It's a bit warm/ wet/ cold outside

[shaolin_monkey]

At the core of the strategy right now is energy security. This basically means never letting the lights go out! Never letting there be electricity shortages.

So that policy informs how we approach electricity generation. That's why we still have some coal generation, plus burning gas, and why we can't divest ourselves from nuclear just yet - because that infrastructure is in place, it is reliable, and we can lean on it easily if there's a dip in supply coming from renewables.

However, soon we will get to a place where we lean on them less and less, due to more solar rigs, more offshore wind farms where the wind is pretty much constant, and the huge leaps we're seeing in storage.

Coal is almost completely gone, and next will be natural gas electricity generation - it is cleaner and does produce less CO2 but there's a hell of a lot of methane flaring during extraction - not good.

Then we can turn to phasing out nuclear, but that will probably not be for decades. It is already far cheaper per kWh to produce energy via renewable means, but renewables don't quite have the reliability of nuclear yet.

I hope that answers your question?

[shaolin_monkey]

Sorry, you asked for some links!

Renewables price-beating other forms of generation in the U.K.:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time


Here's an article discussing how much cheaper offshore wind farms would be compared to building new reactors to replace the ones being decomissioned by 2030:

https://renews.biz/61228/uk-offshore-wind-cheaper-than-new-nuclear/


Here's a discussion about how we need to invest in renewables fast to hit our carbon targets, avoiding more nuclear:

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Filling-the-gap-report-Feb-2019.pdf

[IndigoPrime]

Thanks. I need to educate myself about the reliability issues. My default thinking is "as much renewables as possible, backed by nuclear for stability". If the second half of that is effectively uneducated bullshit, good—but  I need to learn why! I'll hurl those links at Pocket.

[shaolin_monkey]

Glad to be of help!

[shaolin_monkey]

A perfect example of how those who contribute the least (or not at all) to environmental destruction and climate change are the most affected by it.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/12/western-worldyour-civilisation-killing-life-on-earth-indigenous-amazon-planet

[shaolin_monkey]

There is hope! This is hugely important.

"LONDON (Reuters) - Investors managing around $20 trillion in assets on Tuesday called on the heaviest corporate emitters of greenhouse gases to set science-based targets on the way to net zero carbon emissions by mid-century.

AXA Group and Nikko Asset Management Co are among 137 investors urging 1,800 companies responsible for a quarter of global emissions to act, coordinated by non-profit group CDP."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-investors-idUSKBN26X2R6

[Funt Solo]

David Attenborough says we all have to become pescatarians to save the planet. (And do some other stuff.)

Just watched his "A Life On Our Planet".

[shaolin_monkey]

Um... I'm not sure that was his message... but glad you watched it.

I've lots of thoughts on the programme, but mostly just glad he's finally put his weight behind the urgency to avoid ecological disaster.

I was concerned that many might come away thinking that human population was the main driver though, when in fact the world and this volume of humans could quite happily co-exist.

The real driver is overconsumption, and namely the overconsumption of us here in the northern hemisphere.

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/4611/scientists_warning_on_affluence

[Funt Solo]

I thought he made it clear that the human population could exist sustainably, but isn't right now.

My pescatarian remark may have seemed flippant, but wasn't meant to. He explained that we can't eat meat from cattle, because there's not enough room for the cattle and us, and the trees. Not enough room. But he also did a section on sustainable fisheries. Thus: a pescatarian diet is the answer, no?

(Plus re-planting forests, asking the Dutch for help with farming techniques, asking the Moroccans for help with solar energy and so on.)

[Jim_Campbell]

Thus: a pescatarian diet is the answer, no?

Given the catastrophic pressures on fish stocks when large chunks of the developed world don't currently have a huge amount of fish in their diet, I'd suspect not. It's pretty much insect protein, or growing meat in vats.

[TordelBack]

Leader of the Irish Greens, currently in coalition with the Gombeen Parties, saying international flights essential to the economy.

Ever feel like you've maybe wasted a vote.

[paddykafka]

Thus: a pescatarian diet is the answer, no?

Given the catastrophic pressures on fish stocks when large chunks of the developed world don't currently have a huge amount of fish in their diet, I'd suspect not. It's pretty much insect protein, or growing meat in vats.

Soylent Green is People!

[Tiplodocus]

Thus: a pescatarian diet is the answer, no?

Given the catastrophic pressures on fish stocks when large chunks of the developed world don't currently have a huge amount of fish in their diet, I'd suspect not. It's pretty much insect protein, or growing meat in vats.

I've not watched it yet. But did he address why we might not just eat a plant based diet?

[Funt Solo]

Thus: a pescatarian diet is the answer, no?

Given the catastrophic pressures on fish stocks when large chunks of the developed world don't currently have a huge amount of fish in their diet, I'd suspect not. It's pretty much insect protein, or growing meat in vats.

I've not watched it yet. But did he address why we might not just eat a plant based diet?

He didn't connect the issues, but mentioned them separately. So...

1. We can create sustainable fisheries according to the math. It was to do with leaving some regions as no-fishing zones. In the real-world example, this is so successful that the fishing zones end up being more abundant than they were and effectively self-replenish.

2. We have to give up the cattle because they take up too much room. We don't need them, in fact, to survive. The land should be returned to the wilderness (thus promoting bio-diversity and carbon-sinking).

Certainly, in (2) they were indicating that vegetarianism is a fine way for the species to survive. I just don't know if that was tied into the potential protein content of the everlasting fishery in (1).

[shaolin_monkey]

Yep, that ^^^ is a pretty good summary!

The no-fish zones really appeal to me. I'm a pescatarian - I eat fish to replace red meat and bird meat. However, I restrict myself to fish that only appears in the 'reduced' aisle, and occasionally get fish caught locally, just to try and reduce my individual impact re the deep sea trawlers that are devastating fish stocks worldwide.

Those no fish zones don't just mean revived stocks, but also provide areas where other forms of sea life can go about their business unmolested, and sea flora can also recover.

Re cattle, besides deforestation, cow burps, and desertification caused by grazing etc etc, what really startled me was how much soy was eaten by livestock! It's about 75% of all soy grown. It's insane! Why not just cut out the middleman and farm soy just for humans? We'd cut down on land use for agriculture by 50% overnight!

https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/