Click here to return to the home page.
Image of a road.
Who's Online Now
6 members (RobCol, Scrambledsignals, Morganmike, Horror, teknome, TBM), 270 guests, and 49 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
+8Rich 93
John V6 49
Newest Members
phenompilot52, Orjan, John Courtney, vince Indiana US, Garage Andreas
9,635 Registered Users
Newest Topics
morgan supersport 357 miles
by Nick_H - 09/09/26 09:13 PM
M3W Treffen 2027
by Laurens - 09/09/26 08:12 PM
Changing the Colour of a Tonneau Cover..
by flyfisher - 09/09/26 06:33 PM
To our Norwegian friends
by bmgermany - 09/09/26 05:14 PM
2017 4/4 two seater storm cover new unused £95
by simon8201 - 09/09/26 01:46 PM
radiator fan
by riri - 08/09/26 09:20 PM
Luggage rack alternatives - Revo Rack
by Haggispeed - 08/09/26 04:19 PM
Latest Photos
1989 Morgan Plus 4 in Ontario, Canada
1989 Morgan Plus 4 in Ontario, Canada
by Carbuilder, September 5
First anniversary of Plus 4
First anniversary of Plus 4
by Strathaven, September 5
Wales
Wales
by Joske Vermeule, September 1
Engine/Gearbox Separator CX Models
Engine/Gearbox Separator CX Models
by number thirteen, August 30
tow bar
tow bar
by G Walker, August 24
Forum Statistics
Forums39
Topics49,896
Posts837,987
Members9,635
Most Online1,063
Jun 14th, 2026
Today's Birthdays
Bobajobbob, HeadlessBlue, Lester247, RicHardy
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 15 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 14 15
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 979
Likes: 2
Talk Morgan Regular
Offline
Talk Morgan Regular
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 979
Likes: 2
Originally Posted By Gambalunga
I am surprised there is such an emphasis on solar. Anywhere where there is running water, or better still permanent running water, micro hydro plants could be installed and feed energy not only to local households but back into the grid.

Here is one example:





Totally agree with water power to generate electric...this IS the way to go! wine


Honesty means doing it right, even when no one is looking!

2004 Roadster S1 3.0 V6 gone!

Mark
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 2
Has a lot to Say!
Offline
Has a lot to Say!
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 2
Originally Posted By Hamwich
I make no apologies for the length of this.

Originally Posted By Greta Thunberg

My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 16 years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.

I know many of you don’t want to listen to us – you say we are just children. But we’re only repeating the message of the united climate science.

Many of you appear concerned that we are wasting valuable lesson time, but I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?

In the year 2030 I will be 26 years old. My little sister Beata will be 23. Just like many of your own children or grandchildren. That is a great age, we have been told. When you have all of your life ahead of you. But I am not so sure it will be that great for us.

I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big; I could become whatever I wanted to. I could live wherever I wanted to. People like me had everything we needed and more. Things our grandparents could not even dream of. We had everything we could ever wish for and yet now we may have nothing.Now we probably don’t even have a future any more.

Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.

Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it. That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear the atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly thawing arctic permafrost.

Nor do these scientific calculations include already locked-in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity – or climate justice – clearly stated throughout the Paris agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.

We must also bear in mind that these are just calculations. Estimations. That means that these “points of no return” may occur a bit sooner or later than 2030. No one can know for sure. We can, however, be certain that they will occur approximately in these timeframes, because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Nearly every single major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.

Did you hear what I just said? Is my English OK? Is the microphone on? Because I’m beginning to wonder.

During the last six months I have travelled around Europe for hundreds of hours in trains, electric cars and buses, repeating these life-changing words over and over again. But no one seems to be talking about it, and nothing has changed. In fact, the emissions are still rising.

When I have been travelling around to speak in different countries, I am always offered help to write about the specific climate policies in specific countries. But that is not really necessary. Because the basic problem is the same everywhere. And the basic problem is that basically nothing is being done to halt – or even slow – climate and ecological breakdown, despite all the beautiful words and promises.

The UK is, however, very special. Not only for its mind-blowing historical carbon debt, but also for its current, very creative, carbon accounting.

Since 1990 the UK has achieved a 37% reduction of its territorial CO2 emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project. And that does sound very impressive. But these numbers do not include emissions from aviation, shipping and those associated with imports and exports. If these numbers are included the reduction is around 10% since 1990 – or an an average of 0.4% a year, according to Tyndall Manchester.

And the main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies, but rather a 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations. And switching from one disastrous energy source to a slightly less disastrous one will of course result in a lowering of emissions.

But perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough. Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5-2C of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades, or less. And by “stop” I mean net zero – and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics.

The fact that we are speaking of “lowering” instead of “stopping” emissions is perhaps the greatest force behind the continuing business as usual. The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels – for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand new coal mine – is beyond absurd.

This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.

People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at.

Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that curve? We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases. We should no longer only ask: “Have we got enough money to go through with this?” but also: “Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?” That should and must become the centre of our new currency.

Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?

The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.

“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”

Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”

So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”

“That’s still not an answer,” you say.

Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.

We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.

Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.

Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

I hope my microphone was on. I hope you could all hear me.


The reason international aviation and shipping are not included in the UK's audit is the difficulty of attributing emissions by BA, for example, to any one country as they are generated all over the world.

And the Tyndall Centre has a record of undertaking research for interest group such as Friends of the Earth and starting with an agenda to which their methodologies are trimmed to suit.

I have the greatest respect for this young lady, but I suspect that her knowledge is derived largely from internet browsing of research that grandfathers slanted or error-strewn methodologies. This is not to deny anthropogenic contributions to climate change, but it is important for true believers to avoid confirmation bias.

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 31
Has a lot to Say!
Offline
Has a lot to Say!
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 31
Originally Posted By Burgundymog
Originally Posted By Graham, G4FUJ
Originally Posted By BobtheTrain
I'm slightly concerned that all these wind farms are interrupting the natural wind flow.

More concerning is the environmental cost of all the concrete required to plant them...


I believe it's been proven that it takes more C02 to construct and install them than they will ever save notworthy

Populism?
You need to compare the alternative with what it replaces!
Lifecycle GHG emissions are measured in gCO2equivalent/kWh, I give a few for power generated by:
Coal 1000
Oil 850
Gas 450
Alternatives nuclear, wind, photovoltaic are almost 2 orders of magnitude lower.
So the alternatives mentioned do not “eat” CO2, trees do and CCS does.
The point is to produce power and not make things worse and replace coal and oil. Moving to a lower CO2 world via Gas as an intermediate is smart too.
The above GHG lifecycle number have a margin of error of course due to specific technology, age, etc. got the numbers from an IPPC report.
Trying to do justice to the title of this chain.
Cheers,
Bert


2025 Plus Six - 1909
2009 Roadster
1983 4/4 4str
Board member Morgan Sports Car Club Holland ('21)
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 1
R
Talk Morgan Enthusiast
Offline
Talk Morgan Enthusiast
R
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 1
We talk about China, India and the USA but Germany is a large producer of Co2 by burning coal. France ths other hand is far less of a polluter because of her extensive use of nuclear. If you see photographs from satellites you can see swathes of tropical forests being cleared. Perhaps we should stop using things like palm oil and pay countries not to fell forests.


John
1992 plus4 connaught green
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,749
Likes: 158
Member of the Inner Circle
Offline
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,749
Likes: 158
Felling forests to plant palm oil trees reduces biodiversity but surely palms consume C02, and since a lot of it is converted to oil I must assume they do so reasonably efficiently.

I have absolutely no complaints about the use of palm oil provided it does not involve undue exploitation which does seem to be a problem.


Peter

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 641
Likes: 15
M
MJF Offline
Talk Morgan Regular
Offline
Talk Morgan Regular
M
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 641
Likes: 15
If I understand it correctly a much larger amount of CO2 is stored within the peat bogs where the palm trees are being planted. It is the drying out of the peat bogs that releases a lot of CO2 and reduces the capacity to absorb CO2. Clearing of the existing forests, very often involving burning of course also releases a lot of CO2.

Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 308
Learner Plates Off!
Offline
Learner Plates Off!
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 308
The mention of Tyndall Centre in her speech left me a bit uneasy. But that aside, if we don’t put too much reliance on some of what she says, she has at least raised the bar. It needed to be.

Water power Peter? I’m a big fan of that....my father was a fluid dynamics expert and designer of water turbines...the ones in Kariba dam for instance. The company he worked for, Gilkes in Kendal, made a wide variety from huge things to small domestic ones which he supervised the installation in the Lake District, Scotland etc. On our walks he often broke off to go down to some beck to check out a turbine! It wasn’t just water, he was involved in the testing of the Rover gas turbine. I often wonder what he’d have made of wind turbines....I know he would have been excited about wave powered generators. Sadly he died at 37 so missed out.


John
1936 Austin Seven Ulster Replica
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794
Likes: 15
Formerly known as Aldermog
Member of the Inner Circle
Offline
Formerly known as Aldermog
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794
Likes: 15
I'm another who fails to understand why we do not more widely use flowing water to generate electricity. Water, as rain, is taken up into the clouds without cost or man made energy. Everywhere it falls it contains the potential to liberate gravitational energy into something useful.
There are many small rivers in the south of England that have year round flows that could have a relatively simple flow turbine. Yes, they do need servicing, but that is not an insurmountable problem.

I have friends that have tried to arrange to generate energy from the flow of the river that passes through their farm. But it seems that although they own the land and the fishing rights they don't have a right to install a "mill", that rests with the local Bishop as the medieval laws that were used to control the building of mills to grind corn and other cereals still apply.

This is insane, but to change the law is probably unachievable: too many vested interests and an in built resistance to change.


Peter,
66, 2016 Porsche Boxster S
No longer driving Tarka, the 2014 Plus 8...

Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,696
Likes: 498
Just barreling along
Needs to Get Out More!
Offline
Just barreling along
Needs to Get Out More!
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,696
Likes: 498
Originally Posted By Graham, G4FUJ
Originally Posted By BobtheTrain
I'm slightly concerned that all these wind farms are interrupting the natural wind flow.

More concerning is the environmental cost of all the concrete required to plant them...


Concrete gets a lot of bad publicity on its enviro impact, but is in fact nowadays very heavily regulated & TAXED

Aggregates if virgin come from quarries which have multiple enviro conditions to comply with including eventually turning the empty 'hole' into something nicely landscaped often with wetlands for birds
There is also a major push to use recycled and reprocessed aggregates from demolition arisings
Sands are sometimes sourced from dredgings taken from areas where it's extraction is beneficial to the environment

Cement is now blended with quite high percentages of what is know as 'replacements' these are treated ashes from power stations and steelworks & can reduce virgin cement use by up to 50%

Water used is also reduced by using special additives called water reducing agents, concrete plants also have to catch washdown water, this is then filtered and re-used in the next mix

And not forgetting concrete has a very long, low maintenance lifespan, and finally if ultimately demolished can again be crushed, 100% recycled & re-used


Jon M
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,749
Likes: 158
Member of the Inner Circle
Offline
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,749
Likes: 158
Originally Posted By CooperMan
And not forgetting concrete has a very long, low maintenance lifespan, and finally if ultimately demolished can again be crushed, 100% recycled & re-used






The driver of the green truck was really lucky. 43 unfortunately were not so lucky and and another 15 were injured, some seriously.


Peter

[Linked Image]
Page 6 of 15 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 14 15

Moderated by  TalkMorgan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5