Bullet
Luka Modric
During 24 hours, obviously. Our energy needs.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Climate Change
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
How does it produce energy for 24 hours?
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
I need 100kw of energy per year...that source provides me with 8kw of that energy over the year. How and when it does it is anyone's guess...but that's what it provides.
It's an important question. I suspect most of your energy is used during hours when the sun isn't shining in Morocco.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
And with climate change being what it is the Middle East will get more cloud and rain as they are currently experiencing and that number will surely go down?
That may be but I'm not sure that will affect Morocco.
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
Yes. Other sources would provide the other 92kw. If the proposal was 100kw was coming from solar, the question would be important. And even then we'd just start talking about the myriad of battery storage solutions either available or in the pipeline
That's a pretty long pipeline. We're still pumping water up hills at less than 60% efficiency for storage
According to reports we have 61gwh of storage in the pipeline. That is not including all the ev's which are basically batteries on wheels which can be used to balance the grid. Charge during the day when at work, they feedback in the evening when you are watching eastenders then charge again at night when you are asleep.
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65557469
Interesting that only 18% off our (UK) energy needs is met by electricity.
Interesting that only 18% off our (UK) energy needs is met by electricity.
Oil is king. But the biggest users of oil is the fossil fuel industry. So the drop should be exponential once it happens.
the seas are not actually boiling are they. If they are, then it’s far too late to do anything about Climate change.
the seas are not boiling though.
When people see language like that, those on the fence or straight climate change deniers will point to it and say “hey see… complete hyperbole they are talking about the seas boiling and they’re obviously not. This is what “they” do. They are just trying to scare you and make you stop using your car. everything they say about climate change isn’t true, just like the seas boiling.”
you have enough scary facts to talk about without talks of seas boiling.
now if you are talking about increased evaporation then say that…
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Essentially, what you are asking for is hard facts. Obviously the temperature in the ocean is not 100 degrees (boiling), but what is the temperature rise?
I think the issue with most of this stuff, is it is extrmely hard to measure and map things like ocean temp, currents etc same as atmospheric chemistry. There is no doubt we are not as clever as we think we are in modeling all this stuff. Remember thermal expanision. We have a hotter planet, warmer seas, but not much sea level rise to speak of yet. Why? Maybe because only the top part of the ocean has heated up. But I take your point, scarmoungering language should be replaced by harder facts. People find it easier to work with.
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
No it's not.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Care to back this up with the easily available definitive data on ocean temperatures, El Niño, changing current patterns, deep ocean temperatures, surface temperatures, evaporation rates, carbon in the atmosphere and the oceans absorption of C02, melting ice and thermal expansion?
Which simple model do you subscribe to?
Last edited:
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Did you actually think I meant the seas were boiling or was it more reasonable to assume it was a turn of phrase? And the scary they (which includes me) are indeed trying to jolt the complacent and apathetic to wake the fudge up. And honestly, I couldn't care less if that makes people uncomfortable. Couching this in timid language and making sure nobody is inconvenienced has been tried and failed, miserably.
I'm not referring to evaporation. My point made for me that MSM has failed us in that you were not aware of what I was talking about.
Last edited: