Life before electricity. Higher Co2 levels?
Discussion
Imagine being alive centuries ago, and how polluted the air must have been due to open fires. November 5th nowadays is a smoggy night, and that's just from a few thousand fires once a year.
Every familly must have had a fire to keep warm, and as a form of lighting at night. Many villages would have had a large permanent communal fire during winters (if not all year round) I guess. A main source of food would have been breeding/killing animals and spit roasting them, their skins being used as a main form of clothing/shoes.
I wonder what effect the constant fires had on carbon dioxide levels when compared to todays levels. They must have gone through an awful lot of trees!
Both locally and globally, surely the atmosphere must have been far more polluted than it is today?
Every familly must have had a fire to keep warm, and as a form of lighting at night. Many villages would have had a large permanent communal fire during winters (if not all year round) I guess. A main source of food would have been breeding/killing animals and spit roasting them, their skins being used as a main form of clothing/shoes.
I wonder what effect the constant fires had on carbon dioxide levels when compared to todays levels. They must have gone through an awful lot of trees!
Both locally and globally, surely the atmosphere must have been far more polluted than it is today?
deeps said:
Imagine being alive centuries ago, and how polluted the air must have been due to open fires. November 5th nowadays is a smoggy night, and that's just from a few thousand fires once a year.
Every familly must have had a fire to keep warm, and as a form of lighting at night. Many villages would have had a large permanent communal fire during winters (if not all year round) I guess. A main source of food would have been breeding/killing animals and spit roasting them, their skins being used as a main form of clothing/shoes.
I wonder what effect the constant fires had on carbon dioxide levels when compared to todays levels. They must have gone through an awful lot of trees!
Both locally and globally, surely the atmosphere must have been far more polluted than it is today?
Centuries ago there was a far smaller population, people were burning timber, not fossil fuels and their energy consumption per person was tiny compared to what we consume in the developed world today.Every familly must have had a fire to keep warm, and as a form of lighting at night. Many villages would have had a large permanent communal fire during winters (if not all year round) I guess. A main source of food would have been breeding/killing animals and spit roasting them, their skins being used as a main form of clothing/shoes.
I wonder what effect the constant fires had on carbon dioxide levels when compared to todays levels. They must have gone through an awful lot of trees!
Both locally and globally, surely the atmosphere must have been far more polluted than it is today?
ATG said:
Centuries ago there was a far smaller population, people were burning timber, not fossil fuels and their energy consumption per person was tiny compared to what we consume in the developed world today.
All true, and there were no cars. But CO2 is only one element of pollution - the thing that made the killer smogs was sulphides and particulates from low grade coal. But then there were no greenies during the industrial revolution - people were too busy making a basic living to ponce about in think-tanks burning up taxpayer's money wondering how best to stop progress.Don't forget that electricty may be clean at point of use, but still has to be made somehow.
The real problem is population and global industrialisation.
IIRC the biggest user of trees was the Royal Navy. It took thousands just to make one ship, whole forrests were used in the construction of ships, which have never been replaced.
I was thinking about this a few days ag (as you do) and even though modern boilers be they gas or electric are more efficient than ones just a few years old i can't help but think that every house up and down the country lighting up boilers can't be the most productive ways of providing heating and hot water.
I would think that an industrial sized boiler or at least several of them dotted around the country would be far better in terms in use of fuel efficiency would be a far better approach. This already happens in Iceland where hot water is piped to the homes in the same way as cold water is. Granted they have the benefit of thermal heating so the cost is much lower, but i don't see why this can't be done here or even all over Europe/America Or at the very least in the towns and cities.
Then i started thinking about this thermal heating they have in Iceland. There they have thermal springs at ground level so tapping the source is fairly straight forward, but the hot mantle in the earth could be used by everyone, the only difference is in how far each country needs to dig to access it. But given that oil is accessed in some deep/difficult places i don't see it being too much of a big step to get to the earths mantle.
Imagine if that was tapped, the energy would be limitless and the cost virtually nothing once it has been tapped and in the grand scheme of things the cost of getting to the source is small.
Imagine if we built a power plant that once we got to the energy source (mantle) the energy we produced was free bar the running costs of the plant IE the manpower. No gas or coal to buy and consume every minute of every day. Surely that has to be a better alternative than nuclear with the massive costs involved in not only the production but the waste too. I see it as a win win and unless i am missing something fairly obvious i don't understand why we are not all using this type of energy.
I was thinking about this a few days ag (as you do) and even though modern boilers be they gas or electric are more efficient than ones just a few years old i can't help but think that every house up and down the country lighting up boilers can't be the most productive ways of providing heating and hot water.
I would think that an industrial sized boiler or at least several of them dotted around the country would be far better in terms in use of fuel efficiency would be a far better approach. This already happens in Iceland where hot water is piped to the homes in the same way as cold water is. Granted they have the benefit of thermal heating so the cost is much lower, but i don't see why this can't be done here or even all over Europe/America Or at the very least in the towns and cities.
Then i started thinking about this thermal heating they have in Iceland. There they have thermal springs at ground level so tapping the source is fairly straight forward, but the hot mantle in the earth could be used by everyone, the only difference is in how far each country needs to dig to access it. But given that oil is accessed in some deep/difficult places i don't see it being too much of a big step to get to the earths mantle.
Imagine if that was tapped, the energy would be limitless and the cost virtually nothing once it has been tapped and in the grand scheme of things the cost of getting to the source is small.
Imagine if we built a power plant that once we got to the energy source (mantle) the energy we produced was free bar the running costs of the plant IE the manpower. No gas or coal to buy and consume every minute of every day. Surely that has to be a better alternative than nuclear with the massive costs involved in not only the production but the waste too. I see it as a win win and unless i am missing something fairly obvious i don't understand why we are not all using this type of energy.
Edited by welshbikerduck on Wednesday 17th December 21:20
Well, there were fewer people about but the major pollution would have been from animal droppings providing breeding grounds for flies (which then crawled all over unprotected food). And human waste was pretty plentiful too.
I had the doubtful priviledge of travelling to London during the 1962/3 smog which I think really was the last. I was going daily to Notting Hill at the time, a far cry from the gentrified area it is today.
You could see a yellow tinge to the fog hanging in the air - not very pleasant.
I had the doubtful priviledge of travelling to London during the 1962/3 smog which I think really was the last. I was going daily to Notting Hill at the time, a far cry from the gentrified area it is today.
You could see a yellow tinge to the fog hanging in the air - not very pleasant.
welshbikerduck said:
IIRC the biggest user of trees was the Royal Navy. It took thousands just to make one ship, whole forrests were used in the construction of ships, which have never been replaced.
True, but it has little to do with CO2 levels. And the population of GB in the 18th Century was probably half what it was today - so that's 30,000,000 fewer people breathing.welshbikerduck said:
Imagine if we built a power plant that once we got to the energy source (mantle) the energy we produced was free bar the running costs of the plant IE the manpower. No gas or coal to buy and consume every minute of every day. Surely that has to be a better alternative than nuclear with the massive costs involved in not only the production but the waste too. I see it as a win win and unless i am missing something fairly obvious i don't understand why we are not all using this type of energy.
I think the obvious bit you're missing is the cost of mounting an expedition to the earth's mantle, and then getting the energy to everyone's house.If we can warm up the planet a bit, then we won't need to heat our houses and things will reach equilibrium. Nature likes equilibriums
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 17th December 21:25
Simpo Two said:
welshbikerduck said:
IIRC the biggest user of trees was the Royal Navy. It took thousands just to make one ship, whole forrests were used in the construction of ships, which have never been replaced.
True, but it has little to do with CO2 levels. And the population of GB in the 18th Century was probably half what it was today - so that's 30,000,000 fewer people breathing.CommanderJameson said:
Just to add a little accuracy (which doesn't negate your point): the population of the UK in the 18th Century was about five and a half million.
Wow, I'm surprised it was that low. And yet we managed to build the biggest Empire the world has ever seen.Pretty amazing when you think about it. But we had balls in those days and weren't afraid of anyone.
Simpo Two said:
CommanderJameson said:
Just to add a little accuracy (which doesn't negate your point): the population of the UK in the 18th Century was about five and a half million.
Wow, I'm surprised it was that low. And yet we managed to build the biggest Empire the world has ever seen.Pretty amazing when you think about it. But we had balls in those days and weren't afraid of anyone.
Simpo Two said:
ATG said:
Centuries ago there was a far smaller population, people were burning timber, not fossil fuels and their energy consumption per person was tiny compared to what we consume in the developed world today.
All true, and there were no cars. But CO2 is only one element of pollution - the thing that made the killer smogs was sulphides and particulates from low grade coal. But then there were no greenies during the industrial revolution - people were too busy making a basic living to ponce about in think-tanks burning up taxpayer's money wondering how best to stop progress.Don't forget that electricty may be clean at point of use, but still has to be made somehow.
The real problem is population and global industrialisation.
CommanderJameson said:
We built the empire on the blood of the conquered and the sweat of our poor, so it wasn't all peachy.
That's a very negative view. The Empire made Britain extremely wealthy - I bet Gordon Brown would fancy a bit of that now. As for the poor, 99% of the population was 'poor'. Going to sea, fighting for King and Country etc offered them a chance to get away from it. Privateer sailors could earn a lifetime's wages from a single captured ship (usually French or Spanish).The key aspect to Empire is not kiling people, but trade. Trade makes employment and wealth.
thinfourth2 said:
CO2 is not a bloody pollutant as it does nothing more then act as plant food and have a very very small greenhouse effect that pales into insignificance when compared to water vapour.
I agree - it's all a question of scale. You could argue that burning fossil fuels is simply recylcing the CO2 callously locked up during the Carboniferous era 
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 17th December 21:46
Simpo Two said:
CommanderJameson said:
We built the empire on the blood of the conquered and the sweat of our poor, so it wasn't all peachy.
That's a very negative view. The Empire made Britain extremely wealthy - I bet Gordon Brown would fancy a bit of that now. As for the poor, 99% of the population was 'poor'. Going to sea, fighting for King and Country etc offered them a chance to get away from it. Privateer sailors could earn a lifetime's wages from a single captured ship (usually French or Spanish).The key aspect to Empire is not kiling people, but trade. Trade makes employment and wealth.
I'm torn on the subject of Empire. On the one hand, there's the extreme violence and injustice used to achieve it; on the other, there's the vast rewards reaped from so doing - in financial, cultural and scientific terms.
There can be little doubt, for example, that India would not be the force that it is had the British Civil Service not foisted an effective bureaucracy on the country. That, and the railways.
CommanderJameson said:
Oh, I agree that it's negative. It's also not unrealistic. Well into the 20th century, the lower classes faced working conditions that were actively very adverse to their health. It wasn't really until after WW2 that some working-class people's jobs started to stop killing them.
Yes, and unfortunately at the other end of the scale they now sit dribbling in rest-homes with no quality of life and the country can't afford to keep them. CommanderJameson said:
I'm torn on the subject of Empire. On the one hand, there's the extreme violence and injustice used to achieve it; on the other, there's the vast rewards reaped from so doing - in financial, cultural and scientific terms.
There can be little doubt, for example, that India would not be the force that it is had the British Civil Service not foisted an effective bureaucracy on the country. That, and the railways.
Yes. You also have to put it in historical context. European countries were highly advanced and the rest of the world was there to be explored/captured/traded with. It was really a 'supermarket sweep'. For example, while we were busy fighting the French, the Dutch grabbed a lot of the East Indies and made a fortune from the spice trade. Get a shipload of nutmeg back and you're sorted for life. Spain conquered - most bloodily - South America, yet no-one seems to mind now. African slaves were sold to white slavers by black people making a quick buck. So I really refuse to enter into the apologist left-wing arse-kicking contest. Britain was in a race for power and it did well. There can be little doubt, for example, that India would not be the force that it is had the British Civil Service not foisted an effective bureaucracy on the country. That, and the railways.
And now we have no power at all (thanks to two world wars - points win to Germany), and are beholden to the Middle East and Russia for fuel, and to the anti-British EU for policy. No wonder things are going to get tougher from now on.
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 17th December 22:03
welshbikerduck said:
IIRC the biggest user of trees was the Royal Navy. It took thousands just to make one ship, whole forrests were used in the construction of ships, which have never been replaced.
I was thinking about this a few days ag (as you do) and even though modern boilers be they gas or electric are more efficient than ones just a few years old i can't help but think that every house up and down the country lighting up boilers can't be the most productive ways of providing heating and hot water.
I would think that an industrial sized boiler or at least several of them dotted around the country would be far better in terms in use of fuel efficiency would be a far better approach. This already happens in Iceland where hot water is piped to the homes in the same way as cold water is. Granted they have the benefit of thermal heating so the cost is much lower, but i don't see why this can't be done here or even all over Europe/America Or at the very least in the towns and cities.
Then i started thinking about this thermal heating they have in Iceland. There they have thermal springs at ground level so tapping the source is fairly straight forward, but the hot mantle in the earth could be used by everyone, the only difference is in how far each country needs to dig to access it. But given that oil is accessed in some deep/difficult places i don't see it being too much of a big step to get to the earths mantle.
Imagine if that was tapped, the energy would be limitless and the cost virtually nothing once it has been tapped and in the grand scheme of things the cost of getting to the source is small.
Imagine if we built a power plant that once we got to the energy source (mantle) the energy we produced was free bar the running costs of the plant IE the manpower. No gas or coal to buy and consume every minute of every day. Surely that has to be a better alternative than nuclear with the massive costs involved in not only the production but the waste too. I see it as a win win and unless i am missing something fairly obvious i don't understand why we are not all using this type of energy.
Your thinking is correct for electricity, but not for gas. Physically moving heat from place to place has very poor efficiency.I was thinking about this a few days ag (as you do) and even though modern boilers be they gas or electric are more efficient than ones just a few years old i can't help but think that every house up and down the country lighting up boilers can't be the most productive ways of providing heating and hot water.
I would think that an industrial sized boiler or at least several of them dotted around the country would be far better in terms in use of fuel efficiency would be a far better approach. This already happens in Iceland where hot water is piped to the homes in the same way as cold water is. Granted they have the benefit of thermal heating so the cost is much lower, but i don't see why this can't be done here or even all over Europe/America Or at the very least in the towns and cities.
Then i started thinking about this thermal heating they have in Iceland. There they have thermal springs at ground level so tapping the source is fairly straight forward, but the hot mantle in the earth could be used by everyone, the only difference is in how far each country needs to dig to access it. But given that oil is accessed in some deep/difficult places i don't see it being too much of a big step to get to the earths mantle.
Imagine if that was tapped, the energy would be limitless and the cost virtually nothing once it has been tapped and in the grand scheme of things the cost of getting to the source is small.
Imagine if we built a power plant that once we got to the energy source (mantle) the energy we produced was free bar the running costs of the plant IE the manpower. No gas or coal to buy and consume every minute of every day. Surely that has to be a better alternative than nuclear with the massive costs involved in not only the production but the waste too. I see it as a win win and unless i am missing something fairly obvious i don't understand why we are not all using this type of energy.
Edited by welshbikerduck on Wednesday 17th December 21:20
CHP (combined heat and power) does work, and there are a number of notable implementations. The one that comes most readily to mind is here in the UK where vast greenhouses grow tomatoes all year round from the waste heat from a conventional electricity power station. The thing with CHP is that it only works well in the immediate locale of the power station.
Geothermal energy is an excellent source of energy, but, it's very very expensive unless you live in iceland.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 18th December 12:33
A few hundred years ago the country was covered in trees North-South East-West, and global deforestation was only caused by natural fires not slash and burn, so even if there was a lot of pollution it was far more easily absorbed naturally.
Also on Nov 5th most of the fires have plastic and rubber content that causes thicker smoke, stuff that simply didnt exist in olden days.
Also on Nov 5th most of the fires have plastic and rubber content that causes thicker smoke, stuff that simply didnt exist in olden days.
Edited by Tony*T3 on Thursday 18th December 12:41
thinfourth2 said:
CO2 is not a bloody pollutant as it does nothing more then act as plant food and have a very very small greenhouse effect that pales into insignificance when compared to water vapour.
+1 
To which I would add that cloud cover (=water vapour) is one of the least understood aspects of climatology (from what I read, anyway); even the IPCC is uncertain and there is evidence that the so-called 'iris effect' would have a negative effect on temperature increase, possibly by as much as 75%.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff