Fly without fuel? [Archive]

The B Word

6th May 2021, 17:45

Oh gawd, what an idiotic article. This is a UK Defence initiative and not just RAF. See here for the policy statement: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973707/20210326_Climate_Change_Sust_Strategy_v1.pdf

No one is advocating anything more than carbon offsetting - ie. for every tonne of CO2 you drop in the atmosphere in dead dinosaurs out of the back of your Typhoon, Atlas, Chinook, etc... then the MOD will look to either remove the same amount (synthetic fuel made from renewable energy by smashing H2O, O2 and CO2 together is being pioneered by Porsche right now and others are following) or create energy through solar/wind on the estate to offset the energy created previously through fossil means. NET ZERO is the clue, with NET meaning something that is added or subtracted to achieve ZERO.

Even if the MOD achieves 50% of its stated aim, then surely it’s better than doing nothing at all???

gums

6th May 2021, 18:47

Salute!

Sorry, Word, but we colonists are now waiting the same drivel here that might lower the temperature a 50th of a degree ( pick F or C) if the models are correct and all the other countries in the world revert to the stone age.

Oh well, I'll be gone by then and am trying to educate my grandchildren now, while I can still find wood to burn to stay warm when the glaciers return as predicted back in 1975.

Make no mistake, I would love to have the invisible jet that Wonder Woman has and not polute, and a super loadout of precision guided bombs and missiles, and be able to fly 1,000 miles and back without AAR. I can dream , can't I?

The green uber alles folks do not have a clue about anything except the emphasis upon one influence on the Earth's climate, and that evil gas trails the actual temperature of the Earth according to several ice cores and such by about 800,000 years looking at the last 3 or 4 ice ages. No matter, as the evil gas we emit while breathing and driving about is something that is easy to point at until we can control volcanoes, earthquakes and shifts in the magnetic poles, maybe solar flares......
/rant off

Gums sends...

ShyTorque

6th May 2021, 18:51

There is a solution designed by WW2 pilot Paul Günther:
https://youtu.be/byaZehikedQ

That brings back memories of my childhood! I was given a similar but I think a slightly larger version called the "SturmVogel".

:( Never quite lived up to my expectations; I'd actually asked Santa for a diesel powered control line kit to built myself.

ShyTorque

6th May 2021, 18:53

One day, we will be at war with an enemy who is not politically correct and not the slightest bit ‘woke’.

I think I know who will come of best and I doubt that having the moral high ground will of much comfort.

If Labour win the next general election at least we'll have an ex lawyer prime minister to write our foes a stern letter. Bound to put them off.

dctyke

6th May 2021, 19:47

That brings back memories of my childhood! I was given a similar but I think a slightly larger version called the "SturmVogel".

:( Never quite lived up to my expectations; I'd actually asked Santa for a diesel powered control line kit to built myself.

Mine lasted two rotations before I lost control and was definitely cat five!

Fareastdriver

6th May 2021, 20:11

Mine lasted two rotations before I lost control and was definitely cat five!

You probably made the same mistake as I did and pivoted the control lines by your wrist. One is supposed to make it go up and down by keeping the wrist rigid and moving your arm.

BEagle

6th May 2021, 21:11

gums

6th May 2021, 21:43

I only flew control line things when on alert, and we could be out on the ramp and cease operations real quick if the horn went off. Diesels could have been players by just using the fuel tank drain buttons to get JP-4.

My paper things have been disasters.

Next ten years are gonna be interesting in many ways.

Gums sends...

TukwillaFlyboy

7th May 2021, 00:18

Every time an article like this appears must give great comfort to Russia / China / Iran etc. great comfort.
Because it means we in the West are not serious.
All these countries have a “universalist “ concept of themselves. They are the Center of their own worlds and really don’t care what we in the West think about issues like climate change.
Must give Putin and Xi Jinping are big chuckle.

brakedwell

7th May 2021, 10:44

Hey gums, great to read your commonsense anti-warmist prose, with which I agree 100%!!

Absurd greenwash spouted by that Swedish child has been given far too much prominence!!

Oh - and the Sturmvogel was the larger version; the smaller one was the Zugvogel!! I had one but then moved on to control line models and diesel engines!

Never heard of the Zugvogel, but I did get into Radio Control. The Anson was the only multi engine I built and survived my R/C career. I now feel guilty about using all that fuel though !!!!!

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x611/mk19_anson_16_cf354a2c23058055dd514af15d2ac0b5d1a04165.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x600/mk_19_anson_flying__71bf232d40a01ce835a42fec0fdf0bda7fab44b1 .jpg

NutLoose

7th May 2021, 11:02

:E

No doubt it's a cunning ploy to turn off the heating in Winter and save a fortune in phase one.
Cold lunches will be on all future menus in phase two.

flyingorthopod

7th May 2021, 12:01

That's a lovely model!

Sadly the evidence for man made, CO2 related climate change is as compelling and incontrovertible as the rising of the sun and the roundness of the Earth. If things keep going it is feasible, though fortunately unlikely, that my children will be victims of the next mass extinction as Earth becomes too warm for humans to inhabit. They will certainly face a much more challenging, unstable world with a real risk of major conflict. We are in trouble.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

https://www.theccc.org.uk/2020/04/21/how-much-more-climate-change-is-inevitable-for-the-uk/

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

Less Hair

7th May 2021, 13:26

flyingorthopod

7th May 2021, 15:14

The climate changing all the time through history is undisputed. The contribution of the man made part is the big question. Can we really change it? It changed brutally over times even without any humans on planet earth back then.
No question we should better protect our environment and not chop off rain forests, spill oceans and such. There is a lot of room to improve things for sure.
I just don't see how today's religious move to battery electric power would save the world? It will save at least the world's copper and lithium producers.The entire debate is way more ideological than scientific motivated it seems. Modern day political PR or even hidden investors and interest groups?

With stricter rules many things will become more expensive or must be bought new. Lower income groups will be excluded from using many modern day comforts leaving the streets empty for all those fancy "green" E-SUVs.

I share your concern that making the world less carbon dependent is expensive and risks excluding the world's poor from modern life. We need to do it right.

We are where we are but the current climate position and rate of change is caused by human CO2 emission. There is no scientific debate about that any more. If we stop emitting CO2 we can slow the rate of change and stop the world warming out of the cyclic position it has held for the last few million years.

Idealogical groups like Extinction Rebellion with really dramatic tactics that massively inconvenience everyone, stop people working, stop the economy and generally annoy everyone don't help at all in my opinion.

We do have an electric car though. Kia E NIro. It's great. Acceleration to overtake is astonishing, absolutely left a tailgating F-type for dead the other day joining a dual carriageway from 30 limit, and in energy consumption terms it does the equivalent of about 160mpg, 200mpg in town. Regardless of your position on CO2 and fuel electricity is a great way to propel cars, charging infrastructure notwithstanding.

gums

7th May 2021, 15:17

Salute!

Thanks Hair.

Look at the charts in this link and tell me how much of a difference the MOD effort will make. Note the emissions and reductions by the Europe and U.S. folks. compared to the rest of the world.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/07/bidens-u-s-emissions-reduction-scheme-repeats-past-failures-that-promote-more-global-emissions-increases/

anyone ever heard of the expression pitjing into the wind?

Gums sends...

P.S. tons of the wood pellets being used in the UK for heat in winter come from the humongous tree farms we have in the southeast, and one of the largest is within 30 miles of my home. Look up St. Joe.
Lastly, how are we gonna generate all the electricity for those cool EV's?
Lastly, lastly... we have no proof that a reduction in human emission of the evil C02 will cool or even slow down warming. it's like we are looking thru a soda straw at a huge process and believe we can exert a major influence simply using the thermostat we call C02 emissions. Somehow this seems too good to be true.

flyingorthopod

7th May 2021, 15:26

yes the irony of climate enthusiasts burning oil to ship "carbon neutral" fuel is not lost on me! Many idiots in the world (of which I am sometimes one)

ExAscoteer2

7th May 2021, 15:32

Surely the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour?

Oh wait...

Pugilistic Animus

7th May 2021, 21:59

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind

The B Word

7th May 2021, 22:55

Oh dear, climate change denial is akin to the wilful blindness of Comical Ali in the last Iraq War! There are peer-reviewed quantitative research papers by climate scientists that humans are the cause behind the rapid change of climate - these are subject matter experts in their field, not good old gums and BEagle the fake news believing keyboard climate scientists! Give yourself a talking to, gents, and have a watch of this - it’s not some rabid loon from Extinction Rebellion nor ranting Greta, either, but one of many respected and learned Universities that agree with the ~97% of climate change scientists that have demonstrable scientific evidence that we are warming up our planet towards a catastrophic event. Thank goodness views like yours are now in an ever shrinking minority and globally we are now starting to pull together to make the required changes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE

Everyone has a part to play in this - that means you two, too...if we don’t collectively do something about it, then things will start to get bad reall quick in the next 30-50 years. As you say, we won’t be here, but our children and grand-children will be; and I would like them to have great-grand-children as well.

If you don’t believe the video, then how about NASA? You know, those bright folks who put people on the moon over 50 years ago - or do you not believe that either?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

gums

7th May 2021, 23:16

Salute!
Who is here that denies the climate changes? Is it getting warmer, cooler, staying the same? The issue is to what extent humans can do anything even if they are responsible for a tenth of a degree change in 50 years.

Sorry, but the 97% consensus is a boogie man and was the result of a literature search that the warmist folks culled according to their own criteria (reference upon request). The actual scientists in the field of climate and Earth geological history and such have a much lower opinion of how much humans might cause the Earth's climate to chaange. I have seen numbers as low as 55 or 60% of "experts" that quibble and hem and haw, but would not bet their last nickel on what the numbers will look like in 50 years.

We can go to the Jet Blast with this , but as the green movement is forcing we aviation people to go away to our dacha in a few more years cause the electric planes cannot be recharged, and all the old, evil fuel used back in 2020 is gone and .... I wonder how all the greenies uber alles folks are gonna get across the ocean to attend their climate change conferences using sails or oars?

No more for now... I am more comncerned with the booster rocket about to fall on us this weekend.

Gums sends..

BEagle

7th May 2021, 23:23

Less Hair

8th May 2021, 06:04

On the very long run we will face another ice age. That is the only thing that is guaranteed to happen. All the rest is far from sure.
Like mentioned by BEagle, in the 70s people were laughed at whenever they predicted temperatures rising, everybody else expected it to become cooler back then. Now it is the other way around. For the moment it is getting warmer like it happened many times ago even without any human interference. It is a big question how much mankind can affect climate at all especially as we have only a very short time with more serious temperature observation data available. This is exactly the reason why we end up with contradicting predictions.

And sometimes even those data we have are not what they seem to tell. To start with many of the most reliable weather stations are globally located at airports. Airports that are selected to be located at the sunniest, best VFR conditions and least foggy places available if there is a choice. If you measure there, at dry and sunny places with large aprons and runways being easier warmed up by sunlight, it feels like the world would be warmer and closer to heating up compared to if you had picked a more neutral selection of places without aviation weather needs.

This entire "denier" branding attitude makes it quite difficult to debate things.Even the UN preferred to not invite the more skeptical climate researchers. No surprise they ended up with their darker tone predictions. Some of them making sure certain people just get their funding and influence.

Coming back to the defence and climate change topic: The first aviation biofuels were developed and tested on the B-52 for strategic fuel access reasons. And since the Cold War without permanent bomber patrols, without all that supersonic and low level flying and without atmospheric nuke testing the military has become "green" already.

212man

8th May 2021, 09:57

To start with many of the most reliable weather stations are globally located at airports. Airports that are selected to be located at the sunniest, best VFR conditions and least foggy places available if there is a choice. If you measure there, at dry and sunny places with large aprons and runways being easier warmed up by sunlight, it feels like the world would be warmer and closer to heating up compared to if you had picked a more neutral selection of places without aviation weather needs.

You don’t seriously believe this is where data is collected from to inform scientists on climate monitoring, do you? The whole debate based on METARs.....

ancientaviator62

8th May 2021, 10:39

Whenever I hear the words 'scientific consensus' I am reminded of the countless times in history that this proved false. Two examples are Copernicus and the Heliocentric world and Wegener for his Continental Drift theory both of which were derided at the time by this consensus My science teacher held the belief that many of today's certainties would be tomorrows laughing stock. My one fear is not Climate Change per se but geo engineering based on a flawed computer model We will then see the action of the one and only universal law. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Less Hair

8th May 2021, 10:52

You don’t seriously believe this is where data is collected from to inform scientists on climate monitoring, do you?
Trying to give you an idea.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/giss-worlds-airports-continue-to-run-warmer-than-row/

tdracer

8th May 2021, 18:36

Whenever I hear the words 'scientific consensus' I am reminded of the countless times in history that this proved false.

Exactly!!!
Any time you hear people claim "The science is settled", you can be quite sure the opposite is true. Proclaiming that "The science is settled" is simply an excuse to shutdown honest debate.
I've been hearing the claims that the planet is 'ten years' from some sort of climate catastrophe for the last 50 years - the boy who cried "Wolf" has nothing on these people.:ugh:

I'm not a climate scientist, but I've worked control systems for most of my adult life - and the thing that really bugs me about the CO2 'doom and gloom' is that it implies an unstable system. You sea, the worlds oceans are a huge storehouse of 'global warming' gases - CO2, methane, etc. As the ocean warms, can no longer hold as much of these gases, and has to release them into the atmosphere - which would cause the earth to get warmer, causing the oceans to release more of these gases - and eventually we have Venus. Conversely, if it gets colder, more of those gases dissolve into the oceans, causing the earth to cool, and pretty soon we have an ice ball. Yet somehow the earth has managed for billions of years without either of those extremes coming to pass. Obviously there need to be other factors which come into play as the earth warms or cools prevent the cycling from running away - factors which we simply don't understand yet.

Lima Juliet

8th May 2021, 19:17

I’m starting to understand how Copernicus felt trying explain that the sun was actually at the centre of the solar system, or Magellan needing to prove the world is a sphere. I thought Aviators were supposed to be intelligent? :ugh:

What do you imagine happens next to global temperatures after sharp rises in CO2 in the past 50 years? The pattern is there folks...

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x1125/image_b4d1c1411de21a0a03374afceaa25910fbe38b99.jpeg

gums

8th May 2021, 21:53

Salute!

Before the mods move this to Jet Blast or wherever, I ask those here that are predominately RAF or RN in the homeland.......

Will the planes fly using biofuel or even be some kinda hybrid electric thing? We would have windmills near every airfield? The PV solar farms we have here in Florida and out west take up a lotta acres, and last I looked UK can't even match Texas. Somehow I cannot fathom thousands of acres of fields in the UK growing corn to produce ethanol or biodiesel.

Some folks here in the colonies liked biodiesel for their auto or light truck, and tried getting used oil from McD or Wendy or Burger King or KFC. Got attention on th government TV channel called PBS. It worked until a dozen or more vehicles in the town needed the vegetable oil. Although many residents liked the smell of french fries as the greenies drove down the steeet, the super efforts of those trying to save the planet came to a very low number of zealots.

Gonna be interesting next ten years, and U.S. appears on the verge of losing its exporter status it had gained last four years. So natural gas could be a big problem in the motherland without the LNG shipments from Texas and Louisiana.

Gums sends...

NutLoose

8th May 2021, 22:13

Here you go, I seem to remember a similar design in a comic when I was a child,

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/insect-power

Minnie Burner

9th May 2021, 12:59

I suppose 103 years before the rudder fell off isn't a bad achievement.

Rocchi

9th May 2021, 14:20

About 2years ago I took a real interest in the climate change and CO2 warming thing and discovered it's all mostly natural and goes with the cycles of the sun. The sun is at a low just now and that is why it's colder than normal at this time of year.
Here are some more sources.

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Full-Book.pdf

The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Independent science resource.

https://www.thegwpf.org

Documenting Earth Changes. Live Data Sets Updated Daily.

https://electroverse.net/live-data-sets/

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers

https://greatclimatedebate.com/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/

Tony Heller

https://realclimatescience.com

The Danish Arctic research institutions present updated knowledge on the condition of two major components of the Arctic: The Greenland Ice Sheet and the sea ice.

Home: Polar Portal (http://polarportal.dk/en/home/)

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku .

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

The paper uses several planets and moons in the solar system to calculate what kind of atmosphere and temperature they should have irrespective off the constituent gases that comprise that atmosphere.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

CO2 information resource

https://co2coalition.org

CO2 climate innocence in 500 words: paleoclimatological-astrophysical literature synthesis by an impartial geologist” — Dr Roger Higgs

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347356327_CO2_climate_innocence_in_500_words_paleoclimatolog ical-astrophysical_literature_synthesis_by_an_impartial_geologist

Climate Discussion Nexus, Questioning validity of climate science data, Videos and reports.

https://cdn.longbeardco.com

Website Highlighting Climate events Not Reported In The Mainstream Media

https://electroverse.net

Watts up with that? website, The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as its concentration increases.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/01/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency-2/

I can also post about 20 Youtube videos as well.

Jetblast you say.
R.

flyingorthopod

9th May 2021, 15:36

Sorry but not convinced by the credibility of those links. The first one, climate change reconsidered, is posted by a group that start out campaigning against the belief that smoking is bad for you.

Will be interesting to see how we propel vehicles in austere deployments if we try to avoid fossil fuels. Electric cars are great but need charging. Tiny nuclear reactors?

As for the population at large, we need more domestic solar, battery storage, heat pumps etc. No idea why we are letting people build houses without them. Until cold fusion comes along we need nuclear power but ironically many of the same people who campaign for a low carbon world also protest nuclear power stations which is IMHO ridiculous.

PPRuNeUser0211

9th May 2021, 16:49

A) take it to jet blast.
B) There is a large difference between scientific debate (being generous) and scientific consensus, which a lot of people with Google skills would do well to learn the difference between.

Rocchi

9th May 2021, 17:59

Cold fusion, no. Not even a thing. Where else can I find these documents?

What about this lot.Alternate power sources

Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) and Small Modular Reactors (SMR)

Investment of the UK GOV.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-technologies

The Thorium Energy Alliance

https://thoriumenergyalliance.com (https://thoriumenergyalliance.com)

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx (https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx)

The Stable Salt Reactor is ready for implementation now.

https://www.moltexenergy.com

Energy from Thorium

https://energyfromthorium.com

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors. Kirk Sorensen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

This is a visual summary of all the information about thorium reactors. Subject Zero Science. 17 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biToH42YZZ4

Explains the waste involved in renewables and the benefits of a thorium reactor. Professor Rusty Towell. In his talk, Rusty discusses the availability of energy as the critical ingredient for raising the standard of living around the world, providing a crash course in understanding how Thorium, found in the dirt we walk on every day, might be humanity’s final energy solution. 20 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqCpfVwdP4

Kirk Sorensen stumbled across thorium while doing research on how to power a lunar community. Thorium is a cleaner, safer, and more abundant nuclear fuel—one that Kirk believes will revolutionise how we produce our energy. 16 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybenSq0KPo

Kirk Sorensen is founder of Flibe Energy and is an advocate for nuclear energy based on thorium and liquid-fluoride fuels. 10 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

Making Safe Nuclear Power from Thorium. Thomas Pedersen, engineer and co-founder of Copenhagen Atomics. 19 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHO1ebNxhVI

How Thorium can save the world: Salim Zwein at TEDxBeirut 2012. 13 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZf6e0ntFrw

LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) Defended by Kirk Sorensen @ ThEC2018. 36 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9HVIFt2GE

LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) Matthew Lish on the chemistry and technical aspects of reactor maintenance. LFTR Online Chemistry vs Radiation @ ORNL MSRW 2019. 31 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anlnxRxRc74

Uranium

Ultra safe Nuclear Corporation. Reactor design has negative temperature reactivity coefficient.

https://usnc.com

In this video Prof. Ruzic explains what modular micro-reactors are, and why they may be the future of nuclear power. In particular, their ability to be a non-carbon source of process or district heat makes them an ideal replacement for fossil fuel plants. In terms of electricity cost, they compete very well with diesel generation, and once mass produced could reach utility-scale prices. The micro-reactors are self-contained with their own containment, and passive safety features provided by the laws of physics. All wastes generated are contained in the fuel itself which will last for 20 years. At that point the whole reactor vessel is carted away, and a new one can be installed. Aug 2020. 21 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtog_gOaGQ
Last post. Thank you.

typerated

10th May 2021, 08:30

I'm proud to admit that I don't believe a word that irritating Swedish child utters!

Warmists might wish to reflect on the Roman wine harvests in Britain - and the Little Ice Age of the middle ages.

What happened to the new ice age we were told was imminent back in the '70s?

So for the hard of thinking: The "Warmists" have reflected on this things - quite thoroughly!

The medieval ice age was just a northern hemisphere event - it does not appear in the overall averaged world dataset.

The new ice age was overdue - in fact the Holocene (stable climate over the last 12,000 years since we came out of last ice age) had been going longer than any other interglacial.
The Milankovitch cycle (wobble in the earths tilt, axis and orbit) was due to take us slowly back to an ice age - but looking at LJ's chart you can see there is a certain amount of variation within this so we were on borrowed time.
Now here is the thing - rather than going back into an ice age as per the natural cycle - we have put lots of C02 into the atmosphere - and looking at LJ's chart you can see C02 causes the temperature to follow - we have artificially averted the next ice age - at least for a while!

As this is probably the most pressing issue facing mankind can I suggest you stop being a numptie - treat it with some respect - and perhaps read up on the science of what is really happening - not some Ted Cruz/ oil company sponsored denialist propaganda.

Actually you might find the real science is fascinating .

Also you might find that US and UK military(amongst others) fully understand that climate change is real and will be the primary driver of conflict as we head deeper into the century

212man

10th May 2021, 10:00

oil company sponsored denialist
I work for quite a large Oil & Gas company, and I can assure you it does not deny this, and has explicit strategic plans to meet its societal obligations.

typerated

10th May 2021, 10:06

I work for quite a large Oil & Gas company, and I can assure you it does not deny this, and has explicit strategic plans to meet its societal obligations.

Fair enough - and good for them - presumably a new state of affairs.

But most of the nonsense crap science that has been written comes from via oil company $$'s!

Looking at you Exxon!

Less Hair

10th May 2021, 10:12

Climate change is undisputed, but the man made part is. This has become an ideology and some entire industry living on being funded on fear.
It is good to protect the environment but we are not doing it with new copper cable networks and lithium mines all over the world. This is somebody else's economical interest that gets communicated cult style and simplified in the digital media age.

In fact Greta is a PR company's child. Google Ingmar Rentzhog for starters.
https://pluralist.com/ingmar-rentzhog-greta-thunberg/

212man

10th May 2021, 10:35

Fair enough - and good for them - presumably a new state of affairs.

But most of the nonsense crap science that has been written comes from via oil company $$'s!

Looking at you Exxon!

I think it depends on which side of the pond they are based

TURIN

10th May 2021, 10:52

If Labour win the next general election at least we'll have an ex lawyer prime minister to write our foes a stern letter. Bound to put them off.
And you trust the current incumbent to keep you safe?
I know you military guys are made of strong stuff but if you really trust that idiot in no.10 to make the right decisions when it comes to putting men and women in harms way you're braver than I thought.

SimonPaddo

10th May 2021, 17:20

Well said typerated - the internet seems to have replaced intellect and scientific rigour in what’s left of some posters brains

Less Hair

10th May 2021, 19:17

Hopefully not yours. Where is your point? Try to contribute something instead of insults.

gums

10th May 2021, 19:54

Salute!

Actchally, most of the crap "science" is written and promoted by folks that get their money from government grants. All they have to do is make a connection, however bizarre, with the words climate or pollution or renewable or sustainable, then the coup de gras.... more study is needed.

The question is how much do we try to change a humongous system when we have no empirical evidence that what we have done for the last 20 or 25 years has made a hundredth of a degree of difference. Make no mistake, the climate is changing and the jury is still out as to what will happen in a thousand years, or even a hundred years with any statistical certainty even using questionable models. However, the warmists have won so far. We are gonna turn into Venus, and the tipping point is upon us. The evil trace gas that does not trap heat, but re-radiates the sun rays down and up in a different wavelength is what causes surface and low atmosphere temp to heat or cool. The elephant in the room is harder to use as a thermostat that we mortals can fool with, and it is water vapor and actual solar insolation from 93 million miles away.

I wish the RAF to do well with bio-jet fuel or recharging the electric motors on their new F-35 planes.

Gums opines...

Capt Scribble

10th May 2021, 21:19

PPRuNeUser0211

11th May 2021, 05:35

. Also, are temperatures measured 100 years ago comparable with those of today taken by satellites. I would suggest, not.
A) big of you to mock someone for a difference like Asperger's.
B) good of you to think of the above. I'm sure the people that rigourously study climate change haven't thought of that, maybe you should write and tell them.

For what it's worth I'm pretty confident that scientific consensus is occasionally wrong. They told us that dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid, but there's plenty of living evidence right here on this thread.

Less Hair

11th May 2021, 07:02

Scientific consensus did a u-turn within a few years as you might have noticed.

cattletruck

11th May 2021, 12:30

Tis' not climate change that's ruining the planet, it's overpopulation and the need for societies to keep progressing. Oceans will continue to be overfished and natural wilderness will continue to be cleared while the population keeps growing.

So how then will driving a battery powered car or plane save us from this? It just won't, the "green" argument is complete BS and the transition to "green" will require even more energy to achieve, meanwhile the population keeps increasing.

People like Greta just like to see dolphins and wind farms but not wretched poverty and human despair found in thousands of city slums.

Actchally, most of the crap "science" is written and promoted by folks that get their money from government grants. All they have to do is make a connection, however bizarre, with the words climate or pollution or renewable or sustainable, then the coup de gras.... more study is needed.

So true.

typerated

13th May 2021, 08:35

NutLoose

13th May 2021, 09:36

The followers of St Greta of Aspergers believe a reported temperature change over a hundred years is significant. However, the climate changes in tens of thousands of years so any conclusions drawn from a century are just not valid. Also, are temperatures measured 100 years ago comparable with those of today taken by satellites. I would suggest, not.

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/life/22122020-frozen-thames-ice-skating-bushy-park-the-big-freeze-1962/

Bar the odd freak weather in 63, the last time the thames was frozen solid was

The Thames froze over for the first time since 1814

and as the industial revolution didn't really start till about 1870 it shows the UK was warming up well before we started polluting the planet.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/

Between 1600 and 1814, it was not uncommon for the River Thames to freeze over for up to two months at time. There were two main reasons for this; the first was that Britain (and the entire of the Northern Hemisphere) was locked in what is now known as the ‘Little Ice Age’. The other catalyst was the medieval London Bridge (https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Remains-of-the-old-London-Bridge/) and its piers, and specifically how closely spaced together they were. During winter, pieces of ice would get lodged between the piers and effectively dam up the river, meaning it was easier for it to freeze.
During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore, the most famous frost fair was held: The Blanket Fair. The famous English writer and diariest John Evelyn described it in extensive detail, writing:

And we are talking 11 inches thick!

ancientaviator62

13th May 2021, 10:42

A 'shrug of the shoulder' by one of the larger volcanoes will render any discussion of Climate Change and the causes null and void. The expert 'consensus tell us that it is not a matter of 'if ' but 'when.' It was thought this, along with low sunspot numbers to have caused the little ice age.

Rocchi

13th May 2021, 15:19

Typerated.

That is a load science denying nonsense.

Try learning some of facts from these scientist and physicists.Here's any easy one to start with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4

Professor William Happer

Scientist Ian Plimer

Dr Willie Soon

Freeman Dyson, FRS

Greg Flato

Professor Valentina Zharkova

flyingorthopod

13th May 2021, 17:24

Climate change denier video posted by campaigners.

At least one of their papers has been retracted
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/

One of them has received direct funding from the fossil fuel industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

One of them owns a mining company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Clever people but not on the side of consensus, or evidence.

It is true that predictive models are predictive and models, so may not be entirely accurate.

Rocchi

13th May 2021, 18:02

The internet is a great resource and we can find all sorts of things to refute or backup what we believe or disbelieve.
Michael Mann, hockey stick, discredited.

The IPCC was set up for the benefit of some. Al gore and his cronies. Michael Mann, hockey stick, discredited.

The whole thing comes down to.

Manufacture a problem and monetise the solution.

PPRuNeUser0211

13th May 2021, 20:47

flyingorthopod

14th May 2021, 05:40

Absolutely spot on.

And anything which makes the military more fuel efficient and military aviation less dependent on imported hydrocarbons has strategic and tactical advantages.

First thing I'd do would be to abolish ironing on deployment.

TukwillaFlyboy

14th May 2021, 06:21

Let me pose a thought experiment. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that none of us (as individual ppruners) actually know what is going on with the climate.

Let's say there are 2 possibilities. On one side, we have "climate change is induced by human-caused emissions of various kinds". On the other side we have "climate change is going to happen anyway or not happen at all".

The choice you are asked to make is between those two. Now base your actions on the safest choice to make. Either "do something, just in case" or "do nothing because it won't make any difference".

Worst case, in doing something you get your electric from a wind turbine and some solar panels, pay maybe a little more for it in the short term, but hey, you're loving a comfy western lifestyle so hey.

Worst case in doing nothing, quite a lot worse.

Why would you choose to do nothing?

Yeah , except for the fact that that is the way to make really bad decisions.
Solar panels in Scotland ? Northern Germany ? A waste of money. I was in Germany in January and drove past a bunch of solar panels between Prague and Nuremberg covered in 15cm of snow. A joke.
There is a middle path. Pragmatism. Not zealotry.
Aircraft burn kerosene.
Ships burn diesel.
Regional trains are diesel electric.
Oh , and google search for the websites were you can monitor in real time the energy generation in Britain. Not within a bulls roar of renewable.
Setting non achievable goals are a political exercise and essentially useless.
The solutions will be technology driven and economically competitive. Otherwise we are wasting time and money.

PPRuNeUser0211

14th May 2021, 06:22

Absolutely spot on.

And anything which makes the military more fuel efficient and military aviation less dependent on imported hydrocarbons has strategic and tactic advantages.
agreed. A lot of people also seem to equate a push towards lower emissions with lower performance. Absolutely doesn't have to be the case. There's so much low hanging fruit it's untrue. Anyone who's been around an airfield has seen how much crap the fire engines push out - their worst case use has to be "drive 5 miles and run a pump for ten minutes". After which the airfield is black anyway so feel free to plug them in!

Solar is a known quantity in terms of payback time and the MOD isn't short of roof space, so push for that. All of this before you go anywhere near controversial stuff like biofuels (definite pros and cons there) and potentially reduced performance for the warfighter.

BEagle

14th May 2021, 07:09

I was once talking with a certain UK MP at an EASA aviation safety conference in Rome. He said that he had some domestic enrgy system at home (not sure whether it was a windmill, soloar panels or both) and that he could monitor the output on his phone app. I asked him how it was doing; he went to the app and his face fell - it wasn't producing enough to power a 60w light bulb!

A couple of points to annoy Ms G Thunderbox and her warmist cronies:

Keigwin's 1996 study of radiocarbon-dated box core data from marine sediments in the Sargasso Sea found that its sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooler approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago and approximately 1 °C warmer 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).

Centennial-scale variability in productivity, temperature, and trajectory of water masses, associated with the most recent climatic shifts: the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, are also revealed by diatom abundance and assemblage composition in high-sedimentation rate cores from the NW and NE Atlantic margins. At present, the North Atlantic Oscillation is believed to dictate climate variability across most of the Northern Hemisphere, especially during wintertime.

Today I feel the need to enjoy 354 bhp of AMG and to heck with Gore, Thunderbox and the rest of the weeny greenies!

typerated

14th May 2021, 07:47

So for the hard of thinking: The "Warmists" have reflected on this things - quite thoroughly!

The medieval ice age was just a northern hemisphere event - it does not appear in the overall averaged world dataset.

The new ice age was overdue - in fact the Holocene (stable climate over the last 12,000 years since we came out of last ice age) had been going longer than any other interglacial.
The Milankovitch cycle (wobble in the earths tilt, axis and orbit) was due to take us slowly back to an ice age - but looking at LJ's chart you can see there is a certain amount of variation within this so we were on borrowed time.
Now here is the thing - rather than going back into an ice age as per the natural cycle - we have put lots of C02 into the atmosphere - and looking at LJ's chart you can see C02 causes the temperature to follow - we have artificially averted the next ice age - at least for a while!

As this is probably the most pressing issue facing mankind can I suggest you stop being a numptie - treat it with some respect - and perhaps read up on the science of what is really happening - not some Ted Cruz/ oil company sponsored denialist propaganda.

Actually you might find the real science is fascinating .

Also you might find that US and UK military(amongst others) fully understand that climate change is real and will be the primary driver of conflict as we head deeper into the century

BEagle your ignorance and flippancy should make you ashamed.
I hope you take the time to learn the science before you die.

If you average world temperature you get the graph on LJ's chart - this is not difficult !!
All government and major science agencies agree on this - it is unanimous amongst those whose profession it is.
FFS even the oil companies are now admitting it is real.

Less Hair

14th May 2021, 07:56

Climate change might be real but man made not. This what it is about.
Assuming mankind is able to affect climate change in any way, will reinventing the wheel, building new battery cars for everybody, global new electrical power grids and charging stations, new nuclear plants to generate all the electricity needed and lithium mines everywhere, spoiling desperately needed drinking water in the process, change things for the better or be "green" in any way? Burning oil like there is no tomorrow is not right. Doing the same in a less efficient way with battery power now is no improvement. Just some bad interim technology.

It would make the world greener to better insulate houses and not waste electrical power for air condition and heating to start with. Or to harvest natural energy like thermal plants or tides. Still some way to go it seems.

typerated

14th May 2021, 08:04

Climate change might be real but man made not. This what it is about.
Assuming mankind is able to affect climate change in any way, will reinventing the wheel, building new battery cars for everybody, global new electrical power grids and charging stations, new nuclear plants to generate all the electricity needed and lithium mines everywhere change things for the better or be "green" in any way?

The last bastion of stupidity denialism.

Look at the graph from LJ - see the connection between C02 and temperature.
Note the increase in C02 in the last century -
Note that it will cause warming.

and wonder where the extra C02 might have come from

Job done - Stupidity overcome!

Less Hair

14th May 2021, 08:09

Assertive tone doesn't make you sound more convincing.

gums

14th May 2021, 15:41

Salute!

Somehow I am having a hard time finding the chart showing the evil trace gas increases and the temperature follows, rather than the well-accepted Vostok plot showing temp follows the gas. Why? Well, maybe a climate scientist could study this versus screaming we are all gonna die if we do not revert to stone age civilization this very moment!

I also note some studies reflecting very high C02 for many centuries after the temp peaked out at the end of an interglacial glacial period (Vostok plot shows this for a few glacial onsets). Where the hell did all the stuff come from?

Unless we revert to sailing ships, we have to power the immense transportation system on the seas that make current civilization and quality of life in most countries what it is now compared to 1860 or whenever humans began to produce terratons of the evil gas that is necessary to grow crops to feed us and is exhaled every breath we take. Then ground and air transport also need power. So we build immense solar fields and new, super-sized cables to bring the volts to the thousands of new charging stations or your tiny apartment in a ten floor building? The ships will still need to use sails because the nearest charging station in 1,000 friggin' miles away, and I can't afford a hundred tons of batteries at the expense of the cargo I have to deliver in three days.

Most greenies are denialists of actual science related to energy. " I have my EV, and the Earth will be saved." But where did that electricity come from? And the funniest/saddest thing is they resist any mention of using nuclear power to generate the volts and amps. More people died this year in one day from a virus than in all the nuclear accidents/mishaps in history. Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki had less deaths and lingering health problems than the Covid virus inflicted on India in a week.

Fuel for transportation is the real elephant in the room, face it. We cannot build a nuke light and small enuf to power our airplanes, tho that is not outta the realm of practical engineering for the big cargo ships, maybe even trains. Until we can reduce the domestic and industrial consumption of electricity produced by the evil fossil fuels, we have a problem, right? But the solution is not reverting to the society we had in 1860 or so, even what we had a hundred years ago after WW1.

The warmistas must cease their ignorant mantra that we lowly humans can change the course of our climate by a simplistic cessation of using fossil fuels. They also must look at preparation as well as questionable "prevention".

I yield the floor.....

Gums sends...

Wetstart Dryrun

14th May 2021, 16:55

There have been 4 major glaciations in the last million years. We are due for a 5th one soon, on averages. If burning a few hydrocarbons delays the onset, then jolly good.

A proper climatologist wouldn't get out of bed for less than a 1000 years.

Water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, by a country mile.

Mankind doesn't need polar bears, or pandas.

...or Haslet.

Permafrost, which has never melted, is releasing methane as the trapped vegetation rots...... ?

Wets

If it gets too hot,we can release the nuclear winter

NutLoose

14th May 2021, 17:27

What gets me about we must reduce our fossil fuel consumption is it just means it will last longer, you will still eventually use it all, just at a lower rate.

Rocchi

14th May 2021, 19:01

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature. This is not well publicised and not acknowledged in the IPCC. It has a rapid logarithmic diminution effect and is well understood within the climate science community. CO2 at 400 ppm has already reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere. A doubling of CO2 to 800 ppm will raise the climate temperature by 0.2 - 1.9C degree depending on information source. Assume 1C for an average. For 1C degree more, CO2 will need to increase to 1600 ppm according to the logarithmic diminution effect.

CO2 appears to be increasing at 2.5 ppm per annum. 400 ppm / 2.5 ppm per annum = 160 years So 160 years for the climate to increase by 1C degree.

Claims of a jump of 2.5C degrees and a climate crisis the near future appear a bit exaggerated.

Who is it that defines what the average temperature of Earth is supposed to be? What is that temperature?

An illustration to give an idea of how little CO2 is in the atmosphere use a 1 meter length = 1000mm. CO2 is 0.4mm of that, equivalent to less that the thickness of your thumb nail against 1000mm.

Meanwhile the increase in CO2 is contributing an increase of food production by better plant growth and drought resistance. There are CO2 generators available for industrial green house food growers to increase the amount of CO2 to 1000 - 1200 ppm in the air to improve growth by approx. 30%. Machines run on propane or other fossil fuels to help feed us.

gums

14th May 2021, 21:36

Salute!

Do not confuse the warmists with atmospheric science facts and processes. After all, the C02 thermostat knob will save the planet.

Right now I am more worried about powering the trains, planes and automobiles in 20 years if we go to some arbitrary carbon neutral mandate.

Of course, we could have an overpowering global government that simply shuts off your home electricity or lacks the infrastructure to generate " renewable" electricity and the means to get it to your apartment or home or... Yeah, that's it, we could ration home use until we complete our zillion sq miles of PV panels and produce terra tons of batteries that can meet the demand we had back in the 1960's or so. No big deal, huh?

I am more concerned about our defense than advertising some PC baloney to make a niche group of ignorant greenies happy.

Gums sends...

msbbarratt

16th May 2021, 08:03

Regardless of one's views on climate change, running an air force by relying on refined fuel derived from black sticky gloop pumped out of the ground is not sustainable. There will, one day, be no crude oil left.

So there is a long term strategic benefit in finding a militarily viable alternative. There is also a short term strategic benefit, as one then doesn't end up relying on certain parts of the world with a propensity for instability. There is an even strong strategic benefit if it can be more or less entirely domestically produced. One is then pretty much proof against market manipulation, embargo, sanctions, blockade.

There are some things that tick this box. A hydrogen fueled economy can either lead to using H2 directly as a fuel in aircraft, or as part of a fuel synthesis industry. Such an economy might be powered by fission, fusion, and / or renewables.

Other things that might get there; the US once played with fission rockets, which was a pretty big failure. However, a fission reactor rocket using Americium makes a lot more sense - it'd be smaller, lighter, more robust, far less likely to emit radioactive contamination out the exhaust pipe.

As has been widely reported the Russians are toying with a nuclear powered hyper-sonic cruise missile. If they perfect that power plant, I shudder to think what else they might bolt it into.

I don't suppose the Chinese are sitting still either. Any student of warfare in the Pacific west knows that dependence on imported oil is not likely to result in prevailing in a military conflict.

gums

16th May 2021, 14:14

Salute!

Good points , MSB.

My concern is about the military use of the fossil fuels to satisfy the greenies, and although I agree there could be a finite limit to supply, I can see a few hundred years depending on how much the non-military uses. There are some processes for making methane ( GASP! another evil greenhouse gas) if we had the non-C02 nukes online. Space X and Blue Origin are already flying rocket engines powered by the stuff, and they chose it cause they can make it on Mars using the evil C02 and a source of electrical power from? ....nukes or PV panels or even windmills.

Hydrogen for fuel seems the cleanest approach so far, tho it has many distribution and servicing aspects the warmists have not considered. The hydrogen fuel cell approach also seems great for surface applications, and has less safety problems. But, as with pure H2, you still need another form of energy to produce the compound and then develop distribution infrastructure and so forth. The greenies still do not unnerstan that their EV polutes less but still has to get the electricity from someplace, and unless they relent on the nukes, it is being produced by a coal or gas plant 50 miles away. The PV fields we have in the U.S. are huge, but still not reliable in poor weather and do not produce a single volt at night. The greenies/dreamers have still not tackled the air transport or the ships. How are they gonna have their Starbucks? /rant

I had a co-worker that worked on NERVA back in late 60's. The nuke motor worked, but all it did was take away payload and the need for an oxidizer tank and plumbing. My proposal is nukes for the ships like the Navy does. The companies won't do it now because too many nations do not want a nuke-powered thing in their harbor. Oh well.

Hope the RAF can make their goal.

Gums sends...

P.S. breaking news...
https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/modular-molten-salt-nuclear-power-for-maritime-propulsion

Less Hair

16th May 2021, 16:54

Rocchi

16th May 2021, 19:16

LH. Agree about thermal heat. Storage systems ramping up from Siemens gamesa ETES. Long term thermal energy storage and reuse for excess production from wind turbines and PV's. Maybe a better and cheaper option to mega batteries.

https://www.siemensgamesa.com/products-and-services/hybrid-and-storage/thermal-energy-storage-with-etes

gums.
Agree with small modular reactors (SMR's) and molten salt reactors (MSR's) whether thorium breeder reactors or uranium burner reactors. This is future tech, however MSR's when sorted and in production with run at 700C degrees and and after producing electricity will have excess heat for processes for desalination, district heating and synthetic liquid fuel production. Ref. content of post 39 above.

Fusion.
I first heard about this wonderful thing back in the early 1970's. I used to be quite young back then. It was said that this would be a thing in the near future, 15 -20 years. About 10 years ago I started taking an interest in a thing called the ITER, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Billions are being spent for an experimental reactor that will sustain a reaction for five minutes at a time. When completed this will be fire up in "2025 with first plasma soon after and deuterium-tritium operations planned for 2035" (Wikip...). ITER is the precursor to DEMO a prototype fusion reactor which in turn has to be built and run experimentally for perhaps years prior to a final production design which will come in 2050 - 2060. So now I am old and fusion power is even longer into the future than my reasonable life span. So fusion power is for future generations to enjoy.

msbbarratt

16th May 2021, 22:12

I am not convinced that burning oil is the best way to go for all time. But there are way bigger world oil reserves available than had been assumed for a long time. We are far away from "peak oil". It is not just that more places with oil are found to exist, there are new technologies available to harvest oil fields that had not been considered for exploitation in earlier days.
We should continue to look for better non fossil fuel energy. Not sure if going nuclear instead would be best. How about thermal heat or tidal energy for non transport uses like heating and cooling?

We may well be far away from peak oil, but that may become an irrelevance so far as powering a military machine is concerned. All extractive industries rely on there being a critical mass of customers to make the cost of extraction financially viable. If large swathes of energy production across the globe become non-fossil fuel based, extracting gas / oil for only the military starts being non-viable, whether we like it or not. There will of course be a long tail - extant in-production oil fields will likely have customers for a very long time to come.

There's other industrial domains where military applications already play second-fiddle to a wider civilian market. Look at microelectronics - CPUs. It now costs about $6-10billion to set up a competitive fab and develop the masks for the CPUs that will be made in it. The chips produced are ever so carefully engineered to give satisfactory lifetimes in servers in a normal data-centre environment. If you want a military-industrial spec version of such a chip, you can't get it. This is because even all the worlds' military procurement combined won't be buying the >$10billion's worth of CPUs that would be required to make it worthwhile setting up the plant. There are exceptions of course - some FPGAs for example. If the industrial demand for large CPUs goes away, military applications are going to have to manage without...

There's all sorts of other things that the wider market drives in directions not helpful for military applications. For example, ADA really is a good choice for several types of military system, but no one else wants it so it's impossible to find ADA programmers (and so military systems generally avoid it nowadays). Now it's getting worse; lots of GUI software is now web-based, or uses web-technology; these really aren't suitable for, say, flight control displays, but it's getting harder to find programmers who are willing and prepared to code for an embedded platform's graphic's library. If it's not mainstream that immediately cuts out a large fraction of the labour pool.

I'm not sure that there's many round here who would welcome their flight control displays being run in Google Chrome...

Less Hair

17th May 2021, 07:07

So you land your electric Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with "empty tanks" looking for a charger and then?

PPRuNeUser0211

17th May 2021, 08:19

So you land your electric Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with "empty tanks" looking for a charger and then?
So you land your gas turbine Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with empty tanks looking for a bowser and then?

TukwillaFlyboy

17th May 2021, 10:40

So you land your gas turbine Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with empty tanks looking for a bowser and then?

You chuck in enough jerry cans of whatever fossil fuel is available and get airborne again.
Thats pretty much the point isn’t it ?

gums

17th May 2021, 12:51

Salute!

Back to the start, if we may.

I looked back at my original impetus from the most viewed Climate Change blog on the 'net and found this pearl from the news article that stimulated me to post here due to the huge number of folks interested in the RAF
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/317x98/biofuels_f0301edb9991d314738fe1aa9b4ef5f8481350fc.jpg

This what I mean about greenies not understanding chemical reactions or thermodynamics or even biology. Not sure if the Secretary is a true greenie, and perhaps is just being PC. If talking about "renewable" versus emissions, use of biofuels is not "carbon neutral" best I can determine, huh?

In any case, the used vegetable oil will emit the evil gas, C02. And so will the other fuels the Secretary mentions. Even electric jets will need to get the amps from someplace, and I have a hard time seeing Britain covered in PV panels and thousands of windmills on the coast.

Perhaps the "net zero" is an economic ploy - buy carbon offsets?

Gums sends...

BEagle

18th May 2021, 08:00

The latest piece of loony greenwash from the warmists:

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that no new fossil fuel boilers should be sold from 2025 if the world is to achieve net-zero emissions by the middle of this century.

It's one of 400 steps on the road to net-zero proposed by the agency in a special report.

The sale of new petrol and diesel cars around the world would end by 2035.

The IEA says that from now, there is no place for new coal, oil or gas exploration or supplies.

Why not ban volcanoes too? Or forest fires and every other natural disaster.

Less Hair

18th May 2021, 08:12

Ban sunshine.

flyingorthopod

18th May 2021, 09:08

The latest piece of loony greenwash from the warmists:

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059

Why not ban volcanoes too? Or forest fires and every other natural disaster.

Excellent idea. Achievable, effective, realistic and helpful. New houses should have heat pumps, solar power, battery storage and solar hot water.

There'd be fewer forest fires in future if we can limit climate change.

In re operational capability, while battery power for some military vehicles may be great, its still heavy and we need electricity. A little deployable nuclear plant sounds great but would be a messy target. So we may be a way off this. Biofuels have their own issues but if we can produce them without basically starving developing world children by nicking their food to make ethanol, might be good. Otherwise we need interim solutions based on efficiency and reduced fossil fuel use, and efficiency and reduced fuel use means military advantage.

gums

18th May 2021, 16:18

Salute!

Good news for the hybrid military vehicles, and from Oz, no less. Link could be paywalled, but try the "private page" option.

Aluminum-ion batteries are just the ticket for my pickup truck in the hills. Going downhill I can charge much faster than the current Ii-on things that catch fire and weight a lot. As the dude says, these batts are like capacitors, so charging is in econds and not minutes or even hours.

Only problem I see is the military vehicles need a reliable source of volts and amps at the home base or even the mobile outpost for the initial launch. That is the long pole in the tent. For long range cruise, no way but fossil fuel or biofuel.

Try: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2021/05/13/ev-range-breakthrough-as-new-aluminum-ion-battery-charges-60-times-faster-than-lithium-ion/?sh=7631303c6d28

Gums sends...