (even more so post-Fukushima).
edit: found it on another page:
- Non-combustion -certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials, such as cement production, carbonate use of limestone and dolomite, non-energy use of fuels and other combustion, chemical and metal processes, solvents, agricultural liming and urea, waste and fossil fuel fires.
Darth Vader
From the Dark Side
Yes. Examples include fermentation e.g. booze making, making lime and cement by heating limestone (Calcium Carbonate) , water/producer gas process etc.
Fermentation is a natural process that takes place without human intervention and is just one example of Carbon Dioxide production by natural processes and without any burning of fossil fuels.
Cheers,
DV
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Paul,
Of the bunch, I suspect that cement production is the main culprit here.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-cement-emissions-matter-for-climate-change
According to Carbon Brief, if the cement industry were a country it would be the third largest CO2 emitter in the world.
Joe
Of the bunch, I suspect that cement production is the main culprit here.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-cement-emissions-matter-for-climate-change
According to Carbon Brief, if the cement industry were a country it would be the third largest CO2 emitter in the world.
Joe