This has been a topic in chat so might be worth a thread.

Just as an exercise, I’ll estimate the renewable power potential for Singapore.

Singapore’s mean electrical power consumption is around 5 GW.

Tidal and wave: negligible

Geothermal: mediocre.
Despite its proximity to the Ring of Fire there’s not a lot of shallow potential geothermal power in Singapore. There are a few deeper spots that could be explored but it would be remarkable if you could get 100 MW out of it even if you pulled out all stops.

Hydro: negligible. There’s no significant elevation difference across the whole island: there’s less than there used to be, and there’ll be less in the future due to flattening of hillocks for materials.

Solar
Rooftop PV: the preference for highrise means that the sqm of roof per person is low. If you throw in commercial and admin buildings etc, ballpark … there might be 10 square km of rooftop in Singapore. On the plus side, the sun passes right overhead and although it is often raining or cloudy you still end up with around 4.5 kWh/sqm per day irradiation. Install pretty good PV, say 20% efficiency: and you’re at 375 MW.

But perhaps in Singapore a serious option would be PV on the sides of the building on the east and west. When I consider the dimensions of a typical housing block in Singapore, allow for shadow from other buildings, allow for reduced irradiation due to more atmospheric absorption when the sun is at low angles… I mean the potential should still be at least as much as rooftop solar.

Now there are several thousands of solar installations in Singapore already, including on warehouses, public buildings, blocks of flats etc. Nameplate capacity is around 440 MWPeak, which I would say means about 80 MW mean. https://www.ema.gov.sg/singapore-energy-statistics/Ch06/index6

Open space is at a premium in Singapore and it would be hard to make a social or economic case for taking up much civil land for a solar plant. There are some small forested areas and likewise it would not be good to clear those to put up a big PV or solar thermal plant. However there is potential for using water reservoirs’ surfaces. A 60MWpeak (11 MW mean) floating PV plant was built. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/singapore-unveils-one-worlds-biggest-floating-solar-panel-farms-2021-07-14/
Obv, there are also some environmental concerns about this. Bird life and aquatic life rather depend on some sunlight getting to the water surface to sustain photosynthesis. But going by the total size of the reservoirs it should be possible to build 4 sq km of such floaters without messing too much with the shallow water ecosystems. So that might be another 150 MW mean, taking us to 900 MW total.

Now one thing that Singapore makes a lot of is land. They’ve added about 160 sq km of territory since the 1970s. They’ve extended their coasts, built peninsulas and islands. Some of it is industrial, some commercial, a lot of it is used for port facilities etc. So you might think, why not just build an island specifically to host enough PV or solar thermal plant to produce all its power. They could in fact do this. For PV, it would be about 135 sq km in area. Efficiencies of solar thermal are higher so in that case it might be about 80 sq km. That’s about as much land as they are planning to add by 2030 anyway. The thing is: they’ve already got plans for that land, and because making new land is expensive they are expecting to get high returns for it. Based on projects I’ve been involved in it seems they are paying just about half a billion dollars per sq km of new land.

(Note that every time I speak about watts here, I am talking about average watts, not installed capacity, unless specified otherwise).

Wind power

Situation near the equator, Singapore is not a windy place with average wind speeds around 2 m/s, and windpower densities about an order of magnitude lower than the sites of Australia’s major windfarms. Nor are there any hills or ranges that would enable higher than average windspeeds. Remember that available power is proportional to the cube of windspeed. Typically people won’t bother with a windfarm unless mean speeds are at least 6 m/s. Some companies manufacture turbines for low speeds but the bang for buck is low.

But even if you were to somehow build elevated turbines over the entire island with turbines with say 100 metre rotor diameter with a power coefficient of 0.38 then the output per unit might be:
pi * (40 m)^2 * 1.23 kg/m^3 * 0.38 * (2m/s)^3 * 0.5 = 14.400 kW. This is a beast that would be churning out 3 or 4 MW in South Australia.
Using the 40D^2 spacing for windfarms, you’d could feasibly built 1750 such turbines on the S’pore mainland, which comes to … 25 MW. The cost per MW is mindboggling. It’s just not a goer. I could do the calcs for their offshore potential but it doesn’t get around the low speed problem.

—-

In summary I think geothermal could maybe provide 2 or 3% of Singapore’s electrical power. Wind, wave and tidal just aren’t going to be worth it. Solar power would be the only way to cover Singapore’s power needs using renewables. Within Singapore’s current areas PV could make up maybe 20% of what is required without being disruptive but pushing it much past that would eat into the precious woodlands or public spaces. I don’t think there’d be any theoretical reason that reclaimed land couldn’t be used to host a series of solar thermal plants with enough mean output to cover all of Singapore’s needs but it would of course add tremendously to the cost of the project, and there are some environmental concerns about land reclamation in Singapore anyway.

This spiel had a disgusting consistent correct usage of kW/MW/GW. It would be completely unacceptable for any MSN publication.

So what does Singapore currently use for power and where does it come from?

They are going to have to import energy in one form or another. There is no getting around that. It is what they do already, they have a heavily services oriented economy and they use the money from that to import energy. They are just going to have to change the source of that energy from fossil fuels to something else derived from non fossil fuels.

I think it is unrealistic to expect that every country is going to need to be self-sufficient for energy and all sourced from non fossil fuels.

The world economy needs to be able to do trade in energy. Not every country has been dealt the same hand when it comes to resources available. Some countries with a good hand will generate a surplus, and they will trade it to others with a shortage.

party_pants said:

They are going to have to import energy in one form or another. There is no getting around that. It is what they do already, they have a heavily services oriented economy and they use the money from that to import energy. They are just going to have to change the source of that energy from fossil fuels to something else derived from non fossil fuels.

I think it is unrealistic to expect that every country is going to need to be self-sufficient for energy and all sourced from non fossil fuels.

The world economy needs to be able to do trade in energy. Not every country has been dealt the same hand when it comes to resources available. Some countries with a good hand will generate a surplus, and they will trade it to others with a shortage.

It’s as if economics could operate with some form of comparative advantage model.

FWIW, a lot of the south East Asian and south Asian countries see self sufficient power generation as a national imperative and are funding (at least in part) the development of mine-to-mouth coal fired power stations. This self sufficient power generation capably is seen as critical for future economic growth and national security.

diddly-squat said:

FWIW, a lot of the south East Asian and south Asian countries see self sufficient power generation as a national imperative and are funding (at least in part) the development of mine-to-mouth coal fired power stations. This self sufficient power generation capably is seen as critical for future economic growth and national security.

Indonesia has a shit load of coal, do any of the others in the region?

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

FWIW, a lot of the south East Asian and south Asian countries see self sufficient power generation as a national imperative and are funding (at least in part) the development of mine-to-mouth coal fired power stations. This self sufficient power generation capably is seen as critical for future economic growth and national security.

Indonesia has a shit load of coal, do any of the others in the region?

Yes.. Lao and Thailand do.. Philippines has a bit as well

sibeen said:

So what does Singapore currently use for power and where does it come from?

About 94% of the power it generates is from natural gas, mainly imported from Indonesia and Malaysia. It also imports electricity directly from Malaysia.

party_pants said:

They are going to have to import energy in one form or another. There is no getting around that. It is what they do already, they have a heavily services oriented economy and they use the money from that to import energy. They are just going to have to change the source of that energy from fossil fuels to something else derived from non fossil fuels.

I think it is unrealistic to expect that every country is going to need to be self-sufficient for energy and all sourced from non fossil fuels.

The world economy needs to be able to do trade in energy. Not every country has been dealt the same hand when it comes to resources available. Some countries with a good hand will generate a surplus, and they will trade it to others with a shortage.

Well that’s what I said.

dv said:

party_pants said:

They are going to have to import energy in one form or another. There is no getting around that. It is what they do already, they have a heavily services oriented economy and they use the money from that to import energy. They are just going to have to change the source of that energy from fossil fuels to something else derived from non fossil fuels.

I think it is unrealistic to expect that every country is going to need to be self-sufficient for energy and all sourced from non fossil fuels.

The world economy needs to be able to do trade in energy. Not every country has been dealt the same hand when it comes to resources available. Some countries with a good hand will generate a surplus, and they will trade it to others with a shortage.

Well that’s what I said.

Sorry.

You lot had the temerity to start the discussion in Chat before I got home from work. So I couldn’t follow all of it up to that point.

I would say that even though it would require a huge national effort, solar power would be the only way Singapore could be energy independent.

dv said:

I would say that even though it would require a huge national effort, solar power would be the only way Singapore could be energy independent.

What would they do for storage? Pumped hydro is out. Batteries need real estate unless you start going vertical, and I doubt that’s a good idea.

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

FWIW, a lot of the south East Asian and south Asian countries see self sufficient power generation as a national imperative and are funding (at least in part) the development of mine-to-mouth coal fired power stations. This self sufficient power generation capably is seen as critical for future economic growth and national security.

Indonesia has a shit load of coal, do any of the others in the region?

Yes.. Lao and Thailand do.. Philippines has a bit as well

So you don’t see the end of coal any time soon?

sibeen said:

dv said:

I would say that even though it would require a huge national effort, solar power would be the only way Singapore could be energy independent.

What would they do for storage? Pumped hydro is out. Batteries need real estate unless you start going vertical, and I doubt that’s a good idea.

Battery Ships. They have plenty of dock space.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

I would say that even though it would require a huge national effort, solar power would be the only way Singapore could be energy independent.

What would they do for storage? Pumped hydro is out. Batteries need real estate unless you start going vertical, and I doubt that’s a good idea.

Battery Ships. They have plenty of dock space.

I like my batteries spread out. They need space to breath, and to burn without taking the whole lot down.

What about processing sewage into some form of energy? A population of 6 million in a relatively small area would generate a lot of it.

party_pants said:

What about processing sewage into some form of energy? A population of 6 million in a relatively small area would generate a lot of it.

You’re talking shit :)

sibeen said:

dv said:

I would say that even though it would require a huge national effort, solar power would be the only way Singapore could be energy independent.

What would they do for storage? Pumped hydro is out. Batteries need real estate unless you start going vertical, and I doubt that’s a good idea.

“Batteries need real estate”
Do they though? Not compared to space actually taken by the renewable sources.

Put it another way:
Say they want 2 full days of storage, 5GW* 48h = 240 GWh. A slim little Tesla powerwall is 14 kWh. So you’d need about 3 of those per capita. Things about a metre high and 15 cm wide just insist everyone has three of them in their home per person. You can do that when you’re a one party state.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

I would say that even though it would require a huge national effort, solar power would be the only way Singapore could be energy independent.

What would they do for storage? Pumped hydro is out. Batteries need real estate unless you start going vertical, and I doubt that’s a good idea.

“Batteries need real estate”
Do they though? Not compared to space actually taken by the renewable sources.

Put it another way:
Say they want 2 full days of storage, 5GW* 48h = 240 GWh. A slim little Tesla powerwall is 14 kWh. So you’d need about 3 of those per capita. Things about a metre high and 15 cm wide just insist everyone has three of them in their home per person. You can do that when you’re a one party state.

Or if you don’t like it at home: consider a hectare of pv using the specs previously given (20% efficiency, 4.5kWh/day irradiation). To store the power produced by 8 square metres of this gear in two days, you’d need 1 tesla powerwall, about a metre wide and 15 cm deep. It doesn’t add significantly to the real estate requirements.

dv said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

What would they do for storage? Pumped hydro is out. Batteries need real estate unless you start going vertical, and I doubt that’s a good idea.

“Batteries need real estate”
Do they though? Not compared to space actually taken by the renewable sources.

Put it another way:
Say they want 2 full days of storage, 5GW* 48h = 240 GWh. A slim little Tesla powerwall is 14 kWh. So you’d need about 3 of those per capita. Things about a metre high and 15 cm wide just insist everyone has three of them in their home per person. You can do that when you’re a one party state.

Or if you don’t like it at home: consider a hectare of pv using the specs previously given (20% efficiency, 4.5kWh/day irradiation). To store the power produced by 8 square metres of this gear in two days, you’d need 1 tesla powerwall, about a metre wide and 15 cm deep. It doesn’t add significantly to the real estate requirements.

Depends how you do the production mix but unless you kept a fair bit of gas fired production ready to go, I’d be loathe to only have two days of storage in a place like Singers when you’re relying on solar.

240 GWh of batteries isn’t that much, hell, the world produces about 320 GWh of batteries per year :) I realise that this would be a long term project but I suspect that there would be severe bottlenecks in any supply chain for both solar panels and batteries.

BTW, please do not mention T***la.

sibeen said:

dv said:

dv said:

“Batteries need real estate”
Do they though? Not compared to space actually taken by the renewable sources.

Put it another way:
Say they want 2 full days of storage, 5GW* 48h = 240 GWh. A slim little Tesla powerwall is 14 kWh. So you’d need about 3 of those per capita. Things about a metre high and 15 cm wide just insist everyone has three of them in their home per person. You can do that when you’re a one party state.

Or if you don’t like it at home: consider a hectare of pv using the specs previously given (20% efficiency, 4.5kWh/day irradiation). To store the power produced by 8 square metres of this gear in two days, you’d need 1 tesla powerwall, about a metre wide and 15 cm deep. It doesn’t add significantly to the real estate requirements.

Depends how you do the production mix but unless you kept a fair bit of gas fired production ready to go, I’d be loathe to only have two days of storage in a place like Singers when you’re relying on solar.

240 GWh of batteries isn’t that much, hell, the world produces about 320 GWh of batteries per year :) I realise that this would be a long term project but I suspect that there would be severe bottlenecks in any supply chain for both solar panels and batteries.

BTW, please do not mention T***la.

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

Or if you don’t like it at home: consider a hectare of pv using the specs previously given (20% efficiency, 4.5kWh/day irradiation). To store the power produced by 8 square metres of this gear in two days, you’d need 1 tesla powerwall, about a metre wide and 15 cm deep. It doesn’t add significantly to the real estate requirements.

Depends how you do the production mix but unless you kept a fair bit of gas fired production ready to go, I’d be loathe to only have two days of storage in a place like Singers when you’re relying on solar.

240 GWh of batteries isn’t that much, hell, the world produces about 320 GWh of batteries per year :) I realise that this would be a long term project but I suspect that there would be severe bottlenecks in any supply chain for both solar panels and batteries.

BTW, please do not mention T***la.

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

Oh, it’s a very interesting what if. I did the figures for Australia last year and we’d need 14 years worth of the global production of batteries if we went complete renewable and wanted 7 days of full back-up,

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Indonesia has a shit load of coal, do any of the others in the region?

Yes.. Lao and Thailand do.. Philippines has a bit as well

So you don’t see the end of coal any time soon?

Define soon? I mean demand will drop over time and I don’t see too many industrialised first world nations building coal fired power stations any time soon…

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Depends how you do the production mix but unless you kept a fair bit of gas fired production ready to go, I’d be loathe to only have two days of storage in a place like Singers when you’re relying on solar.

240 GWh of batteries isn’t that much, hell, the world produces about 320 GWh of batteries per year :) I realise that this would be a long term project but I suspect that there would be severe bottlenecks in any supply chain for both solar panels and batteries.

BTW, please do not mention T***la.

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

Oh, it’s a very interesting what if. I did the figures for Australia last year and we’d need 14 years worth of the global production of batteries if we went complete renewable and wanted 7 days of full back-up,

Yep …

There just isn’t that much lithium going!
Makes me think the hydrogen thing might be more practical if we really wanted to go for it.

Perhaps they could make a start by turning off some of their lighting.

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps they could make a start by turning off some of their lighting.

Well that’s an excellent point and I didn’t even touch on efficiency improvements

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

Or if you don’t like it at home: consider a hectare of pv using the specs previously given (20% efficiency, 4.5kWh/day irradiation). To store the power produced by 8 square metres of this gear in two days, you’d need 1 tesla powerwall, about a metre wide and 15 cm deep. It doesn’t add significantly to the real estate requirements.

Depends how you do the production mix but unless you kept a fair bit of gas fired production ready to go, I’d be loathe to only have two days of storage in a place like Singers when you’re relying on solar.

240 GWh of batteries isn’t that much, hell, the world produces about 320 GWh of batteries per year :) I realise that this would be a long term project but I suspect that there would be severe bottlenecks in any supply chain for both solar panels and batteries.

BTW, please do not mention T***la.

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

The excuses given here would be similar to most countries along with a reason to do as little as possible, especially if it costs money.

But what everyone overlooks is that it is not an economical decision, it is a survival one. For example, I cannot see attitudes changing much from the developing countries who want to be rich regardless of the cost, to rich countries who like it the way it is and don’t want to change. It is obvious that real effort where things must change and people must pay big money to avoid imminent catastrophe will make anything happen, but by then it will all be too late. We are not an intelligent ape, we are a greedy self-centered one with myopic vision as the current situation indicates.

Hmm.

If you thought really big with tidal. Really excessively big.

There’s a heck of a lot of water flowing through the Singapore straight.

Typical tidal water speed 3 knots from https://youtu.be/j4l_5aPa-GU

3 knots over a width of 10 km at a depth of 35 metres (distances from Google Earth) is Q = 5,400,00 cubic metres per second.
Power P = rho g h Q
rho = 1,000 kg per cubic metre. g = 9.8 metres per square second. Let’s use a conservative tidal range of 0.6 metres, it could easily be twice this.
Gives total tidal power P (in Watts) = 1,000 * 9.8 * 0.6 * 5,400,00
P = 32,000 MW, approximately.

Because of shipping they couldn’t use all of that.

dv said:

party_pants said:

They are going to have to import energy in one form or another. There is no getting around that. It is what they do already, they have a heavily services oriented economy and they use the money from that to import energy. They are just going to have to change the source of that energy from fossil fuels to something else derived from non fossil fuels.

I think it is unrealistic to expect that every country is going to need to be self-sufficient for energy and all sourced from non fossil fuels.

The world economy needs to be able to do trade in energy. Not every country has been dealt the same hand when it comes to resources available. Some countries with a good hand will generate a surplus, and they will trade it to others with a shortage.

Well that’s what I said.

So, we’re all agreed then.

diddly-squat said:

FWIW, a lot of the south East Asian and south Asian countries see self sufficient power generation as a national imperative and are funding (at least in part) the development of mine-to-mouth coal fired power stations. This self sufficient power generation capably is seen as critical for future economic growth and national security.

So do all these planned coal-fired power stations have a service life of 28 years or less, or are they just pretending to be planning for nett 0 GHG emissions by 2050, or are they not even pretending?

You left out nuclear.

Apart from tidal and solar, I wouldn’t bother with renewables for Singapore.

Tidal we could get perhaps 10% of that 32,000 MW, say 3,000 MW.
Solar we could get 20% efficiency to get 375 MW.

Singapore is a port and a constriction on the shipping routes, making it ideal for all fuels transported by ships:
coal, tar sand, bunker oil, diesel, petrol, LPG, natural gas, even hydrogen and methane from clathrates could all come by ships in abundance.

The Persian Gulf is still producing a lot of excess good quality light fuel, and Singapore is better placed to take advantage of Persian Gulf fuels than 90% of other nations. Even the small amount of fuels produced around the North West Shelf are easy to transport to Singapore.

Nuclear is possible but unnecessary.

Electricity could also be imported from both Malaysia and Sumatra without difficulty. But the port access of Singapore suggests that it is suitable as a net exporter of electricity to Malaysia and Sumatra rather than the other way around.

Peak Warming Man said:

You left out nuclear.

However on reflection nuclear is not a renewable as such.
So I’ll let you off on this occasion but just watch it, ok.

Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You left out nuclear.

However on reflection nuclear is not a renewable as such.
So I’ll let you off on this occasion but just watch it, ok.

Your mercy is praised from the mountains to the shore.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Depends how you do the production mix but unless you kept a fair bit of gas fired production ready to go, I’d be loathe to only have two days of storage in a place like Singers when you’re relying on solar.

240 GWh of batteries isn’t that much, hell, the world produces about 320 GWh of batteries per year :) I realise that this would be a long term project but I suspect that there would be severe bottlenecks in any supply chain for both solar panels and batteries.

BTW, please do not mention T***la.

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

The excuses given here would be similar to most countries along with a reason to do as little as possible, especially if it costs money.

But what everyone overlooks is that it is not an economical decision, it is a survival one. For example, I cannot see attitudes changing much from the developing countries who want to be rich regardless of the cost, to rich countries who like it the way it is and don’t want to change. It is obvious that real effort where things must change and people must pay big money to avoid imminent catastrophe will make anything happen, but by then it will all be too late. We are not an intelligent ape, we are a greedy self-centered one with myopic vision as the current situation indicates.

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

The excuses given here would be similar to most countries along with a reason to do as little as possible, especially if it costs money.

But what everyone overlooks is that it is not an economical decision, it is a survival one. For example, I cannot see attitudes changing much from the developing countries who want to be rich regardless of the cost, to rich countries who like it the way it is and don’t want to change. It is obvious that real effort where things must change and people must pay big money to avoid imminent catastrophe will make anything happen, but by then it will all be too late. We are not an intelligent ape, we are a greedy self-centered one with myopic vision as the current situation indicates.

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

Runed

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

The excuses given here would be similar to most countries along with a reason to do as little as possible, especially if it costs money.

But what everyone overlooks is that it is not an economical decision, it is a survival one. For example, I cannot see attitudes changing much from the developing countries who want to be rich regardless of the cost, to rich countries who like it the way it is and don’t want to change. It is obvious that real effort where things must change and people must pay big money to avoid imminent catastrophe will make anything happen, but by then it will all be too late. We are not an intelligent ape, we are a greedy self-centered one with myopic vision as the current situation indicates.

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

Runed

LOL. “Vikings go home”.

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

The excuses given here would be similar to most countries along with a reason to do as little as possible, especially if it costs money.

But what everyone overlooks is that it is not an economical decision, it is a survival one. For example, I cannot see attitudes changing much from the developing countries who want to be rich regardless of the cost, to rich countries who like it the way it is and don’t want to change. It is obvious that real effort where things must change and people must pay big money to avoid imminent catastrophe will make anything happen, but by then it will all be too late. We are not an intelligent ape, we are a greedy self-centered one with myopic vision as the current situation indicates.

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

I’m rather surprised that he hasn’t.

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Sure. This was mostly a theoretical exercise, I’m sure Singapore will continue to import most of its energy one way or another.

The excuses given here would be similar to most countries along with a reason to do as little as possible, especially if it costs money.

But what everyone overlooks is that it is not an economical decision, it is a survival one. For example, I cannot see attitudes changing much from the developing countries who want to be rich regardless of the cost, to rich countries who like it the way it is and don’t want to change. It is obvious that real effort where things must change and people must pay big money to avoid imminent catastrophe will make anything happen, but by then it will all be too late. We are not an intelligent ape, we are a greedy self-centered one with myopic vision as the current situation indicates.

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

Don’t know how many scientist have to say we are heading to the edge of the cliff, or how many scientists need to be arrested for trying to say how bad the situation is, yet no matter how many, it will apparently never be enough. Humanity needs a new way of looking at things to save themselves and many other life forms and frankly it ain’t going to happen, so yes we will be ruined! Happy 6th mass extinction event.

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

The excuses given here would be similar to most countries along with a reason to do as little as possible, especially if it costs money.

But what everyone overlooks is that it is not an economical decision, it is a survival one. For example, I cannot see attitudes changing much from the developing countries who want to be rich regardless of the cost, to rich countries who like it the way it is and don’t want to change. It is obvious that real effort where things must change and people must pay big money to avoid imminent catastrophe will make anything happen, but by then it will all be too late. We are not an intelligent ape, we are a greedy self-centered one with myopic vision as the current situation indicates.

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

Don’t know how many scientist have to say we are heading to the edge of the cliff, or how many scientists need to be arrested for trying to say how bad the situation is, yet no matter how many, it will apparently never be enough. Humanity needs a new way of looking at things to save themselves and many other life forms and frankly it ain’t going to happen, so yes we will be ruined! Happy 6th mass extinction event.

It’s in our nature I think and may be impossible to change as we are wired that way.
Genetic engineering to tame our aggression perhaps

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

Don’t know how many scientist have to say we are heading to the edge of the cliff, or how many scientists need to be arrested for trying to say how bad the situation is, yet no matter how many, it will apparently never be enough. Humanity needs a new way of looking at things to save themselves and many other life forms and frankly it ain’t going to happen, so yes we will be ruined! Happy 6th mass extinction event.

It’s in our nature I think and may be impossible to change as we are wired that way.
Genetic engineering to tame our aggression perhaps

Miranda.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I wonder what Hanrahan would say if he could register and post here.

Don’t know how many scientist have to say we are heading to the edge of the cliff, or how many scientists need to be arrested for trying to say how bad the situation is, yet no matter how many, it will apparently never be enough. Humanity needs a new way of looking at things to save themselves and many other life forms and frankly it ain’t going to happen, so yes we will be ruined! Happy 6th mass extinction event.

It’s in our nature I think and may be impossible to change as we are wired that way.
Genetic engineering to tame our aggression perhaps

Aggression might play a part, but it is our attitude where we think we can do what we like with no consequences. Unfortunately nature does not work that way.

Exactly what I proposed was on the episode of Seaquest DSV on TV today.

Singapore was powered by renewable tidal energy
From three-bladed wind-power-like turbines
Under the Singapore Straight

Specifically Singapore

Filmed in 1993 to 1996.