Probably the most important graph in the world

[eoghanacht]

Congratulations to 18 year old Blarney student, Richard O Shea on winning the Young Scientist of the Year competition, his project will do more good in the world than all of the bluster coming from both sides of the climate change debate.

His product, a simple biomass stove, will have more effect on CO2 levels and raising the standard of living in the developed world than anything the IPCC or their opponents will ever do.

Blarney student is Young Scientist of Year | Irish Examiner

He joins a long list of people who quitely pursue real change in the world and I wish him well in his career, we need more people with vision and drive like him.

+1

[Húrin]

The populations of the developing world all aspire to a similar standard of living enjoyed by the developed world, medical care, nutritious food, comfortable housing, ipods, Tv's, refridgerators and time for leisure pursuits rather than the pursuit of survival.

I don't doubt that the demand is there but how is it quantified for a graph?

Peak oil is not the problem, energy supply is. An economy without an adequate stable energy supply is a dying economy. And as we have seen with our own eyes, an economy with an excess of avalable energy becomes very rich, very quickly.

Not so. Nigerians have hardly benefited at all from the rich deposits of oil in the Niger Delta.

Mouroux

Who is wetting the bed, I am pointing out the opportunities for Ireland to build a sustainable industry.

What did I tell you? Some people deny any problem that requires a drastic solution.

His product, a simple biomass stove, will have more effect on CO2 levels and raising the standard of living in the developed world than anything the IPCC or their opponents will ever do.

That's because the IPCC's job is simply to collect and analyse research, not to implement policy. I agree with O'Shea, may his design spread far and wide and cheap.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=Húrin;2399185]

I don't doubt that the demand is there but how is it quantified for a graph?

The increase in the use of energy in developing countries, they are not producing energy simply for its own sake, they use it to produce and consume more goods and services than previously.

Not so. Nigerians have hardly benefited at all from the rich deposits of oil in the Niger Delta.

That is a problem for Nigerian politics, not for the IPCC or energy analysis

What did I tell you? Some people deny any problem that requires a drastic solution.

Some people deny any problem full stop and debating with them achieves nothing, actions speak louder than words.

What is the drastic solution you wish to achieve ?

That's because the IPCC's job is simply to collect and analyse research, not to implement policy. I agree with O'Shea, may his design spread far and wide and cheap.

The IPCC are not doing their job properly and it is people like Richard O Shea who will achieve more in a practical sense than all of the politics in the world.

[Húrin]

The increase in the use of energy in developing countries, they are not producing energy simply for its own sake, they use it to produce and consume more goods and services than previously.

Yes but how is it quantified? I get the impression that you don't know, or that it isn't quantified at all.

That is a problem for Nigerian politics, not for the IPCC or energy analysis

You said "an economy with an excess of avalable energy becomes very rich, very quickly".

But it doesn't if left to the private energy company alone and I provided an example.

Some people deny any problem full stop and debating with them achieves nothing, actions speak louder than words.

What is the drastic solution you wish to achieve?

Probably similar to yours. Replacing our fossil-fuel based energy supply is drastic. I would like to see a complete abandonment of fossil fuels in the next 30 years. Oil and gas are peaking and you claim that coal is too inefficient to be economic, but that fact alone will not change the priorities of companies invested in coal mining and burning, especially those subsidised by governments.

I would also like to see a moratorium on the felling of old-growth forests, and a moratorium on the cultivation of biofuels for the international markets (though local biofuel cultivation such as happens in Cork and Donegal is a good idea). I would like to see some sort of programme to encourage subsistence farmers to introduce biochar to their soil on account of that fact that this absorbs CO2.

The IPCC are not doing their job properly and it is people like Richard O Shea who will achieve more in a practical sense than all of the politics in the world.

Their job is not to implement policy or play politics so I don't see why you are berating them for not achieving political change. There have been many inventions before like O'Shea's. They are easily suppressed by vested interests, intellectual property claims, etc. That's where politics comes in. You seem to live in complete denial that vested interests, that prevent the rational and fair operation of the world, are a powerful force.

[Harmonica]

IMO the average person does not really care about CO2 or climate change in terms of doing anything about it. We care in terms of others changing their behaviour. People care about the price of oil & that is what makes people use less energy or become more efficient.

[Húrin]

IMO the average person does not really care about CO2 or climate change in terms of doing anything about it.

I find that a lot of people care about it but find it is an issue to big to affect. To not care about climate change is the kind of short-sighted attitude that caused the credit crisis.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=Húrin;2405561]

Yes but how is it quantified? I get the impression that you don't know, or that it isn't quantified at all.

Simple maths, per capita energy production.

You said "an economy with an excess of avalable energy becomes very rich, very quickly".

But it doesn't if left to the private energy company alone and I provided an example.

Nigeria's problem is political, nothing to do with energy analysis.
I concede that I should have added in a "working democracy"

Probably similar to yours. Replacing our fossil-fuel based energy supply is drastic. I would like to see a complete abandonment of fossil fuels in the next 30 years. Oil and gas are peaking and you claim that coal is too inefficient to be economic, but that fact alone will not change the priorities of companies invested in coal mining and burning, especially those subsidised by governments.

It is only drastic from the consumers point of view if their standard of living is affected, should it be ?

I would also like to see a moratorium on the felling of old-growth forests, and a moratorium on the cultivation of biofuels for the international markets (though local biofuel cultivation such as happens in Cork and Donegal is a good idea). I would like to see some sort of programme to encourage subsistence farmers to introduce biochar to their soil on account of that fact that this absorbs CO2.

Why do you not support an international market in bio fuels ?
Bio char is good when it is economic, what is wrong with algae farming ?

Their job is not to implement policy or play politics so I don't see why you are berating them for not achieving political change. There have been many inventions before like O'Shea's. They are easily suppressed by vested interests, intellectual property claims, etc. That's where politics comes in. You seem to live in complete denial that vested interests, that prevent the rational and fair operation of the world, are a powerful force.

The IPCC have allowed themselves to be poiticised, to no bodies benefit.

Vested interests are a daily fact of life for me and they exist in every political system and every country in the world, the only real defence is to change their interest.

[ibis]

The IPCC have allowed themselves to be poiticised, to no bodies benefit.

Their existence has been politicised, or made into a political issue - indeed, the main method of attacking their research review output has been to claim they are a political body rather than a scientific review body. It's not accurate, it's a PR claim that you have fallen for - something immediately evident if you you try a Google search for IPCC political agenda.

[Húrin]

Simple maths, per capita energy production.

Fair enough, but calling it what the original graph called it is odd to say the least.

Nigeria's problem is political, nothing to do with energy analysis.
I concede that I should have added in a "working democracy"

OK. I see what you mean I think, that energy = wealth which I agree with.

It is only drastic from the consumers point of view if their standard of living is affected, should it be ?

I'm not thinking only from a consumer point of view. But now that you mention it I find it extremely unlikely that consumers here let alone in less affluent nations will be unaffected. The glacial pace of renewable energy production, worldwide, does not inspire hope that we will make the super-smooth transition you're talking about.

Why do you not support an international market in bio fuels ?

Because it has been shown to incentivise clear-felling rainforests and increase food prices.

Bio char is good when it is economic, what is wrong with algae farming ?

I don't know enough about algae farming to have an opinion.

The IPCC have allowed themselves to be poiticised, to no bodies benefit.

Nonsense. Their summary for policymakers contains a summary of research not a summary of policies.

Vested interests are a daily fact of life for me and they exist in every political system and every country in the world, the only real defence is to change their interest.

Companies which own coal mines will want to keep mining until it's depleted. They don't want their investment to be "wasted". Companies which own power stations will want to keep operating them until they are decommissioned. Throwing a few turbines their way will not change that.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=Húrin;2405866]

Fair enough, but calling it what the original graph called it is odd to say the least.

How so, standard of living demand is what is there, energy is merely a means to an end as you cannot increase your standard of living unless you have energy to spend on it.

OK. I see what you mean I think, that energy = wealth which I agree with.

So we have now have established that in order to attain wealth you must deploy energy.

I'm not thinking only from a consumer point of view. But now that you mention it I find it extremely unlikely that consumers here let alone in less affluent nations will be unaffected. The glacial pace of renewable energy production, worldwide, does not inspire hope that we will make the super-smooth transition you're talking about.

Do you really believe that you can achieve a voluntary reduction in CO2 levels by telling people that their standard of living will decrease, good luck with that.

As regards the pace of renewable penetration, it can only replace thermal plants as these reach the end of their productive life, you seem to take no account of the effect of capital destruction on a countries economy, it would help of course if attention was not focused on a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself

Because it has been shown to incentivise clear-felling rainforests and increase food prices

I don't know enough about algae farming to have an opinion.

I would urge you to investigate algae as an antidote to atmospheric CO2, it can absorb 6 times the CO2 of land vegetation and is an excellent biomass product, new strains now being developed are ideal feedstock for bio fuel production, hell grow a few acres and as they die, bury them and sequester the CO2. It is a very rapid method of dealing with the problem and Joe and Mary can make a few bob at the same time.

Nonsense. Their summary for policymakers contains a summary of research not a summary of policies.

I said they had allowed themselves to be politicised and I mean that, just like neutrality, Apolitic must be strenuously defended, otherwise the principle is meaningless.

Companies which own coal mines will want to keep mining until it's depleted. They don't want their investment to be "wasted". Companies which own power stations will want to keep operating them until they are decommissioned. Throwing a few turbines their way will not change that.

I have dealt with power stations above, the same principle applies to coal mines, however I agree that a method must be devised to deal with this, a blanket ban on extracting and mining coal will not be possible until the same energy output of those coal stations is in place.