harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:22pm
So, produce lots and lots of heat energy quickly, and heh presto, the temperature will go up regardless of where that energy came from oil or solar. That only makes a longer term difference, not an immediate moment by moment difference.
This is very interesting and something few talk about. The nuclear enthusiasts won't like this argument one bit, not least since half the heat nuclear produces is wasted when producing electricity, 9% of this 50% is lost (mostly heat) in the Grid, then if you're charging an electric car, around 15% of the remaining 45% is lost in the charger and battery (mostly heat).
So around 39% remains to be used for the car's electric motor, heating and other ancilliaries, meaning 61% of the original nuclear energy is lost, mostly as heat. Which is better than approximately 30% for a diesel vehicle, including its fuel's refining and transport.
Renewables together with significantly reducing our energy consumption is surely the only long-term and fully sustainable approach.
harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:22pm
The design of the UK power grid is still based on the 70s model ... which doesn't suit the latest green model of many small generation sites dotted around the countryside ... better if the money spent on large solar farms was spent giving householders and small businesses which otherwise cannot afford solar, to plant it on their many city located roofs, then the power can be used where it is made and is needed, on stuff like refrigeration and air conditioning.
Yes, place the generation where the energy is needed if possible. Motorway fast charging stations should be built where the wind blows most wherever possible (equipped with wind turbines), with mechanical flywheels or batteries storing the energy for fast release.
harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:22pm
I have observed ... dwellings in greatest need of insulating... the humble pre 40s terraced house... trickier to insulate walls, and roof spaces with assorted impediments making it more expensive to insulate... they get ignored in favour of the low lying easy fruit which aren't as energy inefficient anyway.
Yup. Small minds concentrating hard on little more than money makes a mess of so many aspects of life.
harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 3:13pm
Solar panels are black(ish) so absorb more heat then they radiate... we are heading for catastrophe with the ice sheets, they reflect the sun so efficiently, replaced with brown earth that absorbs.
Covering fields with solar panels does make for more instant atmospheric warming (ask a parascender or bird of prey) relative to placing them on rooftops (as you suggest they ought to be).
As PV panels heat, they become significantly less efficient and the heat is wasted to the atmosphere, so a double-win when someone designs one which captures the heat and makes the panel more efficient in bright sunlight. It's possible that water as a coolant could be used to keep them cleaner, further improving efficiency.
Snow and ice do reflect a lot more solar radiation and this is reduced _a lot_ with soot/black carbon contamination, which is why there is a concerted push away from internal combustion engines and fires/stoves for heating.
harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 3:13pm
One or two (not many yet admittedly) environmental scientists have come out and said that while they initially supported the CO2 global warming model, they now see it differently.
It's many more than one or two, plus plenty never signed up in the first place. There's a degree of unease within significant parts of the fully-signed up to the official narrative scientific community that politicians have taken up the
CO2=catastrophe scenario, not because they all believe this isn't the case, but because politics and big business increasingly controls science and funding mostly only exists if you're willing to further the political concensus on certain matters. So, they suggest, science itself suffers.
harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 3:13pm by focusing solely on how energy is made is ignoring the elephant dying from starvation in the corner. We use too much energy, and too much resources. Cut back on that, and the world will right itself.
Do you have some data on man's production of heat vs the 'greenhouse effect'? It's a large claim to make which flies in the face of a lot of contemporary thinking.