# Environmentalism?



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2014)

Has it got a bit "religious"?  Some folk wanting particular solutions to Power supply or Carbon Emissions or Global Warming or whatever because of an Anti-Industrial, Anti-Global, back to basics and Eugenics with much smaller population agenda?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...hat_renewable_energy_just_isnt_going_to_work/


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 30, 2014)

I don't know.  We keep being told how inefficient solar and wind are etc but I get to see them in action often enough to be sceptical about that.  Because I live near a foundation for alternative living I know a number of people who live very comfortably off grid so I know it is possible.  In the village nearby 4 wind turbines supply around a thousand people and a number of businesses with a good portion of if not all of their energy.  They don't take up that much room and are not that unpleasant to live near.

I'm unconvinced nuclear is the only answer.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 30, 2014)

Distributed power generation instead of centralised - that would go a huge way to address our needs, ie, solar panels on every building that uses electricity.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2014)

Wouldn't work in most of Europe Brian.  Actually even in Winter, using the same area of Solar panels on the roof simply to save electricity / gas / oil heating water is far more efficient, about x6! Also lasts about x4 longer, if not x20 longer than some Solar Electricity panels.

Making synthetic LPG from waste carbon, sea water and Solar Energy in Sahara would work, easier to transport than Electricity over longer distances.

Wind doesn't work. There are weeks at a time in winter with almost no Wind Turbine output over all of Western Europe. Even 10% is horribly optimistic for Wind.


----------



## Parson (Nov 30, 2014)

We see a lot of wind energy and alt. fuels here in Iowa and the general consensus here is that there in nothing that we presently have which could become "the" answer. 

But I would agree that environmentalism has in some cases has become a near religion.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2014)

And not in the good senses, but like the people we know that say, "don't confuse me with facts and logic, my faith is made up". Not the sort of "religion" of C.S. Lewis.


----------



## Abernovo (Nov 30, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> Distributed power generation instead of centralised - that would go a huge way to address our needs, ie, solar panels on every buildings that uses electricity.


I've argued something like this for a long time.

I've worked in the environmental sector, and still work in something related to it. I'd say there are a lot of people who are passionate, but it's not a religion. That's an accusation used by the agenda-laden talking heads who often like to deny climate change. I'm not saying there aren't some overly vocal members of the environmental movement (including certain international organisations with whom I refuse to have any to do, due to their poor scientific rigour). But, empty vessels (and the obnoxious) always make the most noise. You can say the same about any group.

There are studies into the politics and beliefs of the environmental movement, but they all show that the extreme fringes are vastly outnumbered by the moderate and sensible members, who make less noise - or at least get less attention from those looking for a headline.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2014)

Abernovo said:


> they all show that the extreme fringes are vastly outnumbered by the moderate and sensible members, who make less noise - or at least get less attention from those looking for a headline.


Unfortunately this is so true.
I have a friend doing research on decentralised & community power generation. Having your own Solar panels is a nice idea, but they need to last 20+ years not 5 to 8, not depend on expensive manufacturing and materials (compared to solar water heating), also if the are grant then solar water heating should get MORE as it reduces Carbon emission more than same area of Electric Solar panel in Northern Europe. There ARE countries where almost every home has solar water heating.
Wind & Solar are only a small help. They are not a full solution in Western Europe.

The Wind turbines that B&Q was selling were withdrawn because the operational life was much less than the pay back period. They were rubbish really.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 30, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Wouldn't work in most of Europe Brian.  Actually even in Winter, using the same area of Solar panels on the roof simply to save electricity / gas / oil heating water is far more efficient, about x6! Also lasts about x4 longer, if not x20 longer than some Solar Electricity panels.
> 
> Making synthetic LPG from waste carbon, sea water and Solar Energy in Sahara would work, easier to transport than Electricity over longer distances.
> 
> Wind doesn't work. There are weeks at a time in winter with almost no Wind Turbine output over all of Western Europe. Even 10% is horribly optimistic for Wind.



We keep being told this.  I live in the North East of Scotland and it doesn't seem to match the reality of what is achieved.  There are people who between wind and solar live entirely off grid. The park has a population of around 500 (and growing) but produces enough for about 1000. Plus a number of businesses (technology, cafes, shop, pottery, school etc)

http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.com/index.php
Our four community-owned wind turbines, which have a total capacity of 750kW, supply more than 100% of the community's electricity needs. Our system is unusual in that the community owns its own private electricity grid, the main campus having originally been a private caravan park.The electricity produced by the turbines is sent to a substation that meters the flows, alters the transmission voltages and acts as a switching station. When the wind blows the electricity is used on-site. If production exceeds demand the surplus is exported to the grid. If the wind does not blow the site imports from the grid. Overall we are net exporters of electricity. Green electricity generation is one of our successful community businesses.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2014)

AnyaKimlin said:


> If the wind does not blow the site imports from the grid. Overall we are net exporters of electricity.


But it's not scalable. Because EVERYONE would have excess or none at the same time. It only works because it's part of system that can supply power to everyone when there is no wind.

I've been an ardent Environmentalist since 1970s. I'd love it to work. But on National or West European scale it fails.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 30, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> But it's not scalable. Because EVERYONE would have excess or none at the same time. It only works because it's part of system that can supply power to everyone when there is no wind.
> 
> .



They have multiple sources.  Water is heated through solar, wood burning stoves and wind which is how the individuals who are off grid do it (there are people who live off site).  But I don't understand why we can't work on blocks of 500-1000 people like this does and look at ways of storing electricity like the hydro electric dams do.

At present the problem is we are looking to scale up - maybe we should be looking at scaling down how we supply energy to homes.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2014)

The energy storage is the problem. There simply is no way to have enough batteries and dams. The sums have been done loads of times. We are close to safe limit of reliance on Wind already!


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 30, 2014)

But again this is looking at a massive scale.  How would it work if we had smaller electricity stations, catering for smaller groups of people?  Individual homes can do it.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 3, 2014)

But if we use ALL of the natural resources available - solar, wind, water, tidal, geothermal and so on, there would be sufficient power. People always look at one and say it isnt enough.


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 5, 2014)

Storage, indeed. We need Heinlein's 'Shipstones' (or equivalent) - as far as I know the most efficient way of storing electricity is still pumping water uphill when you have an excess of energy, and running it downhill through turbines to g et some of that energy back. To avoid profanity, not very efficient at all, but still better than chemical batteries. Back in the last century (1970) I was on a project to use wave/tide power (which has the same 'sometimes more than you want, sometimes not enough' generation curve) and our plan was to store the energy in mechanical form (compressed air), and only convert to electricity at the end of the chain. As you've never heard of me you will have gathered it was not a great success- we actually filled the majority of the cylinders with a diesel compressor, but somewhere among fuel cells, Italy's flywheel trams, counterbalanced funiculars with water tanks, other ingenuity devised over the centuries  (I remember a computer centre in Spain in an old mill, which stored over a kilowatt hour of energy in a spinning millstone) there must be the roots of a high-capacity, high efficiency system in there somewhere, no? Complicated by the fact we'd prefer AC power to DC at the output.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 5, 2014)

There are a few pump storage systems here in Ireland. But there are limited numbers of possible site.

Very high rpm magnetically levitated (no bearings) flywheels are available.


> Solar, wind, water, tidal, geothermal and so on, there would be sufficient power.


Sadly not in the Developed World. Absolutely not in USA, where energy use per household is highest in the world. It should be illegal to ban outdoor drying of washing!



> we'd prefer AC power to DC


Not a problem any more.  Many AC high voltage distribution networks are being converted to DC as re-conversion to AC for transformers is less loss than the extra losses of AC Transmission.

But the cheapest way to carry Solar Energy from Sahara is by making synthetic LPG (using waste carbon) rather than high voltage transmission cables.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 5, 2014)

Some bus in the UK runs 100% on methane produced from human waste now. That is one thing we do produce plenty of that won't run out any time soon - poo.


----------



## Parson (Dec 5, 2014)

*Chris: Ship's Stones* one Heinlein's great ideas. I always thought he was more taking a shot at the looseness of patent and copyright laws by having them never patented so no one could ever make them. And when you deconstructed it, the stones deconstructed you with an atomic like explosion. --- I wonder if he really understood how wonderful they really would be. 

*Ray: *yeah, that is some good law right. You wouldn't want to mess up the neighborhood by unsightly laundry on the line. Just because it would save money, energy, and some fossil fuel. Those are not good enough reasons for unsightliness.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 5, 2014)

Parson said:


> by having them never patented so no one could ever make them.


Explain? Doesn't compute?


----------



## Parson (Dec 5, 2014)

*As I remember the book,* Heinlein stated the reason for never patenting the ship's stones was that to patent something you had to explain it. If you explained it that let other people build on your invention and make it worth less. Heinlein had the Ship's Stone Company as the only source of Ship's Stones so they were an absolute monopoly in that technology. Whether the Ship's Stones were inherently explosive when taken apart, or whether the company had created the explosion as a theft preventing measure was never explained. But I had the feeling it was the later, rather than the former.  

(Upon reading my previous post I should have said "so that no one *else* could ever make them."


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 5, 2014)

Ah, that makes sense. That is a strategy sometimes used, the Trade Secret. It's risky, because if someone else patents, you're sunk. You can't claim prior art as it was hidden secret.

So, no, not an attack on Patent laws probably. People do really do it.

Shipstones though are imaginary, unfortunately.


----------



## Michael Colton (Dec 6, 2014)

In response to the original question, I see no reason to describe it as 'religious'. Fervent ideologues does not indicate that something is becoming religious, it means they have fervent ideologues. People describe the extremes of a movement as 'religious' because the word 'ideology' has stopped being used in casual conversation, but there is no reason to slowly accept the redefining of 'religious' as 'extreme without evidence'. Religious should stick to describing things related to religious and/or spiritual topics. _Religious fervor_ is a particular phrase that has gained legitimacy, but it does not mean that we should chop off the 'fervor' part and just apply 'religious' to any extremist.

The more extreme minority of the environmentalist movement you are referring to are just extremely ideological. Anything that falls outside of their ideology is caste aside. As someone else mentioned, nearly every movement, position, or opinion has an extreme minority of this sort. They simply get more media attention because the environment is actually a genuine concern.

If someone were an environmentalist because of some sort of animistic belief system, that could accurately be described as religious environmentalism.


----------



## Parson (Dec 6, 2014)

*Michael Colton: *Your precise language and cogent argument close the question for me. Well done.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 6, 2014)

Michael Colton said:


> t means they have fervent ideologues


That indeed is the better description, thanks.
In the OP, I did actually write "religious" rather than religious to indicate I didn't mean it in the normal sense of the system people of a particular "Faith" use.

Sometimes so fervent people lose a sense of proportion, logic, facts etc!


----------



## AlexanderSen (Dec 8, 2014)

I believe the environment or Environmentalism is a important issue for the future, as the population increases issues of pollution with air, water, and land quality increase. Though my travels through asian and places like China I seen how horrible conditions can get. The current population of the world is 7 billion and is projected to be 10 billion by 2050 and there is no stopping it, thus another approx.~30% increase in the use of resources ande the pollution it creates. If you ever had a chance to see some of these countriews and their conditions you see why the Environment is one of the key concerns in the upcoming years.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 12, 2014)

There's an article in today's Guardian that touches on the question of seeding the oceans with iron, which was discussed in the link in the first post. Apparently that's what whales did when there were more of them.


----------



## Aquilonian (Dec 12, 2014)

Firstly, if the same amount of R&D funding was put into renewable energy as was put into nuclear, we'd probably have developed much more efficient renewable power generation and maybe storage as well by now. If solar power could be weaponised, like nuclear, there'd be much more incentive for governments to put serious money into it. 

As regards whether "environmentalism" is becoming a religion- I hope so! Because religion is one of humanity's most powerful motivators, and always will be. We are far more motivated by the irrational, hardly ever by the rational. That's why mainstream economics doesn;t work BTW. 

However I'd take issue with the OP re his mention of eugenics as being part of the environmental/religious agenda. The lack of eugenic awareness is actually a huge blind spot among the Greens. They want to downsize the population- but fail to grasp that the more intelligent and responsibility will be the first to do this, and the stupid and irresponsible will be the last. So serious de-evolution (dysgenics) would be inevitable.


----------

