UK Parliament faces big decision on climate bill 13 October 05

Here’s one more reason to reduce CO2 & other GHGs that should be passed on to the MPs:

Its contribution, via warming, to the “ozone hole,” which is getting bigger (see link below). And, acc to the art., the ozone hole lets in more UV radiation, which contributes to the warming, which contributes to the hole, which contributes to the warming, which contributes to the hole….

i.e., another positive feedback loop, of which I was unaware…

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=47211

Here’s one more reason to reduce CO2 & other GHGs that should be passed on to the MPs:

Its contribution, via warming, to the “ozone hole,” which is getting bigger (see link below). And, acc to the art., the ozone hole lets in more UV radiation, which contributes to the warming, which contributes to the hole, which contributes to the warming, which contributes to the hole….

i.e., another positive feedback loop, of which I was unaware…

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=47211

Having read High Tide and about the rising water on Tuvalu I have a hypothesis. Since plate tectonic movements lead to a rise of many mountains like Everest, it would sound logical if this rise would affect sea depths also deepening them with about the same amount. Since measurements of the Pacific Oceand and sea water levels do not seem to have changed and since the melting of glaciers and polar ice must have had an effect on sea water levels, there must be additional space for this in the deepening seas? If so, then Pacific Islands like Tuvalu would be sinking with the aforementioned results.

why is it, i wonder, that every time we start to talk about wind turbines the government goes chasing after any old excuse to keep polluting our planet?! So far weve heard that their ugly and they are inefficient both of which are fiction! wind turbines are in fact around 98% efficient. The only valid excuse is that of employment. I for one would rather see 7000 jobs sacrificed than 6 billion people suffering from the huge range of effects brought on by global warming. Does anyone else think that the goverment should just get on with it?

FOE are running a campaign to get people to email their MPs (it’s done for you and takes a minute!) regarding EDM 178 – The Climate Change Bill tabled by Michael Meacher, John Gummer and Norman Baker. This would require annual reductions of 3% in carbon dioxide emissions, regular reporting and provide mechanisms that would correct failing policies. Dead easy to do, it’s done for you .. http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/email_mp/index.html

Hi all,

Found a link in the independent.

www.earthday.net/footprint

It is basically a quiz that shows your impact on the planet. I am really ashamed of my result.

I dont really think the quize is that acurate. However, it is in my opinion a good device to get people thinking.

I have mailed it to all my friends. One has discovered that if every one lived like him, we would need 6.4 planets.

Cheers Ian.

PS. Please everyone remember to book mark december the 3rd for some peacefull protesting.

Link..

http://www.globefox.com/cacc

Ian.

Campaign against Climate Change have upgraded the international site .. www.globalclimatecampaign.org and now have information on the national site of regional groups involved and details of the London demo .. www.campaigncc.org

And that was after reducing my GHGs a lot, but before I went onto wind power, so I should try it again.

I think Americans are caught in a structure of emitting more GHGs, due to lack of adequate public transportation and how spread out we are (which the car culture helped make possible). I guess Australia is sort of the same way.

Nevertheless, we should face the problem of GW squarely, rather than squirm around in denial and blame-thwarting, & keep trying to do the best we can to reduce. When we put our minds & hearts into it, solutions (mostly cost-effective) start appearing to us, as if by magic.

Imagine if the U.S. government would sincerely put effort to encourage and help people & businesses to reduce GHGs with the effort & expense put into even one month in the Iraq conflict, we could really make headway in solving this problem….

Here is a link to a useful article about sea rise. They do say it is happening a little & slowly (which is no solace for Tuvalu & other low-lying areas), but catastrophic rise is most dependent on what West Antarctica does (& they’re not sure at this point), more than sea expansion from warming, or other areas of melting.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html

(Dano, can you check this & see if it seems valid?)

Anyway, it might not be good to take this risk; better to reduce GHGs & save money to boot.

But I haven’t seen one up close; the ones that power us are far away.

I think it would be great if there were lots of small ones around (in addition to large ones) – sort of like those pinwheel decorations, but generating electricity. Then no one would want to be the odd person out without his/her wind generator….

and should be on sale for under £1000. A friend of mine has placed an advance order for one and we have sorted out the mounting point on the end wall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/27/nwind27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/27/ixhome.html

Looking forward to fitting it.

all the best

Colin

Hi,

I tried to do my civic duty on this. However, their web site selected the wrong politician for me. I have phoned FOE (very nice folk) and they are trying to sort it. I just thought if it is happening to me it may be happening to others and whilst I am in communication with them. Thought it would be easier for everyone if I reported any other errors.

Remember remember the 3rd of December.

Cheers Ian.

Here’s an article you don’t want to miss (I had a very restless sleep last night):

“Global Warming Preserved ‘Mass Kill’ Fossils, Study Says,” by James Owen, for National Geographic News

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1018_051018_fossils.html

The one new thing I learned is how the massive methane releases due to warming (that could happen again triggered by AGW), over 10-20 years, combine w/ oxygen to create CO2, DEPLETING EARTH’S OXYGEN.

operated by the 14 participating nations, the average sea level rise in the South Pacific has been between 2.6 and 3.1 inches per century. Their recent report is at http://www.pacificsealevel.org/files/CountryReport_tv_2004.pdf. The average sea level rise at Tuvalu has been 3.6 inches per century with a standard deviation of 20 inches per century. The data are in Table 2. Figure 4A implies that the data ought to converge to a precision of 3.9 inches per century after the program has collected data for 60 years. The Tuvalu station has operated for about 21 years, so it will be about 40 years before we know if the observed change is real or a measurement artifact.

So far, there is no evidence that the sea level in the South Pacific is rising at an ominous rate.

So far, there is no evidence that the sea level in the South Pacific is rising at an ominous rate.

Yes.

Thanx, norb.

We were talking about the likelihood of future rise and the impacts, not past trends, but thanks for coming back! Where’ve ya been?

Best,

D

I thought that because at least 3 Amazon reviewers cite text in Mark’s latest book, High Tide, which says in effect “Tuvaluans having to vacate their sinking island paradise and way of life, . . . ”. That sounds like someone believes that the sea level has risen around Tuvalu. Perhaps the reviewers have unfairly characterized Mark’s prose.

In answer to your question, Arizona, Texas, Maryland, Illinois, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

Well, we know sea levels have risen.

So I guess, norb, you’re out to refute ‘ominous’ (wherever that came from).

Well, you need to first define rate by adjective so as to refute your ‘ominous’ evidence (wherever that came from).

So, when you provide evidence to do your rebuttal, you can quantify ‘alarming’ or ‘ominous’. Better would be to find predefined adjectives.

Maybe something like:

negligible: .01-.03 mm/yr minimal: .04-.09 mm/yr

[...]

alarming: .13-.16 mm/yr ominous: .17-.20 mm/yr

etc.

So then, present your evidence and how it was quantified with an adjective so we can enjoy your thorough rebuttal of Mark’s book.

Simple!

Best,

D

I was getting a bit worried about you: couldn’t remember where it was you said you lived and thought you might have had some inconvenience from one of those little seasonal and not-at-all-abnormal storms you’ve been having.

Bad-taste joke I know, but then that’s Brit humour for you. Hope you and yours are all safe and well anyway.

cheers

Colin

If the MP one writes to is not the one for the constituency in which you live, they are not obliged to reply to you.

best

Colin

If the sea level continues to rise at that rate, no harm ever will come to anyone.

Yesterday, Science Express published an article by Johannessen et al. showing that satellite data confirm that the Greenland Ice sheet is thickening. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1115356v1.pdf) This follows recent reports that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing.

The warming that has occurred during the past 150 years has not caused harmful rises in sea level. Furthermore, the warming appears to be accompanied by growth in the major, land-borne ice sheets. These observations should cool the speculation that warming will cause the two major ice sheets to melt and inundate us.

just as long as you’re with us on reducing GHGs & abating AGW & its many (other) harms and/or potential harms, and the many other environmental & non-environmental harms caused by the same actions that produce GHG emissions.

That way, if you’re right @ sea level rise, then at least we would have avoided other harms.

And if you’re wrong about sea level rise & it would be very harmful, then we would have avoided that harm too.

It’s win-win-win situation (adding in all the money saved without lowering productivity or living standards by abating AGW & many other problems).

Let’s give it that old American “can do” try!

Hi Colin,

There are a few things that you need to think about with small turbines. The first is that if you dont have an agreement with your electricity provider you are breaking the law. Also the return’s from installing these devises are not as great as one would expect.

The engineering department at Reading Uni are doing tones of work on this at the moment. They are especially looking at the old Darius roter design and helix shapes to try to improve the effeciancy.

One of the other things that needs to be looked at is how a small turnine can become effective. A great example of this is in the UK the standard hose gets 240 volt 13 amp. However, most products we use step down the power. by quite a bit. The computer you are using at the moment is generating tones of heat from the transformer that takes 240 volt down to something like 9 volts (forgive me if I am wrong I know that most lap tops work of less then that).

What would be cool is if. Governments could agree a standard low voltage for lower powered devices. ie, your video and DVD player, your radio and sterio, your mobile (cell) phone charger etc etc. and have a second low volt ring in your home. Lets just call it 12 volts for fun.

Quite seriously a half meter turbine in 8MPH winds will produce anough power to power about five of these devices.

I read a while ago about a product being trield in Wales (Colin, could be you) who were looking into electric strage cell’s combine the bloody lot thats what I say.

Imagine how much of the capacity of the national grid is being turned into heat in step down transformers as we read this mail.

Best Ian.

PS Remember remember the 3rd of December.

If the sea level continues to rise at that rate, no harm ever will come to anyone.

‘If’. The whole point is your ‘if’. What is the projected rate increase? Your argument doesn’t consider the projected rate increase.

Yesterday, Science Express published an article by Johannessen et al. showing that satellite data confirm that the Greenland Ice sheet is thickening.

The whole sheet or just the center, far away from the edges which are not?

Yesterday, Science Express published an article by Johannessen et al. showing that satellite data confirm that the Greenland Ice sheet is thickening.

Yesterday, Science also published:

Future Behavior

Predictions of ice-sheet contributions to sea-level rise have relied on long integrations of ice-sheet models that extend well into the 21st century and beyond (2, 4). These predict that up to the year 2100, warming-induced ice-sheet growth in Antarctica will offset enhanced melting in Greenland (3). For the full range of climate scenarios and model uncertainties, average 21st-century sea-level contributions are –0.6 ± 0.6 mm/year from Antarctica and +0.5 ± 0.4 mm/year from Greenland, resulting in a net contribution not significantly different from zero, but with uncertainties larger than the peak rates from outlet glacier acceleration during the past 5 to 10 years.

Looking further into the future, inland-ice models raise concerns about the Greenland Ice Sheet (Fig. 5). At present, mass loss by surface meltwater runoff is similar to iceberg-calving loss plus sub–ice-shelf melting, with total loss only slightly larger than snow accumulation. For warming of more than about 3°C over Greenland, surface melting is modeled to exceed snow accumulation (4), and the ice sheet would shrink or disappear.

[...]

Summary

Ice sheets now appear to be contributing modestly to sea-level rise because warming has increased mass loss from coastal areas more than warming has increased mass gain from enhanced snowfall in cold central regions. At present, thickening on the EAIS appears to be nearly balanced by WAIS thinning along the Amundsen Coast, much of which reflects recent changes. With an Antarctic Ice Sheet not far from balance despite large regional imbalances, Greenland presently makes the largest contribution to sea-level rise. Ice-sheet models that have supported the IPCC effort do not include the full suite of physical processes implicated in the ongoing changes, however, and so are not able to assess whether these ongoing changes represent minor perturbations before stabilization or a major change that may affect sea level notably. Fundamental shortcomings in available data sets as well as models preclude confident projection of rapid future changes, and this difficulty is compounded by possible interactions between freshwater fluxes from ice sheets, ocean circulation, and climate. The major challenges then are to acquire the observations necessary to characterize rapid dynamic changes, and to incorporate those data into improved models, allowing more reliable predictions of ice contributions to sea-level change over the coming decades and centuries.

[footnotes omitted]

Alley et al. 2005. Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level Changes. Science 310:5747, pp. 456-460 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1114613].

So I guess you didn’t read the whole thing.

Best,

D

that the rate of accumulation of ice at elevations above 1500 meters is about 6.4 cm/yr and that the rate of accumulation below 1500 meters (the coastal areas) is -2.0 cm/yr. The overall average for the Greenland ice sheet is +5.4 cm/yr. The data contradict the statement in your article “Ice sheets now appear to be contributing modestly to sea-level rise because warming has increased mass loss from coastal areas more than warming has increased mass gain from enhanced snowfall in cold central regions”. The mass gain in the cold central regions of Greenland has offset the losses around the edges by a wide margin; the result is a net gain of ice, not a loss.

Your article then goes on to use computer models to project the future of the ice sheet. I find such exercises unimpressive. A computer model will provide the output that is designed into its code. Models interpolate between known points well, they can extrapolate reasonably well from accurate observations. However, models cannot extrapolate far beyond known conditions and they cannot create new observations. It is not reasonable to expect a computer model to extrapolate 100 years beyond a 11-year satellite data record, especially in this case where the driving forces for ice accumulation are so poorly known.

I find such exercises unimpressive. A computer model will provide the output that is designed into its code. Models interpolate between known points well, they can extrapolate reasonably well from accurate observations. However, models cannot extrapolate far beyond known conditions and they cannot create new observations. It is not reasonable to expect a computer model to extrapolate 100 years beyond a 11-year satellite data record,

blablablabla.

Register your complaint to your elected official, because economic models do the same thing and decision-makers use this output all the time. So do hydrologic models the water folk use.

Too bad all that money is wasted on decisions arising from the knowledge gained via model output. They should have asked you first, norb.

But to the point: did you see that -2.0 number? That’s freshwater going into the oceans. The mass balance of many glaciers, indicated by increased streamflow into the Bering and Arctic out of Siberia, the retreat of Alpine glaciers, melting of the Antarctic peninsula, thermal expansion due to global warming increasing SSTs etc. is the reason why folk are concerned about rising sea levels in the future.

See, the CO2 ppmv is higher than it has been in a half a million years. Looking to the past is problematic, so we look to models to inform our decision-making.

Ah, well. I’m sure you’ll fall into denialist mode.

I remember doing a calculation on the depletion of oxygen due to our current carbon contribution and found it to be negligible and no concern but that did not include any runaway effects.

The amount of methane necessary to reduce oxygen at the level as the article suggests is enormous.

For every methane molecule consumed, 2 molecules of oxygen are consumed with it. The result is 1 molecule of carbon dioxide and 2 molecules of water vapor.

I wonder if the extra water vapor also added to this warming since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

Best,

Dan

The reason for the high voltage to begin with is that high-voltage alternating current has less heat loss in the transmission lines when transmitted over long distances. That is the main purpose of using both alternating current and high voltage lines. Low-voltage direct current cannot be transmitted over long distances without substantial energy loss.

The step-down transformers are only necessary when electricity is generated at a central location for transmission over long distance power lines. The super high voltages are not suitable for electrical appliances and so have to be reduced for the end-user. Step-down transformers are a necessary evil with respect to having a “grid” based on the physics of electricity and its efficient distribution.

For local power which does not require long-distance lines, both direct current and low voltages are easily acceptable.

I hope this helped clarify some of these aspects. In the USA, we have our AC electricity stepped down to 115 volts.

Of more importance than transformer heat losses would be the concept known as power factor. Motors, transformers, anything with a magnetic coil, and all fluorescent lights produce inductive loads which can reduce the available “real” power delivered. Placing a capacitor in the circuit can correct a bad power factor and bring it back into balance.

Power factor is a highly technical concept but an important one. The compact fluorescent light bulbs I use are rated at 14 watts but 25 watts is actually delivered by the utility to these bulbs with 11 watts being wasted. I suggest you do a Google on “Power Factor Reduction” which is mostly employed at the commercial level to reduce energy consumption from large industrial electrical motors.

With respect to our “residential” electrical billing, power factor is not measured at the house meter so the electric utility charges us for the 14 watts even though they were required to generate and deliver 25 watts for that light bulb. The increase in generating costs for the utility may be reflected in a rate increase but if the light bulb could be fitted with a corrective capacitor, then it would use less energy and be closer to the rating we pay for in energy.

Unless I pay the true cost, then there would be no incentive in the market for manufacturers of fluorescent lighting to provide a more expensive lighting corrected for a low power factor. No one wins in the end and with more florescent lighting being available for residential use, it may make more sense to have inductive loading taken more into account in the actual electrical billing so it reflects the true fossil fuel energy used to create the electricity.

I have measured power factor on my appliances and some manufactures install corrective capacitors and some do not. My refrigerator is very good at 96 percent on power factor but my washing machine with a power factor of 0.50 wastes half the electrical energy supplied to the electric motor.

Again, if I have sparked your curiosity, then read up on power factor and how it is reduced. When looking at electricity, it is more than just a technical matter. It affects energy efficiency and climate change issues.

Keep up the good work!

Best,

Dan

and why waste Dano’s time as he seems to always expose your arguments as being based on false assumptions.

Dano has real work to do Norbert but feels obligated to answer your stupid assertions.

Again, as I said before, your life is one gigantic lie and all you accomplish is to become a liability to all those who care about the future.

Dan

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the info on the grid. I kind of new most of that. when I am talking about a second low valtage ring I am talking about a second ring in your home to run low voltage devices.

Most devices in your home, ie, your DVD, sterio, even your home computer. Use about fifty % of there energy on stand by. That could be legislated against as the technology is allready there.

All of these devices have step down transformers to take the power down from 240V 13 Amp (here in the uk) to a much much lower amount. A great example is your cell phone charger.

What I am sugesting, is that a relitivly small wind turbine, possibly no bigger then a half meter could power that second low voltage ring. There by removing that drain from the power grid. Humour me. If we could remove all the little devices from the grid, ie, your cell, your VCR, DVD, Lap top computer, palm pilot, radio and sterio etc etc. Even some of your low energy light bulbs. (I know I have said this before but between 17 and 24% of your energy bill is on lighting, obviously its not if you use energy efficient lamps, in the UK the last thing I read was that for every one energy efficient lamp sold there were 33 traditional lamps sold, how hard is it to legislate against that. NOT HARD AT ALL)

I just think it would be cool if governments go together, and considered asking manufacturas to develop a low energy alternative. ie a second ring in all new build homes running on renewables, solar and wind. Take a lot of these very luxury electrical devices out of the big power network. I cant do the maths, but I bet it would make a difference. My hunch is quite a big one. My computer has been on for just over half an hour, and when I run my hand accross the back I can feel the heat pouring of the transformer. That is just loads of energy being converted in to heat and not on running my processor. in this case I call that a waist.

Cheers Ian.

The idea is great during a power outage if you could run your computer and lights and low power devices. Having a second ring for supplemental power is a great idea but it would be difficult and costly to install which would be the main problem to overcome.

In the UK, you have plenty of wind. Where I live, there is very little wind and not so much solar as our house is shaded by trees. The trees provide cooling shade in the summer so I am not sure the availability of renewable energy for us so I focus on mostly increasing efficiency and employing conservation ideas.

One aspect of low power devices is that they are often still on even when not in use. I discovered this by direct measurement. I have separate power strips to turn those devices off when not in use.

For example, the remote control for a television requires the television to consume 4 watts 24 hours each day. I turn the television off via a switch I installed and only use the remote control while watching the television only. Even if I never watch television, I would save 0.004 X 24 X 365 = 35 kilowatt hours each year simply by not having electricity supplied to it to enable the remote control to work.

This may not seem like much but then add the monitor, computer printer, CPU, various adapters, stereos, etc and it starts adding up. If everyone invested in cheap power strips for all these devices and had the habit of turning them off at the source, then the investment would pay for itself in about a year. So, on the low power side, I found this to be the most expedient and pragmatic application of conservation based on the premise of not wasted energy when we are not there to use it.

I have found some power adapters do not use power when not in use while others do. In other words, some cell phone adapters may use power even when simply plugged into a socket even when the cell phone is not being charged. It depends on who made the adapter I guess.

Anyhow, your ideas are good ones. The idea of having an efficient ring to use all available energy from a wind turbine would enhance the usefulness of that turbine. When considering renewable energy, energy efficiency goes right along with that investment. Renewable energy tends to be less substantial and more costly with the initial capital investment and therefore the energy derived becomes more valuable in not “wasting” it. Anything that increases overall efficiency becomes something to look at.

Your thoughts are on the right track.

All the best,

Dan

I reread your post and I need to make some additional comments. The real problem is not so much the second ring but that people in the UK are not using the efficient lighting available to them.

On the math side, it would be far better if more efficient lighting were better promoted in the UK and if more purchases were made then this would have a real reduction in the grid. For example,

If a million people used one energy efficient light bulb as an alternative for an hour a day, then 365 x (0.060-0.014) = 16.79 megawatts of electrical demand eliminated.

Once people start considering energy efficiency, then they may invest in a turbine or even a second ring. If people cannot invest in a damn light bulb with all the media attention you guys have toward climate problems, then that is truly scary.

Over here, we have a concerted effort by those in power to insure our people are NOT informed. In that light, our leadership is more to blame than our people but now I wonder if it would make much more difference if we were more informed instead. Information does not necessarily imply education or pro-activity.

Ian, it all comes down to economics. Most people are motivated by there own self interest. Your comments which included the fact that people in the UK are NOT buying enough energy efficient bulbs surprised me. I thought you guys were way ahead of the game. If climate change and sea-level rise being constantly addressed in your media has not made an impression, then I see we have a deeper problem than I realized.

I know that our people are hardly exposed to climate issues at all and I made the assumption that if we were, then we would become more responsible. If your culture is having difficulty then we will have difficulty as well. It affects my current focus as well.

I am now convinced that only a plan which manipulates the economics to influence the correct direction is the only hope we may have. We cannot make people become altruistic unless their religion does it for them and we cannot change our DNA.

I appreciate your thoughts and sometimes there are things mentioned which are even more important than the original focus. Thank you for that! I best get back to work since I realize better that the odds are more against our success because of human nature.

All the best,

Dan

I have discovered that MPs cannot be bothered with form emails/letters and in fact don’t like them. See: http://www.writetothem.com/about-guidelines Here is a very good site: http://www.theyworkforyou.com

Hi Dan,

In the UK GW is very present in our press. The problem is, that people over here see the problem as a global issue that is in the hands of governments. And NOT in their hands.

Recently we had a Tesco advert on our TV’s selling 60W standard lamps at 18 pence each. One of my friends is a manager of a large Tesco’s and people flocked in to stock up on them.

The other problem is cheap energy effecient lamps are sold in a three pack. at £9.95 that is quite a big difference. to make matters worse they are imported from the far east, think about the carbon miles on that!!!!

For the lamp issue to become a reall thing in the UK it will require legislation. More importantly. It would help if a UK company would make the lamps.

Best Ian.

The suprising thing is how few letters most MP’s get. A little organised effort can make a big difference. I am quite serious 10 or 15 different letters about the same subject will make them stop and think.

We have been running a campaingn in reading to save a green space called Kings Meadow. To cut a long story short they wanted to build another really big hotel. Over the past 18 months we have battled against this. Just recently we managed to fill the council chamber with just shy of 90 folk.

It was amazing to see the look of fear on the faces of all the commity members. Normally there are only 5 or 6 members of the public at these meetings.

To cut a long story short. They are now NOT going to build a big hotel on out lovely green space. However, they are still planing to develop the area. But I doubt they will get away with it.

Write letters. Go to meatings. If they get enough they start to panic. Remember thet do actually work for us.

Best Ian.

PS Remember remember the 3rd of December.

Thanks Ian for bringing up the travel emissions. That is a very important consideration.

One factor that may help shed light on this process my friend is that these compact fluorescent light bulbs last much longer than the incandescent bulbs and this factor is seldom taken into account. They last 8 times longer so one energy efficient bulb replaces 8 incandescent bulbs over time.

Do you guys import incandescent bulbs or make them in the UK? What are the carbon costs from transporting 8 incandescent bulbs versus 1 compact fluorescent light bulb?

Based on similar weight and space, I would assume the transport cost would be 8 times more for the incandescent bulb when the life of the bulb is factored in since many more bulbs have to be shipped!

Therefore, shipping a compact fluorescent bulb from 1000 miles away would be the same shipping emissions as shipping an incandescent bulb 100 miles away since many more incandescent bulbs would have to be shipped!

I hope this stirred everyone’s imagination. The long life also means the compact fluorescent bulb cost 8 times less when the life of the bulb is factored in when compared to an incandescent bulb.

Ian, you and I will make sure the UK has energy efficient lighting. Now we have a project to work on together since I want to know the travel carbon myself for us here in the USA!

My intuition says it is still a go and if enough demand where to grow in the UK, then maybe it would warrant local manufacturing.

Even without legislation, there are no excuses for people not to make a wise and easy investment that saves them money. I know Lynn would agree.

All for now! This topic to be continued later by both of us! We have some numbers to work out. Let’s get this one done!

All the best,

Dan

You claim that economists use inaccurate models to make projections and that lawmakers accept the model results and react by legislating economic policies. I am not an economist so I do not know if you are correct, but I share your opinion of the models. However, I do not believe that political acceptance of poor economic models is sufficient reason to accept poor climate models.

I do find the parallels between the two areas remarkable. Politicians accept output from faulty economic models and enact legislation that proves impotent to affect economic performance. Politicians accept output from faulty climate models and enact legislation (Kyoto) that is impotent to affect climate. Both create huge and expensive bureaucracies.

Why do we persist in such folly?

I saw the -2.0 number; in fact, I posted it. That was the rate of accumulation of ice around the periphery of the Greenland ice sheet. The rate of accumulation of ice away from the periphery was 6.4 cm/yr. Because the outer edge, actually the ice below 1500 meters elevation, is such a small portion of the sheet, the overall average rate of accumulation was 5.4 cm/yr. Huge quantities of ice are accumulating on Greenland.

Whether your article’s speculation that melting of the edges will cause excess calving of ice from the center remains just that, speculation. Ice is accumulating on both of the major land-based ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica. These observations belie the hysteria about imminent danger from melting ice. Let’s discard this red herring and discuss something real.

What about positive feedback loops where the exposed darker ground and darker ocean increase solar absorbance? Do you think this can accelerate more melting at the edges?

What about the fact that glaciers flow faster under more weight? Do you think this might accelerate melting at the edges and increase the rate of melt over the rate of accumulation?

So even if the interior of Greenland is accumulating more snow, how can you be sure that this is an equilibrium state and not a transient state? I am not a climate scientist. Dano seems to know much more than you do. But even I can see where you are flawed in your logic.

The accumulation of ice in the interior may be even a weather event! Weather events are transient states. It seems that the rate of melting at the edges would increase faster than the accumulation in the interior as more ice melts exposing darker ground and water and more weight of accumulated ice pushes the flow to ever faster speeds. This is common sense when one considers simple Newtonian physics. Even the average man on the street can understand this. Did you ever stop to consider the processes in a glacier?

All you do Norbert is find a fact that can support your false assumptions even though you have not even a clue as to understanding that fact in light of the processes of nature at work. Your acumen on glaciers is very poor.

And I am assuming your fact is correct at face value. Many times you even misrepresent the data you use to make a false assertion which has no scientific basis in reality.

Norbert, if there was a puddle on the ground after a rain storm, you would claim that water rose from the earth and further claim that the rain had nothing to do with it and say that the water rises magically up from the ground to create the puddle but no water from the rain could possibly have contributed to forming this puddle.

This is your acumen on climate science and why you drive many on this blog crazy!

I give it back to Dano.

Dan

Hello Ian,

yes you do need to be registered as a domestic or micro-generator with the regulator and your electricity supplier can object to this if they feel it will affect them in some way. We are with NPower renewables and as far as I know they are ok with a certain amount of micro generation in rural areas.

Your idea of having low voltage domestic appliances to avoid energy losses is a good one, but will require legislation to create a new standard otherwise no manufacturer will risk making the change. An easier and more likely immediate change would be more development in 12v LED cluster lamps to fit in existing ES / Bayonet fittings or in the two-pin Diachroic holders. LED’s are becoming more powerful every year and have an average life of 10’s of thousands of hours. They also lose very little energy through heat. It would be much easier to change a lighting ring circuit over to 12v and change all the bulbs to LED lamps. That could be done quite soon.

The other problems mentioned were heat loss by transformers, power factor losses and grid instability with lots of renewables. Well there are some cunning plans emerging.

Yes some of the projects we have funded are looking at distributed buffer storage as well as distributed community-scale renewables and micro generation. I will be posting information on some of these when they go live next year, but there is a lot of ineterest from our partner organisations in Sustainable Energy Wales (SEW) and also from Andrew Davies, Minister for Economic development and Transport in the Welsh Assembly Govt.

Just imagine a house or living/work space that is designed and constructed to the highest energy efficiency standards, with solar collectors and a good ambient heat control system. Heat inputs from appliances and heat recovery from things like driers and kitched extracts also recover energy and offset primary heat energy inputs which can be converted by a simple thermostat/ threeway valve system to store heat in the hot water cylinder. Low energy lighting is standard.

Now what if there were an appliance that plugged into a standard 13 amp socket linked to the consumer unit & meter, that was a Lithium-Ion battery/ supercapacitor energy store with a microporcessor-controlled smart inverter. This would not only monitor demand from appliances in the building (and if necesaary relay this to the area micro-net server to start up other local generating sources) but would also measure load on the grid by checking the signal freqency. It could then decide whether to demand more local generation from the micronet server, whether to use some of the power in its store to relieve peak demand at high tarrif times, or to charge up the store at off-peak rates. If there was a battery electric or plug-in hybrid car in the garage, its battery could also be added to the storage capacity.

Science fiction? No, the technology is here now: check out this link, you will find it interesting.

http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/

We hope to get prototypes included in a pilot zero-carbon development in Mid Wales from next year.

The next logical step would be to get governments to agree a common standard for all domestic appliances so that they would each individually measure grid demand and store/release energy as required. They could even delay their start-up or shut down if not required to relieve peak loads on the grid. They would respond to signals sent by the local micro-net server that was calculating the ability of the local area micro-generating plants to respond to demand peaks.

I reckon we are about 10 years away from this being achievable on a widespread basis. It would allow the UK’s ‘spinning reserve’ of dirty old and lightly used fossil fuelled power plants to be decomissioned saving a huge amount of CO2 emissions.

We are determined to try to get this technology incorporated into new affordable housing schemes in Wales. There is just the usual small matters of money, political will and organisational time to sort out!

cheers for now

Colin

Hi Colin,

Thanks for your fantastic post, will check out the link later. May want to add comment to that at some point.

However, and please take this as a question. Is solar OK as a technology in the UK. The reason I question this is: it does carry a huge carbon debt. I have been told (this is hear say, not documented) that for a solar cell to repay the energy it has taken to by made, it would have to produce energy for seven years. The UK does not have huge hours of sun shine every day. In winter time it is very nearly zero hours per day.

The other point is that during the manufacture of semi-conductors (correct me if am wrong, but aren’t solar cells full of them) a green house gass called SF6 is released. According to the Green House Gas inventory SF6 is something like 29,000 times more effective as a green house gas then CO2.

I wonder if sometimes we look at a technology’s benefit without looking at the real cost. Again, in an earlier post, I mentioned that some energy saving lamps are imported from the far east. Thay accumilate a masive carbon debt in the transportation of the device. I dont know if this is greater or less then the saving, I am not clever enough to do the maths. However, I believe that these type of questions should be answered.

The other thought on this is; What impact do we have on other ecconomies by making these imports. I could waffle on for days about trade, and debt relief and aid to poor nations. I wont, but, at some point (preferably, yesterday) we are going to have to factor these considerations in to the debate.

Best Ian.

Dan,

A bulb rated at 14W draws 14W from the utility!

The current and the voltage are out of phase, so:

Vrms x Irms does not eqal Prms unless the power factor is 1.

Prms = Vrms x Irms x PF

see: http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_11.html

As a domestic customer, there’s no need to consider the power factor of the appliances you plug in.

Use energy saving lightbulbs. They’re great!

Martin

Tesco value energy saving bulbs are under £2. It seems they are now affordable to all.

Also, some utilities have been giving them away. Powergen, for example gave me four this year. British gas gave me 4 last year.

Most are still sitting in my cupboard because I had already installed energy saving bulbs in all the locations I had wanted them. I gave my mum as many as she could use.

They last forever!

Martin

The second ring does sound like a good idea, though it seems to me to be very expensive!

You’ve inspired me to come up with an alternative solution.

All that is needed to reduce power on standby is to switch off the mains supply to the transformer.

The standby power could be supplied by an internal rechargable battery which would supply the remote control detector circuit – a few milliwatts, and a relay to switch the transformer back on if the battery gets depleted after a long period of standby use.

A computer already comes with one of these fitted so that the time stays correct when the computer is switched off.

A phone charger could detect when a phone is pligged into it, and power itself up etc.

I think it is better to have local renewables connected to the mains, rather than a separate circuit. You can sell back to the grid if you do not use it for a start.

Martin

I’ve never thought that “writing to my MP” would achieve anything apart from take up some of my all too scarce time. But I used the FOE link to send my MP an email about the EDM 178 and – hey presto – he wrote back to me saying he had voted and how important he thought it was to do something about climate change.

So I’m inspired to write to him again and will encourage others to do similarly. And it’s all because Friends of the Earth made it easy for me.