Is Bio Diesel the answer?

[Cobbles]

Meanwhile, here's a net energy analysis based bit of modelling that tries to explore what the real-world cost of a transition to sustainability might be. source

I used to have a "UK Budget" program on my TRS-80 - it was a load of drivel too - theres' too many factors that a computer model can't handle, like 2 million Ford Sierra drivers marching on Parliament when the "Ban all cars (Eco-Nonsense No. 45) Bill" hits the House of Commons.

Back in the real world, nothing will happen as the current crop of Government Ministers (who seem to be resistent to trade in their Jags for a Prius or a tube pass) realise that so long as they dole out the odd ineffectual sop, the rest of the electorate (the majority) also need to be kept happy.

 

[northernhord]

bio fuel aint the answer but its a good way of getting shot of stinking old chip oil, its a good thing as part of a mixed fuel option

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I used to have a "UK Budget" program on my TRS-80 - it was a load of drivel too - theres' too many factors that a computer model can't handle, like 2 million Ford Sierra drivers marching on Parliament when the "Ban all cars (Eco-Nonsense No. 45) Bill" hits the House of Commons.

Back in the real world, nothing will happen as the current crop of Government Ministers (who seem to be resistent to trade in their Jags for a Prius or a tube pass) realise that so long as they dole out the odd ineffectual sop, the rest of the electorate (the majority) also need to be kept happy.

Sure a model is unlikely to simulate second and third order effects like that, but anyone who thinks that's a fatal flaw possibly doesn't understand what models are for.

 

[Cobbles]

Sure a model is unlikely to simulate second and third order effects like that, but anyone who thinks that's a fatal flaw possibly doesn't understand what models are for.

So long as they're never taken seriously or used as the basis for decision making but simply used for a bit of harmless intellectual masturbation.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You really are Jeremy Clarkson aren't you?

 

[Idris2002]

Unfortunately, I suspect you have to find investment to put the alternatives in place before you can reasonably expect people to stop driving cars in large numbers. That means a) effective rail transport etc, b) long-term changes in settlement patterns to eliminate many unnecessary transport energy costs.

I see no obvious way to do either of those things on the basis of 'free markets' or PFI type schemes.

That fits with the link about Ireland you posted earlier.

The recent prosperity has combined with car ownership to produce a massive suburbanisation of the country.

People getting up at 0530 hours for their daily commute is not unknown.

When the oil cruch finally arrives, I can see serious trouble in this country.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So long as they're never taken seriously or used as the basis for decision making but simply used for a bit of harmless intellectual masturbation.

I've decided that I'm not sure what you're claiming here. It seems like you might be claiming one or more of several things.

1) Models are no use for anything.
2) Some models (e.g. those that might annoy you as a car driver) are no use.
3) Models are useful for some things e.g. onanism, but not decision making.
4) Something else.

I'd be most grateful if you could clarify a bit.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That fits with the link about Ireland you posted earlier.

The recent prosperity has combined with car ownership to produce a massive suburbanisation of the country.

People getting up at 0530 hours for their daily commute is not unknown.

When the oil cruch finally arrives, I can see serious trouble in this country.

I was in Dublin last year and thought the traffic outside town was horrific. It seemed to be considerably worse than the equivalent areas around London, which is saying something.

 

[Fidel]

Brazil is a big producer of biofuels but where are they growing the sugarcane? Yes, on cleared rain forest.

Got a link for this?

 

[snoogles]

I don't think biofuel is anywhere even close to the "answer". Its a sticky plaster over the gapping bloody wound of the problem. There is no way we can produce enough to fuel all our cars

Yes, that's about right!

But, i think, the most interesting development in this area is Hydrogen-on-demand fuel cells. There was a big article about it in the New Scientist a few weeks ago. The basic principes are that you only have to carry water around with you (so none of the dangers with carrying Hydrogen that current hydrogen fuel cells have) and when it is required, passing it over some kind of catalyst which splits the water into Hydrogen, which is then used as a fuel, and catalyst/oxygen compound which can then be recycled, reclaiming the original catalyst for re-use and releasing the oxygen as the only "waste" product.

I can imagine there being problems relating to the rate of supply of hydrogen (can it be generated quickly enough for the car to run at reasonable speeds?)

Alternatively, a friend of mine is doing a PhD on the generation of hydrogen from water using sunlight and a catalyst based on (or similar to) titanium dioxide, which is the same stuff in found in sunscreen and in white paint. TiO2 is pretty harmless stuff and it doesn't need to be constantly (and impractically, and expensively) recycled. Yes, hydrogen would need to be carried around if used as fuel for a vehicle, but we already do that with petrol and LPG (both of which, by the way, will happily explode for you just as easily as hydrogen will). There is some pretty promising research going on into this; it offers the chance for cheap, clean, practically limitless hydrogen for all of us. The only unknown so far is how high a production capacity we could reach, not sure how much thought has gone into this just yet. Still, it's entirely possible that we may convert from a fossil fuel economy to a hydrogen one at some point...

 

[BingoBongoBango]

Alternatively, a friend of mine is doing a PhD on the generation of hydrogen from water using sunlight and a catalyst based on (or similar to) titanium dioxide, which is the same stuff in found in sunscreen and in white paint. TiO2 is pretty harmless stuff and it doesn't need to be constantly (and impractically, and expensively) recycled. Yes, hydrogen would need to be carried around if used as fuel for a vehicle, but we already do that with petrol and LPG (both of which, by the way, will happily explode for you just as easily as hydrogen will). There is some pretty promising research going on into this; it offers the chance for cheap, clean, practically limitless hydrogen for all of us. The only unknown so far is how high a production capacity we could reach, not sure how much thought has gone into this just yet. Still, it's entirely possible that we may convert from a fossil fuel economy to a hydrogen one at some point...

Possible problem 1 sunlight in the uk? catalyst is not the problem where do you get the initial electric from?
Possible problem 2 You can put a lit match into petrol and extinguish it. You cannot do that with hydrogen (only a real problem in an accident with a split fuel tank)
Fundamental problem 3 A government that has no interest in promoting non carbon fuels because its dependant on them

 

[Cobbles]

I've decided that I'm not sure what you're claiming here. It seems like you might be claiming one or more of several things.

1) Models are no use for anything.
2) Some models (e.g. those that might annoy you as a car driver) are no use.
3) Models are useful for some things e.g. onanism, but not decision making.
4) Something else.

I'd be most grateful if you could clarify a bit.

1

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting. Why does science, engineering and so on work in that case?

 

[Cobbles]

Interesting. Why does science, engineering and so on work in that case?

Experimentation.

Example - Edinburgh's Traffic "Management" scheme, brought in to punish motorists for daring to vote against the lunatic Congestion Charging plan, was designed using computer modelling.

It was an abject failure as it brought all traffic (including buses) to a standstill that had to be sorted out by traffic police every day and has recently been 100% undone (total cost 4-5 million each way).

 

[fredfelt]

I think that like most of the science and statistics that coccoon eco-babble, it's a question of pick a number, any number - there'll be a computer model along in a minute.

Cobbles, You seem to believe some sources of green information, notabilly green wash. In another thread you were enthusing about BP's scheme which enables you to run a car guilt free for a year for just £50 as they will kindly make it carbon nutral for you.

How do you select which science and statistics you believe? Or do you just select the information which enables you to ignore the immediate global threat of global warming?

 

[Cobbles]

Cobbles, You seem to believe some sources of green information, notabilly green wash. In another thread you were enthusing about BP's scheme which enables you to run a car guilt free for a year for just £50 as they will kindly make it carbon nutral for you.

How do you select which science and statistics you believe? Or do you just select the information which enables you to ignore the immediate global threat of global warming?

If you read that post you'll see that I was bemoaning the fact that if I can totally offset all of my car based emissions for the grand sum of £50 per annum then the concept of HMG charging anything with an engine that generates over 225g/km 2 grand a year is simply a farce and stealth taxation dressed up as hand wringing environmental concern.

 

[fredfelt]

If you read that post you'll see that I was bemoaning the fact that if I can totally offset all of my car based emissions for the grand sum of £50 per annum then the concept of HMG charging anything with an engine that generates over 225g/km 2 grand a year is simply a farce and stealth taxation dressed up as hand wringing environmental concern.

But if this figure is based on any science computer modeling must have been used to figure out that you can 'totally offset' all of your car's emissions.

But go ahead and believe BP over pier reviewed science.

 

[Cobbles]

But if this figure is based on any science computer modeling must have been used to figure out that you can 'totally offset' all of your car's emissions.

But go ahead and believe BP over pier reviewed science.

Presumably it must be possible to MEASURE the emissions coming out of an exhaust otherwise the figures on my MOT are just random and I can MEASURE how many miles I travel in a year. Even someone with a GCSE can multiply one by t'other to give a total emission figure. It's also possible to MEASURE CO2 uptake by plants and therefore calculate exactly how many of the little beggars need to be planted for the job.

I presume that's the science that the Government lauds in relation to their glowing praise of the BA offsetting scheme (see post 9 on the offsetting thread).

At the end of te day I personally believe that it's all just drivel as there's no "proof" for Global Warming (apart from computer models) and HMG has simply listened to a few too many focus groups where shrill eco-nutters are over represented and have decided to lower their snouts into this profitable trough of tax opportunities.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Experimentation.

Example - Edinburgh's Traffic "Management" scheme, brought in to punish motorists for daring to vote against the lunatic Congestion Charging plan, was designed using computer modelling.

It was an abject failure as it brought all traffic (including buses) to a standstill that had to be sorted out by traffic police every day and has recently been 100% undone (total cost 4-5 million each way).

You have not however demonstrated that models are 'no use for anything'

Just that one model was used somehow by some people who did something you don't like much.

If models were never any use, we would have no science and no engineering. Are you sure you don't want to make a weaker claim here?

 

[Cobbles]

If models were never any use, we would have no science and no engineering. Are you sure you don't want to make a weaker claim here?

Was there no science before computers were invented? Gosh that must mean that everything was invented after the 1940's! Models are only of any use if their results can be proven by experimentation (the difference between science and philosophy surely?).

 

[fredfelt]

Was there no science before computers were invented? Gosh that must mean that everything was invented after the 1940's! Models are only of any use if their results can be proven by experimentation (the difference between science and philosophy surely?).

Cobbles

I’m not going to debate carbon sinks as several sources have been referenced where articles and referenced pier reviewed articles counter the claims of the effectiveness carbon sinks, or simply to quote “planting trees to stop global warming is like drinking water to stop the rising tides”. I urge you to read some of this research as you seemed convinced by BP’s greenwash.

As for models which predict the climate these are tested based on historical values, we have thousands of years of climate data available to us, from sources such as the amount of carbon in the ice caps and average temperatures from the width of tree rings. This data is fed into models and then a result predicted. However as we have so much historical data we use the model to attempt to predict climate which has already happened, we can therefore measure the accuracy of the prediction to real data. Or results are proved from experimentation.

To make even better predictions models are run thousands of times with the model set to work at its extremes. Fed into the results are results from other models developed by other teams and these are combined using the power of stats. As a result we see how climate is going to change and a good idea as to the degree of accuracy we can predict climate change.

As to if the collective expertise of our leading scientists is proof we’ll have to wait and see. You are right that there is no proof. However electricity is just a theory which follows the characteristics that can be observed.

The debate over the reality of climate change is over, even Arnie, the Terminator is convinced. Debate is still needed over what to do about it. However action is required now, and if part of that action is the government raising more taxes from ‘profitable trough of tax opportunities’ I have no problem with that.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Was there no science before computers were invented? Gosh that must mean that everything was invented after the 1940's! Models are only of any use if their results can be proven by experimentation (the difference between science and philosophy surely?).

Ah, could it be that when you say 'all models are useless' what you actually mean is 'all computer models are useless'?

 

[Roadkill]

As for models which predict the climate these are tested based on historical values, we have thousands of years of climate data available to us, from sources such as the amount of carbon in the ice caps and average temperatures from the width of tree rings. This data is fed into models and then a result predicted. However as we have so much historical data we use the model to attempt to predict climate which has already happened, we can therefore measure the accuracy of the prediction to real data. Or results are proved from experimentation.

Good post.

I used to be involved at the edges of a project that used historical data (my input, as a historian, was to mine and validate some of the data) to test and develop models of human impacts on certain ecosystems. Before I got involved I was sceptical about it, and fairly ignorant of environmental modelling, but it actually does work. Obviously it's a slightly imprecise science, but well-developed models are as good a guide as we have to what's likely to happen in the future. Those who just write them off are, frankly, sticking their heads in the sand.

 

[Cobbles]

Ah, could it be that when you say 'all models are useless' what you actually mean is 'all computer models are useless'?

I deplore the demise of Airfix.

Whilst I liked the look of the originally publicly displayed archirectural models of the Scottish Parliament, unfortunately the models didn't hint at how difficult the shapes would be to execute in 1:1 scale, nor howmuch the end result would actually cost......

Models are generally just pretty toys.

 

[fredfelt]

I was sceptical on the subject so I've made sure I know more about the subject and to get behind the headlines.

I'm lucky enough to live in a city where there is no shortage of lectures and public debates on the subject.

I know consesus does not equate to truth but not one scientist or expert I've heard has dismissed the reality of global warming. Climate Change deniers have been requested on several occasions to give their side but every one has declined, the prefere to give soundbites to the media.

I made a habbit of looking up climate change deiners on Wikipeida who were quoted on TV. Nearly all of them were sponsored in one way or another by big industry, specifically oil companies.

My uncle also works for the met office. As a result of his own studies he's given up his car and now cycles 24 miles a day on his commute.

All the information is there if you just go out and look for it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I deplore the demise of Airfix.

Whilst I liked the look of the originally publicly displayed archirectural models of the Scottish Parliament, unfortunately the models didn't hint at how difficult the shapes would be to execute in 1:1 scale, nor howmuch the end result would actually cost......

Models are generally just pretty toys.

I'm sorry, but this sounds to me about as sensible as someone saying "Here, see this thing someone built using hammers? I don't like X about it. So all hammers are useless, just pretty toys or tools for masturbation."

I think that models (of which computer models are a special case) are essential tools of science. At least as essential as hammers are to carpentry, and I think what you're saying makes as much sense as pointing to someone who has smashed his thumb (or stuck the hammer up his bum) and claiming that we can deduce from this that hammers are useless.

I claim that it just means you need to use the hammer properly if you don't want a sore thumb or splinters up your arse.

 

[fortyplus]

and referenced pier reviewed articles

imagines big things in the sea reviewing scientific papers....

can a jetty peer-review an article written by a pier?

 

[Cobbles]

imagines big things in the sea reviewing scientific papers....

can a jetty peer-review an article written by a pier?

Only if it doesn't harbour any prejudices......

 

[Bernie Gunther]

 

[citydreams]

Virgin pumps £214million into green fuel initiatives