NFR what should clubs do in regards to climate change eg Forest green

[Andy S]

Cut out the use of floodlights at evening games. Goalkeepers should go back to wearing green.

[Holders]

It's 6.18 am and I've just got back from dropping my partner off at work. Dozens of unnecessary streetlights blazing on country roads.

I don't have the data to do the calculation but I'd be surprised if turning off just 50% of streetlights didn't eliminate the need for fossil-fired generation entirely in the UK. Imagine if that were done worldwide.

[toshes mate]

I don't have the data to do the calculation but I'd be surprised if turning off just 50% of streetlights didn't eliminate the need for fossil-fired generation entirely in the UK. Imagine if that were done worldwide.

It may appear to some to be helpful but currently UK on demand electricity cannot be met via clean green supply.  The crucial bit about on demand is that it has to be there whether streetlights are using it or not, otherwise all our essential services would collapse.  True green fuels (wind, solar) are not dependable sources for on demand since they are not twenty four hour available and batteries are not powerful enough to deal with on demand change.  Gas powered (a fossil fuel) and nuclear would be effective in meeting on demand in UK and reducing our carbon footprint but even the IPCC admits that getting to zero emissions requires new technology if we do not choose nuclear.  Meanwhile we deny less wealthy countries cheap energy supply.

[Mince n Tatties]

Cut out the use of floodlights at evening games. Goalkeepers should go back to wearing green.

lol...And a polo necked jersey.

[Holders]

I don't have the data to do the calculation but I'd be surprised if turning off just 50% of streetlights didn't eliminate the need for fossil-fired generation entirely in the UK. Imagine if that were done worldwide.

It may appear to some to be helpful but currently UK on demand electricity cannot be met via clean green supply.  The crucial bit about on demand is that it has to be there whether streetlights are using it or not, otherwise all our essential services would collapse.  True green fuels (wind, solar) are not dependable sources for on demand since they are not twenty four hour available and batteries are not powerful enough to deal with on demand change.  Gas powered (a fossil fuel) and nuclear would be effective in meeting on demand in UK and reducing our carbon footprint but even the IPCC admits that getting to zero emissions requires new technology if we do not choose nuclear.  Meanwhile we deny less wealthy countries cheap energy supply.

The point is that the need for baseload generation would be reduced if the demand were less and thus less coal (and gas) could be used. Baseload has historically been supplied by coal, now mainly GT and nuclear. Of course, apart from pumped storage, electricity cannot be economically stored. The political error was in not renewing the AGR and Magnox stations earlier.

[GloucesterWhite]

I don't hav

I don't have the data to do the calculation but I'd be surprised if turning off just 50% of streetlights didn't eliminate the need for fossil-fired generation entirely in the UK. Imagine if that were done worldwide.

It may appear to some to be helpful but currently UK on demand electricity cannot be met via clean green supply.  The crucial bit about on demand is that it has to be there whether streetlights are using it or not, otherwise all our essential services would collapse.  True green fuels (wind, solar) are not dependable sources for on demand since they are not twenty four hour available and batteries are not powerful enough to deal with on demand change.  Gas powered (a fossil fuel) and nuclear would be effective in meeting on demand in UK and reducing our carbon footprint but even the IPCC admits that getting to zero emissions requires new technology if we do not choose nuclear.  Meanwhile we deny less wealthy countries cheap energy supply.

The point is that the need for baseload generation would be reduced if the demand were less and thus less coal (and gas) could be used. Baseload has historically been supplied by coal, now mainly GT and nuclear. Of course, apart from pumped storage, electricity cannot be economically stored. The political error was in not renewing the AGR and Magnox stations earlier.

Wrong. Electricity produced by wind turbines or solar farms CAN now be stored cheaply for weeks. No point in posting a link as the article is behind a paywall, but if you are interested google Highview + energy storage. In 5-10 years most of our power will be from wind turbines which will be coupled with Highview's 'batteries' (not really a battery, more a storage system). The first plant is up and running in Bury, storing 15 megawatt per hour and releasing it when needed; another is being tested in Texas, and the same technology is being used in Spain and Africa linked to solar farms. Highview is a British company. There are other systems in development in the US using Bromine, and Siemens is working on hot rock thermal storage; but Highview's is the best and already working.

This is the future of power.

[toshes mate]

I don't hav

I don't have the data to do the calculation but I'd be surprised if turning off just 50% of streetlights didn't eliminate the need for fossil-fired generation entirely in the UK. Imagine if that were done worldwide.

It may appear to some to be helpful but currently UK on demand electricity cannot be met via clean green supply.  The crucial bit about on demand is that it has to be there whether streetlights are using it or not, otherwise all our essential services would collapse.  True green fuels (wind, solar) are not dependable sources for on demand since they are not twenty four hour available and batteries are not powerful enough to deal with on demand change.  Gas powered (a fossil fuel) and nuclear would be effective in meeting on demand in UK and reducing our carbon footprint but even the IPCC admits that getting to zero emissions requires new technology if we do not choose nuclear.  Meanwhile we deny less wealthy countries cheap energy supply.

The point is that the need for baseload generation would be reduced if the demand were less and thus less coal (and gas) could be used. Baseload has historically been supplied by coal, now mainly GT and nuclear. Of course, apart from pumped storage, electricity cannot be economically stored. The political error was in not renewing the AGR and Magnox stations earlier.

Wrong. Electricity produced by wind turbines or solar farms CAN now be stored cheaply for weeks. No point in posting a link as the article is behind a paywall, but if you are interested google Highview + energy storage. In 5-10 years most of our power will be from wind turbines which will be coupled with Highview's 'batteries' (not really a battery, more a storage system). The first plant is up and running in Bury, storing 15 megawatt per hour and releasing it when needed; another is being tested in Texas, and the same technology is being used in Spain and Africa linked to solar farms. Highview is a British company. There are other systems in development in the US using Bromine, and Siemens is working on hot rock thermal storage; but Highview's is the best and already working.

This is the future of power.

Storage systems have existed for decades - hydro electric as an example - but the problem remains that on demand has to respond to sudden changes of some magnitude which requires consistent and available generational capacity.  Last year as I mentioned there were four outages caused solely by on demand generational failure.  There have been several advances in storage technology - IBM has a promising newly designed battery - but none of them have been reliably tested in an on demand situation with no back up available and that is the crucial test they have to pass. 

[GloucesterWhite]

I don't hav

I don't have the data to do the calculation but I'd be surprised if turning off just 50% of streetlights didn't eliminate the need for fossil-fired generation entirely in the UK. Imagine if that were done worldwide.

It may appear to some to be helpful but currently UK on demand electricity cannot be met via clean green supply.  The crucial bit about on demand is that it has to be there whether streetlights are using it or not, otherwise all our essential services would collapse.  True green fuels (wind, solar) are not dependable sources for on demand since they are not twenty four hour available and batteries are not powerful enough to deal with on demand change.  Gas powered (a fossil fuel) and nuclear would be effective in meeting on demand in UK and reducing our carbon footprint but even the IPCC admits that getting to zero emissions requires new technology if we do not choose nuclear.  Meanwhile we deny less wealthy countries cheap energy supply.

The point is that the need for baseload generation would be reduced if the demand were less and thus less coal (and gas) could be used. Baseload has historically been supplied by coal, now mainly GT and nuclear. Of course, apart from pumped storage, electricity cannot be economically stored. The political error was in not renewing the AGR and Magnox stations earlier.

Wrong. Electricity produced by wind turbines or solar farms CAN now be stored cheaply for weeks. No point in posting a link as the article is behind a paywall, but if you are interested google Highview + energy storage. In 5-10 years most of our power will be from wind turbines which will be coupled with Highview's 'batteries' (not really a battery, more a storage system). The first plant is up and running in Bury, storing 15 megawatt per hour and releasing it when needed; another is being tested in Texas, and the same technology is being used in Spain and Africa linked to solar farms. Highview is a British company. There are other systems in development in the US using Bromine, and Siemens is working on hot rock thermal storage; but Highview's is the best and already working.

This is the future of power.

Storage systems have existed for decades - hydro electric as an example - but the problem remains that on demand has to respond to sudden changes of some magnitude which requires consistent and available generational capacity.  Last year as I mentioned there were four outages caused solely by on demand generational failure.  There have been several advances in storage technology - IBM has a promising newly designed battery - but none of them have been reliably tested in an on demand situation with no back up available and that is the crucial test they have to pass. 

Sorry to disagree, but Highview's storage system HAS been reliably tested in an on demand situation. I would respectfully suggest you read about the system before condemning it.

[Huxley]

Not too bad... 40% sticking to the scope of the OP. Better than expected. Would you accept a slight drop in performance due to longer travel by train and bus then by flying in charred jets? Would you support the club if sponsored by companies know to be non-sustainable? Eg worst case a petrol chemical company? Are you interested what happens to all the plastic rubbish and clappers at the ground after a game? Would you want new signings to fly commercial instead of helicopters and private jets, but risk missing a deadline signing?

[john dempsey]

Last week a climate scientist explained to me that if you want to experience a two degree increase or decrease in temperature you can either travel about two hundred and fifty miles south of where you are now

What so the UK will become like Spain, Spain will become like the Middle East or Africa (forget sunbathing in Benidorm then) and areas like the Middle East and Africa will presumably be absolutely unsurvivable for any form of life? Sorry but that already sounds apocalyptic to me, without even getting into the associated sea level rise (Craven Cottage gone forever), mass migration from those areas, extreme weather events, food shortages etc...

but wont it be a wonderful walk to the ground just think
flamingos hippos crocodiles date palms coconut palm trees all on the banks of the Thames.

[Ronnief]

So we should ban all non daylight matches hence bringing back the weekend matches only. No mid week evening games. Restrict teams from travelling more than 100 miles cutting both team and supporter travel. Making leagues more local with cup games also regionalised, except for later stages. Ban Euro and world matches except the four yearly world cup. Make all fans travel by public transport thus stopping me from travelling to see my Fulham. Surely we can the safe the planet! 086.gif

[toshes mate]

@GloucesterWhite

I would suggest you stop being so quick to judge others without basis.

No stored electricity has been reliably tested other than supplying the National Grid which include numerous others e.g. wind and solar farms etc.

Cryopower is an innovative stored electricity project, not on demand electricity i.e. it has to be released to replace an already existing source about to be withdrawn and all systems need that base on demand lower limit which is why with have huge power stations to deliver it reliably.  That is why we do not have hydroelectric as a reliable base on demand supply which could be fantastic if we could find a way to do it.

[toshes mate]

Last week a climate scientist explained to me that if you want to experience a two degree increase or decrease in temperature you can either travel about two hundred and fifty miles south of where you are now

What so the UK will become like Spain, Spain will become like the Middle East or Africa (forget sunbathing in Benidorm then) and areas like the Middle East and Africa will presumably be absolutely unsurvivable for any form of life? Sorry but that already sounds apocalyptic to me, without even getting into the associated sea level rise (Craven Cottage gone forever), mass migration from those areas, extreme weather events, food shortages etc...

but wont it be a wonderful walk to the ground just think
flamingos hippos crocodiles date palms coconut palm trees all on the banks of the Thames.

As was the case in Canada, Greenland and Siberia in one of the planet's warmer times. 

[toshes mate]

Last week a climate scientist explained to me that if you want to experience a two degree increase or decrease in temperature you can either travel about two hundred and fifty miles south of where you are now

What so the UK will become like Spain, Spain will become like the Middle East or Africa (forget sunbathing in Benidorm then) and areas like the Middle East and Africa will presumably be absolutely unsurvivable for any form of life? Sorry but that already sounds apocalyptic to me, without even getting into the associated sea level rise (Craven Cottage gone forever), mass migration from those areas, extreme weather events, food shortages etc...

Sea level rise?  We cannot measure the vast majority of the oceans because we never go there, there are no  reliable instrument readings to tell us about the past and there is no such thing as a level sea.  In the past there has been land where there is now sea and sea where there is now land.  They change.  The problem we have both in Australia with the bush fires which have been going on probably since the continent formed (written deep into Aboriginal culture) and in sea erosion and flood plain areas is that we have built without appropriate defences.  The Dutch have done flood protection exceedingly well because they needed to but other countries have been rather less clever. 

[Statto]

Last week a climate scientist explained to me that if you want to experience a two degree increase or decrease in temperature you can either travel about two hundred and fifty miles south of where you are now

What so the UK will become like Spain, Spain will become like the Middle East or Africa (forget sunbathing in Benidorm then) and areas like the Middle East and Africa will presumably be absolutely unsurvivable for any form of life? Sorry but that already sounds apocalyptic to me, without even getting into the associated sea level rise (Craven Cottage gone forever), mass migration from those areas, extreme weather events, food shortages etc...

Sea level rise?  We cannot measure the vast majority of the oceans because we never go there, there are no  reliable instrument readings to tell us about the past and there is no such thing as a level sea.  In the past there has been land where there is now sea and sea where there is now land.  They change.  The problem we have both in Australia with the bush fires which have been going on probably since the continent formed (written deep into Aboriginal culture) and in sea erosion and flood plain areas is that we have built without appropriate defences.  The Dutch have done flood protection exceedingly well because they needed to but other countries have been rather less clever. 

Even at 2° the Dutch will be doing far from well, unless by "well" you mean living like Kevin Costner in Waterworld. The rest of your post sounds like it was written about 700 years ago. Please use Google or failing that, read some science books written in the last 30 years, preferably by one of the 99.99999999% of scientists who aren't climate change deniers aka absolute nutjobs.

[toshes mate]

Even at 2° the Dutch will be doing far from well, unless by "well" you mean living like Kevin Costner in Waterworld. The rest of your post sounds like it was written about 700 years ago. Please use Google or failing that, read some science books written in the last 30 years, preferably by one of the 99.99999999% of scientists who aren't climate change deniers aka absolute nutjobs.

You may wish to read postings on Climate Etc., which is hosted by Dr Judith Curry a well known 'denier' who has more knowledge about climate science in her little finger than you or I are ever likely to have.  Most of it will go way over your head but there's a first time for everything, huh.

[Statto]

Even at 2° the Dutch will be doing far from well, unless by "well" you mean living like Kevin Costner in Waterworld. The rest of your post sounds like it was written about 700 years ago. Please use Google or failing that, read some science books written in the last 30 years, preferably by one of the 99.99999999% of scientists who aren't climate change deniers aka absolute nutjobs.

You may wish to read postings on Climate Etc., which is hosted by Dr Judith Curry a well known 'denier' who has more knowledge about climate science in her little finger than you or I are ever likely to have.  Most of it will go way over your head but there's a first time for everything, huh.

No thanks. Rather than listen to one of Donald Trump's loony mates, I'd prefer to listen to one of the thousands of scientists who totally disagree with her and have more knowledge about climate science in their little fingers than she, you or I are ever likely to have

:54:

[MikeTheCubed]

Even at 2° the Dutch will be doing far from well, unless by "well" you mean living like Kevin Costner in Waterworld. The rest of your post sounds like it was written about 700 years ago. Please use Google or failing that, read some science books written in the last 30 years, preferably by one of the 99.99999999% of scientists who aren't climate change deniers aka absolute nutjobs.

You may wish to read postings on Climate Etc., which is hosted by Dr Judith Curry a well known 'denier' who has more knowledge about climate science in her little finger than you or I are ever likely to have.  Most of it will go way over your head but there's a first time for everything, huh.

No thanks. Rather than listen to one of Donald Trump's loony mates, I'd prefer to listen to one of the thousands of scientists who totally disagree with her and have more knowledge about climate science in their little fingers than she, you or I are ever likely to have

:54:

If Trump's not your cup of tea then perhaps you'd be interested in the views of Piers Corbyn (Jeremy's brother), an astrophysicist / weather forecaster. Despite being a staunch Labour Party supporter "Climate Change" is in his words a "hoax" and he has regularly spoken at Denier events.

[toshes mate]

No thanks. Rather than listen to one of Donald Trump's mates, I'd prefer to listen to one of the thousands of scientists who totally disagree with her and have more knowledge about climate science in their little fingers than she, you or I are ever likely to have

The blog is not just about Curry and contains massive input from scientists on both sides of the climate change debate.  Curry isn't even a denier either but has been labelled thus by the consensus that delivers bad news about climate daily when there is good news to be found if you look for it and read about it.   And so you haven't even got the smidgen of courage required to read alternative experts' views which would allow you to develop an opinion that is not filled with the prejudice you demonstrated in your responses to me?  I am not a denier either but consensus has never dominated science like it does now.  Read a little about what happened to Peter Ridd (on wiki) and avoid search engines that are designed to guide you away from sceptical opinion.  Why do you think they don't want us to read that sceptical opinion if they are so right?  You must be very annoyed that the BBC has effectively banned people like Curry - how dare those lefties do such an awful thing - because she speaks the scientific truth as she sees it now without prejudice to anything.

Who are the real nutjobs because they may not be who you believe they are?

[sarnian]

What to believe and what to not believe that is the question.

I keep hearing that the likes of the Maldives islands will disappear under water in a few year time. If so can someone please explain the following.

When I first went to the Maldives in 1995 there was one runway with a small arrivals and departure buildings. You either had to transfer to the islands by boat or helicopter. To get to the helicopter base you had to drive across the runway ( there were actually traffic lights at the side of the runway to tell you when it was safe to cross ). As it happens when we arrived there were 6 sea planes operating the transfers as a helicopter had recently crashed killing about a dozen people.

We have been many times since and the airport has been upgraded and as well as the boat transfers their about 60 or more seaplanes operating.

However over the last five years a huge area of land has been reclaimed and many buildings put up ( something like a mini city like nearby Mali where the locals reside ) They have even built a bridge to connect across to Male.

The local government is opening about 15 new islands to tourism every year to accommodate thousands more visitors from all over the world. To accommodate these extra visitors flying in from all over the globe they have now opened a second runway.

So who do we believe the prophets of doom who say who say the likes of the Maldives will disappear or the governments of these type of islands that are expanding year on year.