If Stormont Live can defy the Northern Ireland Environment Minster, so can we.. [Let's see him put a 'postcode lockout' on Slugger - Ed]. Adds Here’s a related post on some of those sceptical “international scientists”. And On misleading arguments.
As part of NICVA’s series of masterclasses from its Centre for Economic Empowerment project, there was a morning seminar on the topic of the “creative class” (as popularised by Richard Florida) and its applicability to Northern Ireland. The agenda was to: Explain Richard Florida’s idea of the “creative class” and the link between economic outcomes [...] read our review »
Somehow I escaped reading this essential school text, with its story of racism in 1930s American South. Living in Northern Ireland, I draw parallels with sectarianism, with its similar bigotry and prejudice. To Kill a Mockingbird was part of a Unite Against Hate campaign event at Parliament Buildings in Northern Ireland, which I’ve written [...] read our review »
Short answer: very little, other than he enjoyed the environs of Hillsborough Castle, enjoyed working with the local politicians, and has Gerry Adams to thank for Bobby his dog. Peter Mandelson’s book The Third Man has captured media headlines in recent weeks as the Times serialised the most juicy bits. But what did he have [...] read our review »
Hi Circles, there are two sides to every story, after all. Just trying to add a little balance and perspective.
Looks like some reinforcements are on the way to bolster Sammy’s courageous stand against the foes of light and truth.:) Catholics to the rescue, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000471.shtml
Still in BF? Better get those Allemands to build some new barrages to defend Ouaga from the floods when the ice caps melt! Predicted for some time after the next ice age.
Hi Michael,
“Give us an example of a common assertion from the climate change lobby that is ‘complete balls’. I want you, and people like Sammy Wilson, to explain your particular objection by citing examples where previously accepted scientific evidence has been debunked, thus becoming ‘balls’.”
I’ll take that challenge. The most obvious is that temp is related to CO2 concentrations. Err, except that they aren’t at all. For example, before the carboniferous era when lots of coal seams were laid down there were far higher concentrations of CO2 – as high as 7,000ppm during the Cambrian period. About 450 million years ago temp average global temp was about 12C despite CO2 concentrations of 4,400ppm. Global temps tend to swing between 12C and 20C and it’s fek all to do with CO2.
In late 2007 McIntyre discovered GISS (NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) had been systematically reporting overly warm U.S. temperatures. McIntyre caused a sensation in late 2007 when he proved NASA had been unjustifiably adding a significant 0.l5º Celsius to its U.S. temperature reports since the year 2000. As a result of McIntyre’s research, scientists discovered 2006 was not the warmest year in U.S. history, as GISS had very publicly claimed. In fact, 1934 was the warmest year, and 2006 fell to a distant fourth. Only four of the top 11 warmest years have occurred since 1954, according to the corrected data. Since McIntyre discovered GISS’s error and similar statistical errors in prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann’s famous 1998 “hockey stick” graph purporting to show more rapid global warming than has in fact occurred, GISS scientists and their allies who claim humans are causing a global warming crisis have been remarkably unwilling to share their data with McIntyre.
Yet you still have people mentioning the hockey stick. Even on this thread FFS!
Might I also mention something about electrical equipment. Switching electronics on and off causing them to heat and then cool and thus causes them to expand and contract. This is a major cause of breakages. So, if you have expensive equipment I wouldn’t worry about the cost of a few pence keeping it at a constant temp. Replacing the device, both in terms of money or energy needed to make a new device, will be much more costly.
On the precautionary principle – does that mean we should all also be Christians, Jewish, Muslims, Satanists, etc, etc? Just in case?
>>Might I also mention something about electrical equipment. Switching electronics on and off causing them to heat and then cool and thus causes them to expand and contract. This is a major cause of breakages. So, if you have expensive equipment I wouldn’t worry about the cost of a few pence keeping it at a constant temp. Replacing the device, both in terms of money or energy needed to make a new device, will be much more costly.< <
That's just rubbish. From your post I take it you aren't an electronic engineer.
Overheating is actually one of the major challenges with reducing the size of electronic components. Keeping the components warm isn't an issue. Also you might notice a little fan noise in some of your electronics. That's actually a fan. Being a mechanical part it's prone to wearing out if left running for too long.
I expect you'll leave your car on tonight just in case you can't start it tomorrow. You wouldn't want the parts to contract and expand afterall.
This statement doesn't give me much confidence in the earlier part of your post.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4620350.stm
And the impact of that change:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/nasa-weather-er.html
Congal Claen,
Thanks for the reply, this is more like the responce that would actually add to some meaningful discussion. However, i have no idea where you’re getting your information from. So like Gram i cant place a whole lot of confidence in it. There is one easy way to correct that though!
Im not being pedantic here, it just that in an interview with Jim Fitzpatrick (I think!) last year, Sammy Wilson exposed some of where he was getting the ‘info’ that supported his disbelief in anthropomorphic climate change. It was all very conspiracy theory-esque to say the least, much like the very ‘credible’ websites linked to by 6cp earlier in this thread.
With regards to the constant switching on and off of electronic appliances, an article last month (or month before) in New Scientist magazine stated that the constant switching on and off of energy saving lights can reduce their lifespan by up to 70%, so this might also apply to other electrical devices. I dont know!
Grassy:
When asked why they tink man-made emissions of CO2 are responsible, they say, all of them, that they cannot find any other credible reason for late 20th century warming, so that’s what it must be.
You sound like the kind of guy HBOS would hire as their risk manager.
This is the way science works; it’s the theory that best fits the available facts. I think it’s mad to ignore it, especially if just because the bandwagon jumpers and other wankers are abusing it.
kensei:
Which is true at the moment, but hybrid, hydrogen and electric vehicles have the potential to be substantially greener than the best petrol or diesel engines and offer lots of other potential advantages.
For hybrids, I don’t really see how, not without significant improvements in battery technology, and even though their combustion engine design is a lot more efficient it’s still pants compared with an electric motor.
I don’t doubt that the day will come, but if you’re going to put an improved super-battery in a car, you’re as well just using electricity to top it up. I think electric cars are the future and the Tesla Roadster will be seen as a real pioneer in 20 years time.
I don’t get the hydrogen thing. Hydrogen/hydrogen cells are a battery technology. Making hydrogen requires large amounts of energy. The dangers of storing a high-explosive gas at very high pressure aside, it will be useful only if other battery technology fails to meet the distance and longevity requirements that liquid fuels now do.
Which one or mix coems out on top is still in flux. To improve the vehicles and find the answer, they need a shedload of money chucked at them.
Agreed, and that’s where the government should be putting the grants and tax incentives. The government does also have incentives to encourage the use of gas as a fuel, which is not a bad idea, but gas supplies are not stable.
It’s daft as a brush right now that the government are not incentivising diesel cars more than they are. By driving a diesel you’re getting another 15-25% right there. The government needs to make this point by providing VED discounts for diesel vehicles.
Quite content for others to spend shedloads on them, and encourage the government to spend money on helping develop them if not actually directly raise the price fo petrol to force it.
Agreed. Going by the number of cars I see on the M2 each morning with only one person inside, fuel sold for domestic transport purposes is clearly still far too cheap. The sad thing is that the politician who says this will find his political career over in a shot.
Shuttingthings off standby isn’t going to do a huge amount. But Standby on TV for a year is according to CS, one car journey. What about the DVD player? Two. Sky? Three. Mobile Charging? Four Wii? Five. It might add up to a few percent which si not world changing but appreciable.
In the face of a world where you have two-car households, both vehicles being used by two individuals driving to the city centre, such miniscule savings feel like a complete waste of time. There is no point in me turning off my standby devices and feeling good about not wasting things when my neighbour drives his SUV to the local shop every day rather than doing the 5-minute walk. Talking about saving waste while pointedly refusing to address the massive sources of waste that go unchecked every day is ridiculous. And that’s what this is all about – talking about doing something while not actually doing anything.
Besides, I’m not sure that the entire country leaves all their devices on standby anyway. My parents always switch everything off and pull the plug out, most likely due to those safety ads about fire hazards we all remember from the early 1980s, rather than any energy conservation concerns.
Which is true at the moment, but hybrid, hydrogen and electric vehicles have the potential to be substantially greener than the best petrol or diesel engines and offer lots of other potential advantages.
Only if the means of producing the hydrogen or battery and generating the electricity to be stored in the hydrogen or battery is itself clean and efficient (remember, e.g., that extracting hydrogen from seawater is energy intensive). That means more investment in non-carbon producing energy and, bluntly, that means nuclear.
At the minute, while I’m glad that battery cars are being sort of field tested through the Prius, in practical terms it’s still an expensive status symbol, often owned by people who live in big houses, often in rural areas and travel lots by air. It isn’t a significant contribution to CO2 production being reduced and won’t be for a long time.
In principle, Sammy, you do have economies of scale. Fossil-fuel power stations do not run efficiently overnight when they are operating on low loads (that is why you have Economy 7 and NIE Powershift, etc). If people had electric cars and consistently charged them overnight, it would be drastically more efficient than a combustion engine, remembering that an electric motor is a lot more efficient than a combustion engine.
But to do it on a national scale, where you would have buses and trains as well as cars on electricity, nuclear would be the way to go. And frankly, once you do that, there should be very little reason to burn fossil fuel again as a principal energy source.
FIRE SAMMY WILSON
Sign the Green Party petition for the removal of Sammy Wilson as Minister for Environment.
Check out http://www.greenpartyni.org and follow the link
http://www.petitiononline.com/bt43xx/petition.html
If you don’t want to sign – just read the comments. The people of Northern Ireland are saying NO to Sammy Wilson.
Greens, all you guys are doing is feeding Sammy’s publicity crusade. Don’t think that people won’t notice that you seem to think this is more important than, say, Ruane’s mess over selection.
Kensei
Its about as sensible as some of the arguments I have seen here support bad science and was deliberately posted to make just that point. IF you dont agree then just read your won post.
“Standby on TV for a year is according to CS, one car journey. ”
Where to? That’s just a meaningless figure / statement.
“We’ll not get anywhere if we can exist in a steady state before it’s too late.”
Too late for what? The Second Coming? Global Fireball? Seas rising 10m? Polar bears drown? All of this?
Have a look at this and see if you find any similarities to some of the Global Warming advocates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult
For hybrids, I don’t really see how, not without significant improvements in battery technology, and even though their combustion engine design is a lot more efficient it’s still pants compared with an electric motor.
The point being we want significant improvements in….. oh, right, what I said earlier.
I don’t doubt that the day will come, but if you’re going to put an improved super-battery in a car, you’re as well just using electricity to top it up. I think electric cars are the future and the Tesla Roadster will be seen as a real pioneer in 20 years time.
My money is on hydrogen. I can’t see batteries becoming good enough quickly enough to make them realistic in the time hydrogen gets there. Sure it is dangerous, but so is petrol.
That’s the thing though — we are genuinely in flux.
In the face of a world where you have two-car households, both vehicles being used by two individuals driving to the city centre, such miniscule savings feel like a complete waste of time. There is no point in me turning off my standby devices and feeling good about not wasting things when my neighbour drives his SUV to the local shop every day rather than doing the 5-minute walk. Talking about saving waste while pointedly refusing to address the massive sources of waste that go unchecked every day is ridiculous. And that’s what this is all about – talking about doing something while not actually doing anything.
We need to more seriously tackle the big things, and both Labour and the Tories talk green but then use it merely as an excuse to increase revenues which is a bollocks. But its relatively cheap, easy to do and saves money. If it even knocks 1% CO2 consumption off our total then that is 1% we don’t have to find elsewhere.
Sammy
Only if the means of producing the hydrogen or battery and generating the electricity to be stored in the hydrogen or battery is itself clean and efficient (remember, e.g., that extracting hydrogen from seawater is energy intensive). That means more investment in non-carbon producing energy and, bluntly, that means nuclear.
Extracting hydrogen form seawater is currently energy intensive. If it looks like the winner, you can bet insane amount of money will go into finding ways of getting the job done at less cost.
In any case, it is an advantage in itself to be able to move from a single source of power to variable sources. I’m also not entirely convinced by nuclear; they are incredibly expensive to build for a start and not only mean more nuclear material floating about, but a single attack could wipe out an appreciable amount of profit the plant is ever likely to make. Renewables are getting cheaper, and when we get out of this mess the Oil price is going way back up in the long term. I’d prefer to see investment made in better transmission networks, microgeneration, renewables and a proper shot at fusion but I accpet you are probably not getting away without nuclear.
At the minute, while I’m glad that battery cars are being sort of field tested through the Prius, in practical terms it’s still an expensive status symbol, often owned by people who live in big houses, often in rural areas and travel lots by air. It isn’t a significant contribution to CO2 production being reduced and won’t be for a long time.
A shift from petrol in cars would make a huge difference in CO2 emissions. It also means we are less worried about Russia switching off the gas, and less worried about meddling in the Middle East. It’s a win-win.
My money is on hydrogen. I can’t see batteries becoming good enough quickly enough to make them realistic in the time hydrogen gets there. Sure it is dangerous, but so is petrol.
Hydrogen is a lot more dangerous than petrol. It’s a lot less stable, and it’s under pressure as well. My money is on electric, but we’ll see in a decade or so
You have to look at how far batteries have come in the past 15 years. The Tesla Roadster, as you probably know, is built on the innovations used to create laptop and mobile phone batteries.
We need to more seriously tackle the big things, and both Labour and the Tories talk green but then use it merely as an excuse to increase revenues which is a bollocks. But its relatively cheap, easy to do and saves money. If it even knocks 1% CO2 consumption off our total then that is 1% we don’t have to find elsewhere.
I doubt that saving on standby would even knock 1% off. It’s an almost microscopic proportion of our total energy consumption. It’s probably >1% of a household’s electricity (assuming that household has 4-5 devices that it can turn off) usage, but if that household has a car and uses it, it’s going to be <1% of the total energy usage. Look at all those heavy industries that use massive gobs of electricity, like Montupet up in Dunmurray for their aluminium processing/manufacturing. These guys are using thousands of kWh per day. The benefit of not using standby quickly descends into statistical noise when you look at the electricity usage by both households and businesses right across the country.
Extracting hydrogen form seawater is currently energy intensive. If it looks like the winner, you can bet insane amount of money will go into finding ways of getting the job done at less cost.
I wouldn’t feel safe betting on that. Fundamentally to get hydrogen atoms out of a water molecule you need a lot of energy. That won’t change. There may be innovations to make the process more efficient, but you can’t get away from this fundamental fact. The only other way is to find a source of hydrogen other than water – some other hydrogen compound; or to have a plant that produces lots of energy very cheaply and make the hydrogen right there so that you avoid transmission or conversion losses.
A shift from petrol in cars would make a huge difference in CO2 emissions. It also means we are less worried about Russia switching off the gas, and less worried about meddling in the Middle East. It’s a win-win.
I agree with this, assuming that by shifting away from petrol you mean diesel. As I said earlier, if you’re going to make batteries really good, why then bother with hybrid when you can just have electric ?
“or hybrid cars (which aren’t that efficient or earth-friendly at all compared with a good diesel engine)”
talking of hybrid cars, has anyone seen the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? it has a touch of the michael moore dramatics but is very interesting. basically general motors built an excellent electric car called the EV1 in the late 90s. lithium ion batteries would have given it a 300 mile range but big oil companies had it killed off to protect their market.
the environment is screwed until we’ve burnt off the last drop of oil…
Thanks for that link to the catholic herald 6cp – reminds me that the pope in his infallibility recently alerted the world to the equal dangers of gay mariage and environmental catastrophe(amongst other really insightful remarks of late). It also reminded me of that great tradition in the catholic church of recognising scientific progress – like the time they gave Galileo that big prize and considered naming a church after Darwin
The best line in the article was “Green ideology was so incompatible with Christian beliefs that calls from many bishops and priests for the “greening of the Church” were “misguided”.” Reminds me of that bible quote (if I may paraphrase) “That God so loved the world he said “There you go my children, here are the keys to the planet, feel free to drive it at top speed and wrap it round an interstellar lamp-post when you’re done”.”
I’m in Niger now – funnily enough since the 60′s there has been a steady decrease in rainfall here with individual rainfall events now much more intense. Soil erosion increasing, productive agricultural land getting less, population doubling every 11 years that kind of thing. But now I’ve read that article I know now its nothing to worry about – I should be more concerned about the “spiritual values” of the people.
Hi Michael,
Here’s the graph I was referring to earlier…
I’m a bit worried about your use of whether a website is ‘credible’
or not. Surely, it’s either right or wrong?
Hi Gram,
My primary degree was in Physics and I can assure you most materials do expand and contract when heated and cooled and it causes breakages. BTW, I never said you should try and keep electronics warm. I said you should try and keep them at a constant temp. Which incidentally is what that fan is attempting to do that you mentioned.
Sorry Michael,
ballixed that up. Here it is…
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264
I doubt that saving on standby would even knock 1% off. It’s an almost microscopic proportion of our total energy consumption. It’s probably >1% of a household’s electricity (assuming that household has 4-5 devices that it can turn off) usage, but if that household has a car and uses it, it’s going to be <1% of the total energy usage.
It’s not simply the standby though; it’s washing at lower temptatures, turning your stat down a degree or two, using low ebnergy light bulbs that collectively add up. It is part of a unified message.
This article gives Irish household 25% of CO2 usage:
http://www.sei.ie/News_Events/Press_Releases/SEI_Report_Shows_Average_Irish_Household_Emitting_8_1_Tonnes_of_CO2.html
You reckon you couldn’t get a few percent off that?
I wouldn’t feel safe betting on that. Fundamentally to get hydrogen atoms out of a water molecule you need a lot of energy. That won’t change. There may be innovations to make the process more efficient, but you can’t get away from this fundamental fact.
Er – catalysts? Genetically engineered bacteria to produce hydrogen as a byproduct? There are a number of ways to skin that particular cat. We don’t particularly care where the hydogen comes form. I’d bet a million quid we’d produce innovations that result in economies of scale. Whether it’s enough, I don’t know.
And if we manage to get fusion, we’d have insane amounts of energy anyway.
I agree with this, assuming that by shifting away from petrol you mean diesel. As I said earlier, if you’re going to make batteries really good, why then bother with hybrid when you can just have electric ?
The problem with batteries is that they take a long time to charge in comparison with the time it takes to fill the tank, and even decent range may not be enough for long journeys. So I can’t see them working at the moment without a fallback.
Hi Michael,
Here’s a link that may be of some interest…
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Here’s a link giving tree ring data from around the world…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html
I’m afraid you’ll have to do the work yourelf. I’ve graphed the tree rings from Shane’s Castle (as I reckoned it probably hasn’t changed much over the centuries) and I found no trace of any warming. I also graphed rings from other parts of the world – same result.
Hi Kensei,
Charge time is indeed a problem. Why not have universal transferrable batteries that can be exchanged at filling stations? That way the public would just be doing what they currently do…
“And if we manage to get fusion, we’d have insane amounts of energy anyway.”
We don’t need fusion…existing nuclear technology will do
Congal Claen
Thanks for the links, i’ll absolutely give them a look over later. Ironically I’m off to a lecture about sustainability by a guy from Grimshaw’s. *ahem*
The credibility thing was about being able to see who produced the data and how. A lot of the debunkers that i’ve come into contact with, get their sources from random ‘conspiracy’ websites produced by some guy in his basement in New Mexico. As someone with next to no expert knowledge regarding climate change I have to take the risk and place greater weight on a document that i know has been peer reviewed, like the IPCC reports.
The debate reminds me very much of the evolution debate. I’ve looked seriously at the counter arguments, all of which hold no weight. I get the uneasy feeling that counter arguments for climate change (man made) may be the same. But I’m fully open to be convinced, just not through said websites.
Here’s a previous post on some of those sceptical “international scientists”.
Hi Michael,
One thing to remember is that the real worth of science is to be able to make predictions about the future based on your past observations. Note what either side are saying about their predictions for the future. Then see how that turns out. In my opinion the sceptics seem to be onto something with the sun argument as they were predicting cooling which seems to be occuring. Whereas the IPCC were predicting burn baby, burn and appear to have been caught out on the present cooling.
There was a guy in England (GW believer) who was offering bets of £10,000 of his own money as to whether it would be hotter or cooler in the future with. This was his way of trying to get sceptics to put their money where mouth was. However, 2 Russian scientists have taken him up on his bet and he hasn’t been offering it any longer. Can’t remember his name tho…
Hi Pete,
Would it not be better to rubbish the message rather than the messenger?
For example, it would be easy to suggest that Sir Nicholas Stern who wrote the Stern report which is held up as an excellent document by the GW lobby can’t be much of an economist considering he was an economic advisor to the government in the run up to the biggest housing bubble in our history and failed to notice it. So why would you listen to him on something outside his area?
Hi Pete,
Back to the actual argument…
Here’s a link to a graph showing CO2 concentrations over millions of years together with temp…
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264
Do you accept that this is correct? If not where are the errors?
Here is another link, with the x axis reversed…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
How can you believe temp is related to CO2?
Genetically engineered bacteria to produce hydrogen as a byproduct?
That’s an interesting thought and a long way from becoming reality, if it ever does, but you know the greenies would object to that too, as GM Is The Spawn Of Satan. Un environmentalist est un homme qui trouve une probleme pour tous les solutions.
It’s not simply the standby though; it’s washing at lower temptatures, turning your stat down a degree or two, using low ebnergy light bulbs that collectively add up. It is part of a unified message.
This ad focussed on standby.
Washing at lower temperatures comes with drawbacks; the machine can get mouldy.
But I’d like to see the calculations behind some of the other proposals to save energy. My heating controls are set to a comfortable level (during the winter I wear a jumper in the house, and it’s toasty). If I turn it any lower it will be too cold.
I see the lightbulbs thing as a bit of a red herring as well. Yes, the low-energy ones do clearly use 20% of the energy of a normal candescent bulb (at the expense of the nasty chemicals and compounds that go into making them). However, again, lightbulbs are not a significant proportion of a busy household’s energy usage. Cooking, washing, and anything that heats anything use the vast majority of the energy in your house; and when you commute with a car you’re driving a machine which burns up 75% of the energy which goes into it and farts it out the exhaust. At best, improving these areas (and it should be done) will make no more than a small dent in our energy usage/carbon footprint.
Er – catalysts? Genetically engineered bacteria to produce hydrogen as a byproduct? There are a number of ways to skin that particular cat. We don’t particularly care where the hydogen comes form. I’d bet a million quid we’d produce innovations that result in economies of scale. Whether it’s enough, I don’t know.
I ain’t a chemist, but no matter what you do you can’t genetically engineer bacteria to break the laws of physics, since produce hydrogen from water requires a fixed and well-understood amount of energy.
And if we manage to get fusion, we’d have insane amounts of energy anyway.
Agreed, I think it is a major crime that governments are not prioritizing funding for the ITER project. The initial version will require tritium (=quite, but not very, radioactive) which if we’re lucky we’ll see in our lifetimes. I don’t believe anyone currently alive will live to see D-D fusion reactors. But I live in hope.
But if we’re generating power with fusion reactors, why bother with hydrogen when we can just go straight to electricity ? It’s a lot safer and more versatile, and it doesn’t blow up.
The problem with batteries is that they take a long time to charge in comparison with the time it takes to fill the tank, and even decent range may not be enough for long journeys. So I can’t see them working at the moment without a fallback.
You’re right that batteries are not likely, in the immediate future, to be able to be fast charged, which rules them out for long-distance use. However, they’ll work just fine for commuting purposes, where the car would be charged overnight. If they can come up with a modular concept where you can plop in a new battery and swap out your discharged one, that might also work, but I agree that this is unwieldy compared with being able to fill the tank.
cynic:
We don’t need fusion…existing nuclear technology will do
We absolutely do need fusion. Existing nuclear technology will do, but only for a couple of hundred years at best (and that’s assuming some new technologies which are reasonably likely but haven’t been invented yet). Fusion power on a commodity scale will be significantly cheaper than fission, and it won’t have the waste problem or the terrorist threat.
We absolutely do need fusion.
Especially if we want to move from about 30% of the people on the planet having a decent standard of living to as near to 100% as practicable. I know I do.
There’s a lot of really good information about nuclear power technologies on Wikipedia. ITER is pretty incredible when you look at the scale of energy production involved. By burning 0.5g of fuel, it will (for 1000 seconds) produce 500MW which is the same as the peak operating output power of Kilroot power station.
So that’s 45g of fuel for a full day, or 16kg for a year. Compare that with the tonnes of coal or oil kilroot uses in one day (which it turns into tonnes of ash and soot..)