At least with oil, we allegedly get warmer weather

No, we get different and more extreme weather types - it won't always be warmer.

I've read that the instances of 'extreme weather events' like hurricanes have actually decreased over the past decades. And those 'experts' have now gone quite over the 'great standstill' over 'rising' global temperatures, which now haven't risen for over a decade.

Most problems we've experienced come because of over population - building large numbers of homes on flood plains or on prime farmland / countryside areas, not dredging rivers, not maintaining or upgrading (to take into account all the extra usage) drains, sewerage and water treatment systems, or electricity, water and gas distribution networks.

Plenty of link on the net to show that is not true. Here is one:

Global warming hiatus - Wikipedia

Global temperatures have been increasing for decades now.

And it's not true about the hurricanes either:

Hurricanes and Climate Change - Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions (c2es.org)

Where have you read about the opposite being true?

<< an enzyme in a common soil bacterium which converts air to electricity >>

Sorry, but lol :-))

You don't need to apologise. Unlike you I am not a scientist in any way shape or form, so cannot really comment on whether or not this is possible.

However, here is a link to the relevant article from the website of Monarsh University in Melbourne.

scientists-discover-an-enzyme-that-turns-air-into-electricity-providing-a-new-clean-source-of-energy

I have heard about this being found in volcanos, not taken any notice though, but coming from different sources maybe something in it. you never know!

<< an enzyme in a common soil bacterium which converts air to electricity >>

Sorry, but lol :-))

You don't need to apologise. However, here is a link to the relevant article from the website of Monarsh University in Melbourne.

Thanks for the link. The first few sentences clarify the situation : the enzyme doesn't convert 'air' into electricity, it converts the very small amount of atmospheric hydrogen. So I doubt it can contribute much to the running of any vehicle. :-)

Hydrogen is found in great quantities on Earth combined with other elements, such as in water and hydrocarbons, but it is barely present in our atmosphere, which contains just 0.00005%.

Hydrogen already combined with other elements would require energy input to extract it ...

There is very little atmospheric hydrogen, partly because it combines easily (as said here) but also because of its very low mass, earth's gravity is not enough to stop it drifting off into space, where most 'cosmic' hydrogen exists.

It's odd that people give such consideration where the electricity is coming from and how the grid can support this. What is the sustainability, and were any ocelots harmed in the creation of my new Tesla etc.

All very laudable I'm sure.

But do purchasers of new petrol cars spend any time worrying about peak oil theory and how the lesser spotted marmosets might be affected, by clinate flummery ? I'd wager not.

Clearly a double standard.

The amount we could capture via solar panels will not go far to meet the demand. Nuclear ? to drive all the EVs - I doubt it.

Transport is a major part of UK energy consumption (approx 30%) - a shift to EV is significant but not game changing.

France generates 68% of electricity from nuclear - it would be entirely possible for the UK to meet all energy needs now and in the future from nuclear. It would be strategically risky being reliant on only one energy source so not a sensible idea.

Solar power makes significant demands upon land use so may not be capable of effectively unlimited capacity. It can make a worthwhile contribution.

But wind power over the last year has provided 30% of electricity output. A cursory look at any wind farm map suggests that wind power alone could comfortably meet total UK demand - although variability and storage is an issue.

I have a very tenuous theory that Elon Musk is so obsessed with space so that he can start launching nuclear waste up there and therefore make nuclear power plants sustainable.

In the meantime, I should also point out that (notwithstanding night time and transmission losses...) it would be possible to provide the entire world's electricity needs by covering a little over 1% of the Sahara in solar panels.

The only problem with the Sahara is political instability. Look what happened with Russia and gas. But yes I get the point. We could cover every supermarket carpark with panels which at least would have the side effect of providing shelter from the rain.

As for Musk, I could believe your theory.

Solar power makes significant demands upon land use so may not be capable of effectively unlimited capacity. It can make a worthwhile contribution.

I used to think that the use of arable land was a waste for solar panels. But some of that land is poor quality, from the over use of chemical fertilsers and no rotation of the land between crops and animals. Driven by previous subsidies, there was no incentive for farmers to continue doing that, to the detriment of the soil. So at least the land is rested, and solar panels can be removed later.

I doubt if that would be feasible, given most if not all such large scale schemes would need the full lifetime of the panels at the very least to justify the expense of building it, and especially the upgrades of local links to the existing power network.

Old style crop rotation - including a year for 'fallow' used to work just fine. As I've said on other posts, there's loads of rooftop spaces available to not need ANY solar farms on arable or other countryside land. Building owners just need a gentle push with appropriate incentives where it helps those who cannot afford the outlay but would benefit from being a net energy supplier or near to.

The current wheeze with arable land is to sell it to developers who have to deliver 'nitrate neutrality'. Fertilisers contain high levels of nitrates and phosphates that get into water ways causing algae, which kills of wildlife. To stop it from getting worse, developers need to show that what they're doing doesn't increase nutrient run off. This is largely impossible, so the solution is to buy arable land, take it out of farming and just leave it. That offsets any increase in nutrients from the new development.

Large scale arable farming in this country is at an end.

Large scale arable farming in this country is at an end.

In that case we need to think of more ways to generate income to pay for importing even more food than we already do. Let's hope the wizards in the city can keep their eyes on the ball a bit longer ?

It's that or eat them.

Large scale arable farming in this country is at an end.

In that case we need to think of more ways to generate income to pay for importing even more food than we already do. Let's hope the wizards in the city can keep their eyes on the ball a bit longer ?

Isn't that the leftists and Establishment reason for importing more people? Unfortunately it has the big side effect of compound that very problem, amongst many, many others.

Which is why we should be doing exactly the opposite - more self-reliance by being as self-sufficient on fuel, food and jobs. Odd how it wasn't the case from the late 90s onwards, when, as someone put it, 'something happened'.

Solar panels on commercial properties has not taken off either due to the cost or more likely most commercial properties are not owned but leased. Private houses are not jumping on board with solar panels/Storage batteries due to the cost and payback time of some 8-10 years. I expect the landowners giving over fields to solar are on a nice little earner at the consumers expense probably hidden in the ever mysterious and increasing standing charges. It will not be long before all the Carbon capture nonsense is included in the SC. There are different views as ever on the merits of CC, I suppose when the trees start dying they will admit to the folly.