Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

Getting completely rid of oil, coal and gas seems to be a much bigger task than politicians think:


EKRK, Denmark

And insulating your houses only makes people use more gas!

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/insulation-only-provides-short-term-reduction-in-household-gas-consumption-study-of-uk-housing

It’s a slightly flawed study but I can well imagine people have a fixed budget on heating so would put the heating on longer if it was cheaper. In fact, if heating was 1/4 of the price I would probably leave my oil boiler running at least twice the amount! It proves that people say they care about net zero but 90% of them don’t give a damn in real life

United Kingdom

Archer-181 wrote:

It’s a slightly flawed study but I can well imagine people have a fixed budget on heating so would put the heating on longer if it was cheaper.

That doesn’t really make sense. If your house is warm enough already because it’s well insulated, you don’t want to put the heating on longer and be sweltering.

For example, even though we can easily afford to run our heating 24/7 we don’t. When I bought my house I insulated everything including the stud walls, when we are in our office with 2 people and 2 high end PCs, we have the heating off in the day – because the office retains enough warmth with 2 people and 2 AMD Ryzen 9s doing builds that it’s the middle of January and I’m perfectly comfortable in shorts. Any more heating and we’d be sweltering. Similarly, at night in bed, I don’t think I’d get a wink of sleep if the heating was on, it would just be too hot.

Andreas IOM

I am not so sure, it could make sense. Lot’s of people are not warm enough and restrict their heating times, for example, social housing in the UK is usually well insulated with double glazing. The amount of heating used probably depends on price. They will have a budget possibly with a pre-pay meter, maybe £ 5 per day

Net zero will definitely hit the poor most in both developed and developing countries as cheap fossil fuels are the bedrock way to get out of poverty.

United Kingdom

Finally some sense is going into people’s heads.

A county in Norway had an all meeting about planning a wind power farm in the mountains. Huge potential due to wind and terrain. At the end of the meeting they ended up with two proposals:

  1. The meeting ask the board of the county to invite representatives for nuclear power plants for concrete proposals within 2025
  2. The meeting ask the board of the county to not open up for proposals for wind power, unless proposals for nuclear power also exist.

I hope this is the start of the end of the wind power madness that has been going on lately.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

hope this is the start of the end of the wind power madness that has been going on lately.

Scotland is actually beginning to sink under the weight of wind turbines. No end in sight as far as the UK is concerned. Hook line and sinker on that one.

Huge developments underway in Shetland.Viking, interestingly named development.

The wind farm will consist of 103 wind turbines set around the central Mainland of Shetland. The project was modelled using a 4.3MW turbine.

I also would like a alternative, nuclear, but we may as well sing for that.

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

LeSving wrote:

hope this is the start of the end of the wind power madness that has been going on lately

And at least you guys have wind!
We have the same madness just in the starting blocks here, plans to set up around 100 power lures around Zürich. I would just like to see the statistical wind figures around here, where most of the time there is no wind, of if there is, it is too strong for those fans.
I any case, I would also like to see the true net CO2 savings at the end of life of one of those, including the production, transportation, setting up, maintenance, dismounting, and recycling…

BeechBaby wrote:

alternative, nuclear, but we may as well sing for that

Same here. People have been scared away from the only logical and clean power source. Just to be clear, not speaking about the 50 year old powerplant that are kept running or are even being resurrected, but the latest modern, small reactor technology which would even feed on 90% of the existing nuclear waste.
The debate is all shambles.

Last Edited by Dan at 31 Jan 19:14
Dan
ain't the Destination, but the Journey
LSZF, Switzerland

There are two units of cost in setting up the Scottish offshore winfsrms.- money and energy.
Presumably to save the money on. harbour dues, energy is spent towing barges with turbine bases up and down offshore, until required for installation.
I doubt any independent survey of the energy expenditure by the contractors is done.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

BeechBaby wrote:

I also would like a alternative, nuclear, but we may as well sing for that.

Don’t be too sure. At the end of the article mentioned above, there was a “survey”. The question is: “Do you want Norway to build modern nuclear energy if it causes a reduction in the price of electric energy?” Of those who answered, 88% answered yes, 9% no and 3% don’t know. For whatever it’s worth, it’s definitely not a clear NO

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top