Afaik, no one has been able to do that with a net gain in energy.
1 Like
This thread is turning into a really fascinating one (for me)
After watching the video I linked earlier (way up) in this thread on the problems surrounding Nuclear fusion had me in a bit of a downer on how weāre progressing in reaching the goal with that technology Iāve come across this article on a major advancement that is a decent forward step. Basically Fusion is easy, making a net gain with fusion is hard because the vast energy needed to create and maintain the plasma. Basically increasing our efficiency in how we do this is a key way forward. Vastly better magnets have just been produced.
2 Likes
At this point, you can already see the outlines of how this COP is going to fail (transparency, climate aid to LDCs), some appear to be moving towards defining the narrative of why already.
1 Like
Greta had her end of summit speech written six months ago.
1 Like
Ugh, this is dismal, but it is in agreement with my gut feeling over the past week, based largely on the idea that 2050-60 targets are close to irrelevant, and a conversation with someone who made me realize that methane is not that important now that we have blown through old targets. Not to say that methane should not be reduced dramatically, but we could take global methane emissions to zero and still face the same problem set.
That 2.4C figure doesnāt include the US and China net zero targets though, which reduces it to 2.1C. If you include all countriesā net zero targets we get to 1.8C.
The key is that action needs to be taken now. Not tomorrow. Not after breakfast. Now.
Good luck convincing Johnson to do anything before breakfast!
Pretty sure I saw something on the BBC that basically said that parts of the world become inhabitable with a 2 deg rise.
Iām back on my downer again
the ātornadoā at UBC apparently touched down about 20min before our 6pm kickoff in South Surrey.
the winds were so strong on the turf pitch, the ball would roll away on a set piece. it was really annoying.
Tbf, the UKās net zero target is A LOT more ambitious than the vast majority of other countries, including the EU.
The EU aim to hit net zero by 2050, like the UK, but the UK is aiming for a reduction of 68% by 2030 and 78% by 2035, compared with 55% for the EU by 2030.
I donāt ever expect the media to get facts correct. their purpose used to be to report the news. now, itās their mission to get viewership by sensational headlines and spreading the narrative.
1 Like
The key difference being between announced and included in the NDC is the pathway needing to be implemented to at least some degree. The US has announced a target, but it is by means certain that the climate bill gets through Congress.
Similarly, I would not trust anything Canada is ācommittingā to right now.
In this case, I donāt really blame the media, other than being somewhat lazy, which is hardly anything new. Organizations have deliberately mischaracterized a situation in order to advance a particular narrative.
Yeah, I guess you would want to keep the ball on the deckā¦
Ten years ago, I was playing a match the night a downdraft (very tornado like) took an outdoor stage down. We had just scored a goal when one of our players ran up to the ref, pointed to the sky, and said we have about five minutes to get to cover. Turns out he is a meteorologist at Environment Canada, saw the early signs quite clearly.
We are definitively on the fringes of the tornado belt now in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec, which is about a 300 km northward shift from circa 1980. I donāt know if there is a west coast equivalent with a readily defined line that has shifted.
1 Like
I seem to recall that the UK get more tornados per kmĀ² than anywhere else in the world.
yeah it wasnāt that bad. we were in South Surrey Athletic Park which is about 40km to the south, Iād expect the winds only about 40-50km there. outer fringes of the storm.
Hereās my biggest beef about the fuel companies. Why canāt get get any f***ing diesel vehicles in Canada. FFS, theyāre anywhere but in North America, unless you want to buy a heavy duty vehicle
I own a Hyundai Santa Fe. 2.0T engine, gets ~8L/100km Hwy and ~11L/100km city. Everywhere else in the world, thereās a diesel powerplant option. Same goes for many other manufacturers
WHY NOT HERE???
The costs for you aside, diesel isnāt necessarily better for the environment, particularly not in your immediate environment due to the relatively higher levels of nitrous oxides productionā¦ I think theyāre not that good for particulates either.
1 Like
but the lesser amount of fuel required to operate the vehicle is the immediate gain. If Iām using a non-renewable resource, best to use less of it and the one which needs less refining?
The diesel engine delivers 440Nm of torque compared to 331Nm from the petrol engine but lacks power, with 148kW playing 220kW. For frugality, however, the diesel dominates at least the claimed figures, drinking only 6.1L/100km on the official combined cycle against 10.1L/100km for the petrol engine
thatās a 40% reduction in consumption. pretty substantial.
Isnāt the problem now less of whether itās renewable or not, but more of the emissions impact?
To be applauded but given the urgency and the failure that Paris is turning out to be with regard to delivering on targets part of me wants to see far more ambition with a greater margin in case governments fail to deliver, which they all have up to this point.
My concern is that as time passes, the scope of work needed before breakfast is considerably less than afterwards so being ambitious now is without doubt the better solution long term. It probably isnāt politically though, sadly. Having small targets can result in apathy. A bigger target might make you think āoh f***ā and actually get stuck into doing something.
1 Like
I always wondered why LPG never caught on more myself. Iām a fan and have two vehicles that can run on it. Iām not sure about the actual figures but it does produce less Co2 than petrol and diesel but I strongly suspect that those figures need to be adjusted for the less MPG or L/km you get from it.