@Airborne_Again, those of us who get paid twice as much as the average college professor to use our brains and think, by people spending their own money, do not particularly respect the concept of abandoning logic or desperately defending the indefensible. You can like that or not, as you choose, and your choice in that is what doesn’t actually make any difference.
That said, when any debate progresses to the point that the other side contradicts the basics of their initial position, then openly refuses to acknowledge logical gaps, you are done, there is nothing more to be gained by either debate or explanation. Knowing when to stop increases your value added.
Airborne_Again wrote:
“independent thinking”
Glad you put that in """ – it’s (hopefully) totally obvious that stating wrong facts (aka “Fake news”) even in sight of a graph showing the correct ones is not independent thinking.
It’s like flat earthers that tell you "the earth is flat – I don’t trust these pilots and astronauts who want to make me believe its a sphere – I’ve been at the sea and have seen with my own eyes that the horizon is an horizontal line – do you get the catch, eh ? “Horizon” as in “horizontal” …"
DavidJ wrote:
And so it all descends into a kind of “There’s a hole in my bucket”
I believe this is known as the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy.
In any case, aviation isn’t a rounding error: it’s something like 5% in the developed world of all CO2 emissions, and CAT has a greater forcing effect due to the emissions at high altitudes. General aviation (particularly piston GA) is on the other hand a rounding error.
But the focus on aviation is too much: single occupant car commuting is about 2.5 times worse than a typical EasyJet flight per seat mile. True, we don’t commute 3000km in one go, but we do commute 5 days a week, anything from 42 to 50 weeks per year, so the miles rack up. Worse still, car commuting causes all kinds of immediate local pollution issues which are deleterious to the wellbeing of anyone nearby (particulates, brake dust, tyre dust, and tyre roar is a particularly tiring kind of noise, especially on wet roads) – and it also causes danger to anyone nearby who aren’t in their own 1.5 tonne of steel armour. But no one wants to tackle single occupant car commuting because it will mean they have to change their lifestyles, even though that change has become easier than ever. Ragging on people who fly a lot is a much easier way to salve the conscience and appear to be ‘doing something’ than actually making an effort to change habits. (The decrease of single occupant car commuting will be hugely beneficial to us even if you forget the CO2 issues, due to the local pollution issues).
Ragging on people who fly a lot is a much easier way to salve the conscience and appear to be ‘doing something’ than actually making an effort to change habits. (The decrease of single occupant car commuting will be hugely beneficial to us even if you forget the CO2 issues, due to the local pollution issues).
So true.
I find these debates a bit strange now. The technology has move on to a point now where it no longer matters what the cause of climate change is.
The cost of producing power with renewables is now competitive with fossil fuels.
So let’s imagine for a moment what would happen if someone came out tomorrow with definitive proof that climate change was not caused by the burning of fossil fuels (obviously there isn’t a chance in hell of such a development, but let’s just imagine it for a moment). What would we do?
Would we choose to forget about renewable power generation and go straight back to fossil fuel?
I can’t imagine that we would. Renewable power has many more advantages than simply being low carbon. Off the top of my head:
- It’s not concentrated in a small few countries run by dictators.
- Fewer wars over the resources
- Countries able to achieve energy independence even though they don’t have natural fuel deposits
- Cleaner air (as in fewer pollutant particles rather than less CO2)
- Less price volatility to the latest OPEC decisions
- Electric cars are much more lively than ICE (more fun)
- Electric cars are quieter.
- Having to go to a filling station far less often as you can charge your car at home and always leave on a ‘full tank’
- Individuals might be able to achieve energy independence with home generation of power
- Avoiding dirty trucks driving around our roads just to deliver fuel for more driving
- Getting rid of a very dirty exploration and extraction industry
- No more fuel spills.
I’m sure there are many more.
So no matter what is causing climate change, the march towards renewable energy makes sense and will probably be continued.
My guess is that a new airliner in 20 years will be powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology rather than diesel. I’d also guess that in 10 years, all cars being sold will be electric, even though most countries seem to be planning on 2040.
Better march faster 
I can hardly make out the colors above the green.
Would we choose to forget about renewable power generation and go straight back to fossil fuel?
I don’t think one can avoid it
What one can do, and I think will happen, will be chipping bits off around the edges, e.g. people getting little electric plug-in runabouts for local journeys. These can work off the existing grid, and work ok for people who can plug it in at home (both for charging, and preheating in the winter).
I have made the first step…
25mm² 3 phase prewired. Each of the four wires is 12mm diameter. Big enough for a 40kW+ charger. I did it all myself (not illegal in itself). Getting it connected to the cable under the road will be another story… the trick is to make the meter cabinet look like a “proper electrician” did it. IF you get an electrician to do this it will cost a packet; the whole industry is set up to screw people who install chargers and who naturally apply for the grant, because to get the grant you need a “professional” to install it 
Anyone posting questions on electrical forums gets beaten up by electricians posting on them while “covertly” plying for work; it’s just like on a ski forum where the dominant crowd is 1/3 chalet owners, 1/3 ski shops, and 1/3 off piste ski leaders
dublinpilot wrote:
The cost of producing power with renewables is now competitive with fossil fuels.
For certain kinds of power generation it is – but for some others it isn’t. In the middle of the night in the middle of continental Europe it might be hard to generate sufficient power w/o fossil or nuclear fuels at all, independent of the price.
But I fully agree: The core question is not if we move to renewables. It’s, however, still a questions how fast! Just some examples:
- Do we decommission fully functional fossil power plants and replace them by renewable ones or do we let them run until their end of lifecycle?
- Do we force everyone to get a new electric car and ban ICE-cars from the streets within years or do we still allow people to choose the car they want until even the last hillbilly understood that BEV is actually a better choice?
- Do we ground SEPs (might be implicitly by banning fossil fuels) or do we allow enthusiasts to fly them until they die out?
Silvaire wrote:
those of us who get paid twice as much as the average college professor to use our brains and think
So because you are paid more than the average college professor you also understand everything better than the average college professor?
Can we please lower the global temperature here…
