Future of energy: What Thailand can learn from Finland, Denmark

[My 2 cents]

6 hours ago, Saint Nick said:

What Thailand can learn...?!

 

[hotchilli]

43 minutes ago, White Christmas13 said:

You mean plastic bag

I know what I meant... but just to clarify:
Companies who are happy churning out billions of plastic bags & containers daily making a good living, food companies that are more interested in marketing via fancy packaging rather than the environmental impact of it's products, Mega stores who happily take in and sell over packaged items of every description you'd care to mention, street vendors who do not know how to change their ways, customers who are just too damn lazy to ask for or demand an alternative.... all the above are the issues that face us now.

It's a top down bottom up approach... everyone has to do what's correct or  ultimately face the consequences.
And from what I've witnessed in Thailand it's going to be the latter.

[Krataiboy]

8 hours ago, quandow said:

I just finished watching Netflix' "Chasing Coral." I we don't take drastic measures to reduce global carbon emissions real soon, our kids and their kids will be eating soylent green.

Sounds like you've overdosed on some dodgy "green" stuff yourself. Try this antidote:

https://www.newsofinterest.tv/global_warming/effects/extinction/coral_reefs.php

[CGW]

3 hours ago, Crossy said:

What we need is a balanced approach in which nuclear (yes, nuclear) has a place.

I agree nuclear "should" have a place in supplying our needs, so many positives, unfortunately there is one huge factor that makes it far too dangerous - there has to be humans involved, cost cutting accountants, corrupt politicians being two facts that readily spring to mind, sure you can put 100% guaranteed safety systems in place that can't be deviated from, but - we simply can't be trusted, so many lessons could be learnt from Fukishima (which is a lot worse than is being admitted), but they wont be as long as money and greed are the main drivers for our society.

[DrTuner]

9 minutes ago, CGW said:

I agree nuclear "should" have a place in supplying our needs, so many positives, unfortunately there is one huge factor that makes it far too dangerous - there has to be humans involved, cost cutting accountants, corrupt politicians being two facts that readily spring to mind, sure you can put 100% guaranteed safety systems in place that can't be deviated from, but - we simply can't be trusted, so many lessons could be learnt from Fukishima (which is a lot worse than is being admitted), but they wont be as long as money and greed are the main drivers for our society.

The biggest risk is using ancient technology, like the General Electric stuff Fukushima had. https://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-general-electric-knew-its-nuclear-reactor-design-was-unsafe-so-why-isnt-ge-getting-any-heat-for-fukushima/5361300

 

But thanks to the greens being opposed to nuclear research in principle, the Gen IV reactors aren't being developed like they should. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor . The irony of it, the treehuggers are preventing cleaner energy.

[Chazar]

8 hours ago, Cadbury said:

No CO2 = no trees = no oxygen = no humans.

Whilst Im with you on most of it grass  gives out way more oxygen than trees, remove all the trees replace with grass  = more oxygen.

[White Christmas13]

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

I know what I meant... but just to clarify:
Companies who are happy churning out billions of plastic bags & containers daily making a good living, food companies that are more interested in marketing via fancy packaging rather than the environmental impact of it's products, Mega stores who happily take in and sell over packaged items of every description you'd care to mention, street vendors who do not know how to change their ways, customers who are just too damn lazy to ask for or demand an alternative.... all the above are the issues that face us now.

It's a top down bottom up approach... everyone has to do what's correct or  ultimately face the consequences.
And from what I've witnessed in Thailand it's going to be the latter.

I do know what you meant I was just teasing you

[Chazar]

3 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

One day countries will learn to get energy from what their climates and weather conditions dictate. Thailand will eventually figure out that it should start putting up solar panels on an industrial scale as it is beaming hot sunshine almost everyday, especially in the Northeast. Just have to bite the bullet and invest. I wonder how many rai of solar panels the cost of a submarine, a silly stimulus package or two or 20 tanks could buy.

As the temperatures of the solar cells rise above 25 degrees Celsius, the current rises very slightly, but the voltage decreases more rapidly. The net effect is a decrease in output power with increasing temperature. Typical silicon solar panels have a temperature coefficient of about -0.4 to -0.5 percent

[Jomtien Holiday Guy]

It's so frustrating, that the Government here in Denmark spend our hard earned money in a useless way. It doesn't help

a <deleted> on the World environment.

There will be 3 billions more people in world before 2050 according to the UN....We are less then 6 mill in Denmark. Do

something against overpopulation in Africa and muslim countries…..Nothing that we do here has any impact and only

make us poorer...

[jerojero]

Will learn nothing with current PM and military cronies. Coal mongers extraordinaire!

[hotchilli]

8 hours ago, White Christmas13 said:

I do know what you meant I was just teasing you

Yes I realise that... but I think it'll be a "white Christmas" in Thailand before anything much changes... 
????

[john ianson]

14 hours ago, fforest1 said:

Yawn.....Global warming is a scam....

Agreed it is just a scam to extract more money from taxpayers e.g. carbon tax and a way for the rich to get richer e.g. ETS emissions trading scheme  !

[mikebell]

Solar energy in Thailand is largely untapped as ministers squabble to get their snouts in this trough.  If UK can buy back surplus solar energy for the National Grid, why can't Thailand cash in on the sun?

[khunpa]

You only learn from first accepting mistakes...... I say no more.

[willi2006]

20 hours ago, Cadbury said:

...

https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/myth-harmful-co2/

 

Is this source reliable?

It's " A project of the institute for energy research" which is part of the "Fossil fuels lobby" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby

[willi2006]

14 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Sounds like you've overdosed on some dodgy "green" stuff yourself. Try this antidote:

https://www.newsofinterest.tv/global_warming/effects/extinction/coral_reefs.php

Is this a reliable resource?

One man who doesn't say anything about himself https://www.newsofinterest.tv/about.php

[Cadbury]

12 hours ago, Chazar said:

Whilst Im with you on most of it grass  gives out way more oxygen than trees, remove all the trees replace with grass  = more oxygen.

I don't doubt that grass produces more oxygen than trees, I am not so sure that it stores it as efficiently as trees. Speaking of which I wonder what happens to all the stored carbon released in the fires in the North West. Does it get sucked up again in the next rice and sugar cane planting?

All that aside they have now created a machine that can capture CO2 from the air far more efficiently than photosynthesis and store it better than trees.

Others have invented a process to convert captured carbon into concrete. That should be handy for high speed rail systems, submarine pens, and never ending shopping mall construction.

https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at-co2-removal-than-photosynthesis-is-now-active

[Krataiboy]

53 minutes ago, willi2006 said:

Is this a reliable resource?

One man who doesn't say anything about himself https://www.newsofinterest.tv/about.php

Probably more reliable than Netflix.

[roobaa01]

thailand does need to learn left wing climate carbon <deleted> coz first you ask the world climate carbon villains china, india, russia, indonesia etc.. to reduce their carbon output by 60 %.

if that  60 %goal has been achieved you start discussing.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Saint Nick]

18 hours ago, Crossy said:

 

On which planet is this? Most countries on Sol-3 have 365.25 days in a year (Sol-4 might fit).

 

But I agree solar is the way forwards here, if you only need power during the day of course.

 

What we need is a balanced approach in which nuclear (yes, nuclear) has a place.

 

a) 400 days- attempt at humor! Obviously didn't work!

b) What the ... do you mean by "...if you only need power during the day of course"?

You know, that storage- facilities for electricity exist, right?!

They are called batteries!

[Saint Nick]

12 hours ago, Jomtien Holiday Guy said:

It's so frustrating, that the Government here in Denmark spend our hard earned money in a useless way. It doesn't help

a <deleted> on the World environment.

There will be 3 billions more people in world before 2050 according to the UN....We are less then 6 mill in Denmark. Do

something against overpopulation in Africa and muslim countries…..Nothing that we do here has any impact and only

make us poorer...

That this post actually has 2 people liking it, says a lot about todays state of the world!

[Saint Nick]

7 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

thailand does need to learn left wing climate carbon <deleted> coz first you ask the world climate carbon villains china, india, russia, indonesia etc.. to reduce their carbon output by 60 %.

if that  60 %goal has been achieved you start discussing.

 

wbr

roobaa01

And a s long as the "villains" don't change, why should anybody else, right?!

 

Like talking to toddlers!

[Crossy]

20 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

a) 400 days- attempt at humor! Obviously didn't work!

b) What the ... do you mean by "...if you only need power during the day of course"?

You know, that storage- facilities for electricity exist, right?!

They are called batteries!

 

Similarly my attempt at a witty reposte failed, touché.

 

Grid-scale batteries have a big problem (as well as their size), they are non-synchronous generation an over supply of which can lead to grid instability and cascade failures. Australia is one country which has this issue in some areas.

 

[SpaceKadet]

15 hours ago, CGW said:

I agree nuclear "should" have a place in supplying our needs, so many positives, unfortunately there is one huge factor that makes it far too dangerous - there has to be humans involved, cost cutting accountants, corrupt politicians being two facts that readily spring to mind, sure you can put 100% guaranteed safety systems in place that can't be deviated from, but - we simply can't be trusted, so many lessons could be learnt from Fukishima (which is a lot worse than is being admitted), but they wont be as long as money and greed are the main drivers for our society.

Technically, the only lesson that could be learned from Fukushima, is not to construct Gen2 nuclear reactors in a location that is historically prone to tsunamis.

[khunPer]

From the Danish Embassy in Bangkok today...

Great news from windy Denmark! ????
Sunday the 15th September, Energinet reported that wind turbines in Denmark produced a surplus in power. For the first time ever! More specifically, this meant that wind turbines produced 30% more power than Danish households consume daily. Now That's good news! ♻️

[DrTuner]

9 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Sunday the 15th September, Energinet reported that wind turbines in Denmark produced a surplus in power. For the first time ever! More specifically, this meant that wind turbines produced 30% more power than Danish households consume daily. Now That's good news! ♻️

Atlantic cold winds FTW. Good for energy, horrible for people. 

[rickudon]

7 hours ago, khunPer said:

From the Danish Embassy in Bangkok today...
 

Great news from windy Denmark! ????
Sunday the 15th September, Energinet reported that wind turbines in Denmark produced a surplus in power. For the first time ever! More specifically, this meant that wind turbines produced 30% more power than Danish households consume daily. Now That's good news! ♻️

The UK has already achieved this, last year I  think.

 

So far I have seen some incredibly dubious sources (posted by Kratinboy and Cadbury I think, and others), which are pure misinformation - not lies, just putting odd facts together in an order which seems to refute Global warming/CO2 theories etc. But usually totally ignoring facts that do not fit their agenda. Not saying that warmists do not exaggerate as well.

 

Just a few snippets of my thoughts.

 

Nuclear power, great, until something goes wrong. The problem with most Nuclear reactors is repair and maintenance - hard to do once they have started due to radiation. And also Temperature/radiation does thing to structural materials over time - things fail faster than expected. You can BUILD a nuclear reactor, but keeping it running for a long time is an issue, and there is no room for mistakes. Some of it is a learning curve, but it is perhaps telling that the latest commercial reactors all seem to have massive cost overruns and delays - like with the Hinckley Point C reactors - no more cheap electricity. As for future  liquid sodium and fluoride salts used for cooling, a leak boggles the mind at what might happen.

 

CO2 levels were a lot higher in the past - like 20 million years ago. Life has adapted to the current levels, and it is now higher than at any time during the last few million years. Yes CO2 makes plants grow. But a warmer world impacts on living things as well - we now get forest fires in the Arctic, more changeable weather, and above certain temperatures both plants and animals die (species dependent). There are hundreds, if not thousands of impacts of a warmer world - some good, some bad.

 

Mechanically removing CO2? (carbon capture and storage). interesting, but they require energy to work, so maybe they make more CO2 as well. AND nobody mentions the cost! It would dwarf current plans for renewables. Trees work, are cheap and require only energy from the sun.

 

Will corals die out? Personally, I do not know. But the Great Barrier reef is up to 90% dead in places. As for changing the algae they are symbiotic with, most coral dies after a bleaching event. Has to wait for new baby coral polyps to colonise.

[usviphotography]

Maybe instead of wasting their time transitioning to alternative fuel sources that in the grand scheme of things aren't going to have the slightest impact whatsoever on the global environment Finland and Denmark could send teams over to Thailand to make nationwide potable water and 1st world sewer infrastructure a reality. Because that is the stage of environmental development Thailand is at. 

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

Maybe instead of wasting their time transitioning to alternative fuel sources that in the grand scheme of things aren't going to have the slightest impact whatsoever on the global environment Finland and Denmark could send teams over to Thailand to make nationwide potable water and 1st world sewer infrastructure a reality. Because that is the stage of environmental development Thailand is at. 

Finland is called the country of thousand lakes for a reason, they have ample groundwater, some of it potable without any filtering whatsoever. Sure they could show some of the usual tech for water treatment though. But you don't need any specific country for this, you just need a couple of hours, a computer and wikipedia. But it's the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome on steroids when it comes to Thailand.

[ourdon]

On 9/16/2019 at 2:43 AM, Saint Nick said:

A) you obviously have never been outside of your village, since f.e Phuket or Khao Lak quiet good wind all year round!

B) and of course "solar" is not an option, in a country with  approx. 400 days of sunshine a year!?

Ahhhh,  St Nick ....  How many days in your years??  You been drinking the eggnog when You've been sliding down the chimney??? ????

 

Not being nasty ... just poking in jest