REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Engineers can build a low-carbon world if we let them

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 918
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay, it's long, but in part it's continuing the discussion of whether we have time to save the earth or whether we should "get out while the getting's good":
Quote:

The engineering solutions to combat climate change already exist. Politicians must be brave enough to use them before it's too late

One word sums up the attitude of engineers towards climate change: frustration. Political inertia following the high-profile failure of 2009's Copenhagen climate conference has coupled with a chorus of criticism from a vocal minority of climate-change sceptics. Add the current economic challenges and the picture looks bleak. Our planet is warming and we are doing woefully little to prevent it getting worse.

Engineers know there is so much more that we could do. While the world's politicians have been locked in predominantly fruitless talks, engineers have been developing the technologies we need to bring down emissions and help create a more stable future.

Wind, wave and solar power, zero-emissions transport, low-carbon buildings and energy-efficiency technologies have all been shown feasible. To be rolled out on a global scale, they are just waiting for the political will. Various models, such as the European Climate Foundation's Roadmap 2050, show that implementing these existing technologies would bring about an 85 per cent drop in carbon emissions by 2050. The idea that we need silver-bullet technologies to be developed before the green technology revolution can happen is a myth. The revolution is waiting to begin.

Climate call

The barriers preventing the creation of a low-carbon society are not technological but political and financial. That's why at a landmark London conference convened by the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 11 national engineering institutions representing 1.2 million engineers from across the globe, under the banner of the Future Climate project, made a joint call for action at December's COP17 climate change conference in Durban, South Africa.

The statement calls on governments to move from warm words to solid actions. They need to introduce legislation and financial support to get these technologies out of the workshop and into our homes and businesses and onto our roads. Targeted regulation and taxation will also drive innovation. This will require bold politics, and spending at a time when money is scarce. It is far from unaffordable, however. The UK's Committee on Climate Change, which advises the British government, continues to support the view of the Stern report – an assessment of the climate change challenge in the UK – that the move to a low-carbon society will cost no more than 1 per cent of GDP by 2050.

Resistance to wind turbines and the power lines they feed, nuclear power and electric cars, as well as the economic costs, all make public opinion a powerful brake on change. However the alternative seems certain to be worse. It is not only the challenges of a deteriorating climate: with inaction comes a great risk to our economy in the long term. The green technology revolution, just like the industrial revolution before it, will give jobs to those countries which have created the right conditions for it to flourish.

China in front

Which countries these will be is still an open question. India, Germany, Australia and the UK were among the nations signed up to the Future Climate statement, whereas the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters – China and the US – were not. When it comes to investment in clean technology, however, that's not the whole story.

Although China is continuing to build coal-fired electricity plants at an alarming rate to power its rapid economic growth, the UN Environment Programme confirmed last month that it is now by far the world's biggest investor in renewable energy. Last year, China's wind, solar and biomass power industries received $49 billion of new investment, a third of the global total, and it now has the largest installed wind capacity in the world. When predicting who the front runner in this next great technological revolution will be, it is difficult to see past the emerging superpower to the east.

The US is going in the opposite direction. A natural gas rush driven by the development of controversial "fracking" techniques over the past decade has echoes of the oil rush that transformed Texas a century ago. The Financial Times reports that just one company, BHP Billiton, is investing as much as $79 billion in US shale gas fields – over three times the amount invested in all US renewables in a year. This will secure cheap energy in the short term, but it is a finite resource and ultimately a dead end. In due course we could face the interesting prospect of the US turning to China to acquire its wind turbine technology.

Nuclear elephant

Investment in renewable energy is vital for a prosperous, low-carbon society. However, decision-makers cannot ignore the elephant in the room – nuclear power. The enormous cost of implementing 100 per cent renewable power is not realistic for most nations, so nuclear offers our best chance of making a low-carbon society achievable and affordable. Yet the incident at Fukushima earlier this year has reinforced some long-standing concerns.

Unlike road use or smoking, nuclear power stirs anxieties in many of us that are out of proportion with its true risks. This is not to be complacent about the potential danger of a nuclear plant, but it is striking that nuclear power has killed fewer than 5000 people in its entire history. Compare that with coal mining, which in just one year and in one country – China in 2006 – killed 4700.

Read full articleContinue reading page |1 |2 Germany's decision to phase out all nuclear power as a result of Fukushima will most likely have unintended consequences. The Association of German Engineers has estimated that it will cost €53 billion every year in Germany to close down its nuclear generation and switch to 100 per cent renewable energy. It will be interesting to see how public opinion, now so clearly against nuclear power, responds as the economic costs become apparent.

Any technological revolution requires two crucial ingredients – engineers to design, develop and manufacture the technology, and politicians to help create the legislative, behavioural and societal environment that allows change to happen. Today's engineers have fulfilled their side of the bargain. It is time for our politicians to show their mettle. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20963-engineers-can-build-a-lowc
arbon-world-if-we-let-them.html

To that last sentence: DAMNED STRAIGHT!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:24 AM

BYTEMITE


I was going to read this with interest, but I find myself too offended by your mischaracterization of my arguments to do so.

Suffice to say, I never, EVER put it like an either/or scenario of "save earth or vamoose." My argument was to try to do BOTH.

Good day to you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Honey, you're getting paranoid. This had nothing to do with you, only the discussion on the subject. I never even THOUGHT of you as making it an either/or scenario, only of the various comments on both ideas. I think all you were talking about was inhabiting outer space, if memory serves, and that had nothing to do with whether we should stay or go, only about the feasibility of going...and then it got into a personal discussion, which also has nothing to do with this thread.

Why did you take it personally? I'm sorry you did, but trust me, I wasn't thnking of you at all when I posted this. I was thinking of all our various discussions on how we're screwing up this planet, and my own opinion that it's politics keeping us from repairing what we can.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:40 AM

KIRKULES


If everything global warming religion tells us does turn out to be true then its already to late to avoid temperature change over the next 100 years, so why even try. We could spend the money to help people adapt to global warming and still have enough left over to buy everyone a monster truck. I don't want to live in a world with no trucks, boats, super bikes or sports cars. Engineers should be working on important stuff like making nuclear powered monster trucks and thousand horsepower jet skis, not trying to shrink cars to the size of an Atom to reduce carbon dioxide.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ahhh, another old voice returns. This one, however, I could have done without quite nicely. You sound the clarion call of the right: "I want it all, NOW (reality be damned)!"


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:27 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It seems to be that Kirk was using humor and hyperbole.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


I'm thinking that this article both underestimates the cost of going mostly or totally renewable, especially with current or near-term technology, and overestimates the amount of money politicians will be able to throw at the problem in this era of collapsing European economies.

For example, Greece, Spain, etc. aren't going to be dropping the big bucks needed for a move to renewable when they're having to be rescued by the EU just so they can pay for pensions and social services.

Also, China may be the biggest investor in renewables in absolute dollars, but invesment per-capita figures would probably come out a bit different.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ETA: I do think it'll be interesting to see how Germany makes out trying to dump their nuke plants.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:09 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Niki, I don't think that Kirk actually left, he just doesn't post often, though I've seen his name lately.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Anthony, from his past postings, I would say not; I think he's voicing an opinion held by far too many people.

Geezer; in my opinion that's looking at the short-term situation. Nothing ever changes that fast, so by your theory, why should we even bother? It's another variation on what Kirk wrote; "It's not the perfect solution, so why even try?" That's just how I see it.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2011 3:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer; in my opinion that's looking at the short-term situation. Nothing ever changes that fast, so by your theory, why should we even bother?



You misunderstand.

I'm all for renewable energy, but from everyting I've read, it's not sufficiently cheap, robust, or in some cases environmentally friendly in manufacture to go into large-scale production, like to provide a majority of energy, right now. There is also still the huge issue of electricity storage, since both solar and wind are cyclical.

It's pretty much the same problem as full-electric cars. They're great in certain siutuations, like short daily trips when you have fast recharging stations available at home or work, but they're sure not ready for a day's drive from L.A. to Frisco yet. Maybe some day they will, but pushing them as THE solution for right now, like pushing renewables as THE solution right now, is jumping the gun.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2011 4:17 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm all for renewable energy, but from everyting I've read, it's not sufficiently cheap, robust, or in some cases environmentally friendly in manufacture to go into large-scale production, like to provide a majority of energy, right now. There is also still the huge issue of electricity storage, since both solar and wind are cyclical.



I agree that there is great promise for wind and solar energy but it least in the solar area its not cheap enough for large scale adoption. There are serious down sides to using wind as I discovered in my recent trip to Denmark. Denmark has the lowest per capita carbon emissions of any country in the World but they have ruined their natural landscape with enormous windmills everywhere. They may be overcompensating for the guilt the feel for clear cutting their entire country in the recent past. Wind mills might work if they could be placed offshore out of human sight.
I actually am serious about monster trucks and gas powered toys. We need to develop environmentally friendly sources of energy for everyday energy needs so we will have enough oil left to power toys for the next hundred years until we can perfect economical hydrogen fuel to power our toys. My main problem with the Global Warming wackos is that what they really want is for us all to give up our toys and go back to living in grass huts. What we should be doing is advancing to nuclear powered zero emission monster trucks not go back to horse and buggy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2011 11:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

I'm all for renewable energy, but from everyting I've read, it's not sufficiently cheap, robust, or in some cases environmentally friendly in manufacture to go into large-scale production, like to provide a majority of energy, right now.
"Right now"--that was my point.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL