Renewable energy- why bother when they keep increasing the population?

Watch
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I have nothing against renewable energy- its a great idea. However, it just seems so pathetic to keep going on about the matter when the population of this country keeps increasing- which means our energy demands will keep increasing (something proponents of immigration seem to forget). We can hardly generate much energy from renewable resources now, let alone to cater for every single immigrant and their future family.

Wouldnt it be much better for the power/infrastructure needs of this country to keep the population pretty constant!? I dont fancy concreting over the countryside to build more houses/towns so that every single coffee shop in the UK can be fully-manned by Polish and Latvian employees. I'd rather force British people on benefits to do these jobs, reduce the welfare bill and not require more state spending on NHS/schools etc.
0
reply
crayz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
I would make the better argument that there is literally 0 chance of the USA and China reducing their emissions so there is no point. We may as well start investing money to deal with the aftermath of global warming instead of trying to prevent it.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by crayz)
I would make the better argument that there is literally 0 chance of the USA and China reducing their emissions so there is no point. We may as well start investing money to deal with the aftermath of global warming instead of trying to prevent it.
I don't agree with defeatist attitudes like this. Climate change will have major impacts which will likely be very difficult to deal with, especially the impacts on wildlife and the environment which cannot effectively be "dealt with" unless climate change is prevented. We should definitely be doing more than we are doing to try to stop it.

Aside from the fact that a lot of renewable energy companies operate internationally, there is a little glimmer of hope from countries like China. So it isn't an entirely lost cause.
0
reply
crayz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by RFowler)
I don't agree with defeatist attitudes like this. Climate change will have major impacts which will likely be very difficult to deal with, especially the impacts on wildlife and the environment which cannot effectively be "dealt with" unless climate change is prevented. We should definitely be doing more than we are doing to try to stop it.

Aside from the fact that a lot of renewable energy companies operate internationally, there is a little glimmer of hope from countries like China. So it isn't an entirely lost cause.
Well the USA's policy is entirely controlled by the oil companies. I wouldn't be surprised if business interests bought China's policy in the future too.

Even when all of the ice in the world has melted and the sea levels are 60m higher only a tiny bit of land is lost. We would actually probably gain more useful land overall as snow in some areas melt and allows crops to be grown.
0
reply
Pegasus2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by crayz)

Even when all of the ice in the world has melted and the sea levels are 60m higher only a tiny bit of land is lost.

That really is the least of your problems.

Most mega cities are on coasts, less than 60m above sea level. London, NY, Rio, Miami, Sydney, Perth and Mumbai are some examples.

Not to mention the near entirity of Bangladesh would be submerged.
0
reply
GenialGermanGent
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
Nonsense post. It's not the point to produce energy from renewable sources for every single present or future resident of the UK.

Every power-plant using non-renewable energy sources shut down and replaced by an offshore wind farm or solar panels is a step in the right direction.

Also, the population of the UK isn't even growing that fast. Immigration is pretty much offset by an ageing indigenous population and low birth rates.

Obvious and thinly veiled xenophobia is strong in this one.
1
reply
crayz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Pegasus2)
That really is the least of your problems.

Most mega cities are on coasts, less than 60m above sea level. London, NY, Rio, Miami, Sydney, Perth and Mumbai are some examples.

Not to mention the near entirity of Bangladesh would be submerged.
London was bombed in WW2 and we were fine. Rome was sacked by barbarians we were fine. Hiroshima was nuked and we were fine.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
Nonsense post. It's not the point to produce energy from renewable sources for every single present or future resident of the UK.

Every power-plant using non-renewable energy sources shut down and replaced by an offshore wind farm or solar panels is a step in the right direction.

Also, the population of the UK isn't even growing that fast. Immigration is pretty much offset by an ageing indigenous population and low birth rates.

Obvious and thinly veiled xenophobia is strong in this one.
It's still growing, and it's growing too fast. The more the population grows, the more difficult it will be to move towards renewables because energy demand will just increase. It makes things difficult for other environmental issues, like more intensive farming to provide more food for more people.

It is a fact that immigration contributes to population growth. Have a look at this.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Your logic is flawed here, your assuming that the cost of renewable technology is not falling or that innovation is not enabling it to produce more power.

If we really wanted we could provide all our heating from geothermal and the bulk of our electricity from nuclear while importing geothermal electricity from Iceland.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by RFowler)
It's still growing, and it's growing too fast. The more the population grows, the more difficult it will be to move towards renewables because energy demand will just increase. It makes things difficult for other environmental issues, like more intensive farming to provide more food for more people.

It is a fact that immigration contributes to population growth. Have a look at this.
The percentage change in UK population growth is less than 1% per year. The percentage change in efficiency of even solar is several times that.
0
reply
Pegasus2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by crayz)
London was bombed in WW2 and we were fine. Rome was sacked by barbarians we were fine. Hiroshima was nuked and we were fine.
You clearly don't fully understand the scale of the problem. Like I said, having 50% your major city's flood is really the least of your problems if things get serious.
0
reply
crayz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Pegasus2)
You clearly don't fully understand the scale of the problem. Like I said, having 50% your major city's flood is really the least of your problems if things get serious.
Britain will be able to grow even more food
Name:  _73873759_warmer-world_v2.jpg
Views: 127
Size:  146.0 KB
0
reply
Pegasus2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by crayz)
Britain will be able to grow even more food
Name:  _73873759_warmer-world_v2.jpg
Views: 127
Size:  146.0 KB
Yeah, because temeperature is really related to agricultural output. Just stop already. Go an get properly educated about it.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by crayz)
Britain will be able to grow even more food
Name:  _73873759_warmer-world_v2.jpg
Views: 127
Size:  146.0 KB
There is agriculture in outback Australia? I thought they just had nothing but wasteland there..

OP, there is no reason to use renewable energy as a point to rant with large amounts of xenophobia. If you want to make a xenophobic statement, please do so, and do not try and pathetically mask it like you have attempted.
0
reply
crayz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
There is agriculture in outback Australia? I thought they just had nothing but wasteland there..

OP, there is no reason to use renewable energy as a point to rant with large amounts of xenophobia. If you want to make a xenophobic statement, please do so, and do not try and pathetically mask it like you have attempted.
(Original post by Pegasus2)
Yeah, because temeperature is really related to agricultural output. Just stop already. Go an get properly educated about it.
Well ask the world resources institute about it
0
reply
Pegasus2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by crayz)
Well ask the world resources institute about it
Massive crop failure, within the breadbaskets of the US and Russia, which supply a large proportion of the world's grain is one of the biggest problems.

Shorter growing seasons

You're also faced with much more erratic and less reliable rainfall, so your crops either die from drought or are washed away.

Soil degredataion, soil erosion, soil salinification (In short, growing anything is difficult)

Shutdown of global conveyer currents = stagnation of oceans = increased acidification and anoxification and subsequent death of all marine life (has happened in the past about 500Ma ago, when virtually all marine life died)

Dry up of inland lakes, which is already happening and upon which many people are reliant for drinking water and food (fishing).

Melting of glaciers (which are already at record levels of retreat) of which millions (no, really millions) of people are reliant on for drinking water.


So yea, mass starvation and lack of drinking water are your major problems. Then comes all the biodiversity loss then flooding of land/cities etc.

You should watch this:

It's partly about photography (which i'm also interested in) but shows the real picture quite well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCifBUtw1sE
0
reply
crayz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Pegasus2)
Massive crop failure, within the breadbaskets of the US and Russia, which supply a large proportion of the world's grain is one of the biggest problems.

Shorter growing seasons

You're also faced with much more erratic and less reliable rainfall, so your crops either die from drought or are washed away.

Soil degredataion, soil erosion, soil salinification (In short, growing anything is difficult)

Shutdown of global conveyer currents = stagnation of oceans = increased acidification and anoxification and subsequent death of all marine life (has happened in the past about 500Ma ago, when virtually all marine life died)

Dry up of inland lakes, which is already happening and upon which many people are reliant for drinking water and food (fishing).

Melting of glaciers (which are already at record levels of retreat) of which millions (no, really millions) of people are reliant on for drinking water.


So yea, mass starvation and lack of drinking water are your major problems. Then comes all the biodiversity loss then flooding of land/cities etc.

You should watch this:

It's partly about photography (which i'm also interested in) but shows the real picture quite well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCifBUtw1sE
We need a lower population anyway to reduce house price inflation.
0
reply
TheGeographyGuy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Pegasus2)
Yeah, because temeperature is really related to agricultural output. Just stop already. Go an get properly educated about it.
I really think it's yourself that needs to be educated, both your written english and scientific knowledge is poor
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
The OP has a point that given our inability to use resources in a sensible manner, we aren't exactly helping things by having an increasing population. Short of drastic population policy though, there's very little we can do on this side of things. Easier to focus on improving and expanding renewables atm.
0
reply
Pegasus2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by TheGeographyGuy)
I really think it's yourself that needs to be educated, both your written english and scientific knowledge is poor
Wow, attacking a poster on his spelling. At the rate I type, one mistake is quite good.

Please, put forth the mass of your scientific knowlege since you've taken the high ground. I really am waiting on this one because i'd like to see the denial that is about to come, especially with a username such as yours.

I look forwards to you increasing your post count to ten.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (627)
33.66%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (784)
42.08%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (368)
19.75%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (84)
4.51%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise