Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
TransverseTight said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
More utter garbage from a green cobblers insider. Your cost assumptions are way off/screwed as usual, most people won't get payback in their lifetime. Leaving that aside, it's very bad for people and structures to be altered/built like you suggest. Toxic even.
Are you for real? I've not mentioned which products, the fixing method, and technical details about dewpoints and vapour barriers and you are already calling me out. Talk about asumptions.Insider? Did you read my post about what I actually do for a living a page or two back?
I don't work in the industry but thoroughly research what looks like a good idea before spending my own money.
Once bitten...
Andy Zarse said:
That Mr Abbott must be a bloody fool...
Two independent reports, from the Climate Council and the Climate Institute, clearly showing the pain caused by snouts being removed from the big green trough
ETA the link, which is always useful to help folk understand the point you're making...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-29982908
As I recall Mr. Flannery's snout (see linked article) was one that had the trough removed very early in Abbott's tenure. No surprise that he should be so keen to fight back. Always easier when one is a Single Issue Fanatic attempting to outsmart someone with a broader brief.Two independent reports, from the Climate Council and the Climate Institute, clearly showing the pain caused by snouts being removed from the big green trough
ETA the link, which is always useful to help folk understand the point you're making...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-29982908
Britain Plans Sovereign Shale Fund To Boost Northern England As Green-Red Alliance Says No To Fracking
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is supporting plans to set up a sovereign wealth fund for the North of England using shale gas revenue. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Osborne said: “There’s a very interesting idea which we want to explore, which is whether you could create a sovereign wealth fund for the money that comes from the shale gas that we’re going to be pulling out of the ground, particularly in the north of England. That’s a way of making sure this money is not squandered on day-to-day spending, but invested in the long-term economic health of the North of England to create jobs and investment there."
Yorkshire Post, 09 November 2014
The natural assets of a country are, in part, infinite – the sunshine, rain, wind or wave power. But others are finite, for example the coal that powered Britain’s industrial revolution and for a time made this country the workshop of the world. Today the House of Lords will debate an amendment I have proposed to the Infrastructure Bill that will give the Government powers to establish a sovereign wealth fund to receive part of the one-off revenues that may result from the extraction of shale gas.
Lord Hodgson, The Daily Telegraph, 10 November 2014
The UK's House of Lords is set to consider plans to establish a sovereign wealth fund for revenues raised from future sales of shale gas. Britain's upper house will consider the proposal, revealed by the government over the weekend, during a session in London on Monday (10 November). "With the sovereign wealth fund everyone in the community will benefit, adding to known wider benefits of shale, such as increased tax revenues, growth and jobs," said British Energy Minister Matthew Hancock in a statement.
Nigel Wilson, International Business Times, 10 November 2014
The London Assembly's environment committee has launched a scathing attack on Mayor Boris Johnson, accusing him of taking a "regressive" approach to London's environmental challenges and rejecting his calls for fracking in the capital. The motion, proposed by Labour Assembly Member Murad Qureshi, also stated that it did not support any fracking activities within Greater London. The Committee said Johnson's support of fracking and criticism of renewable energy was "symbolic of his regressive approach to London's environmental challenges".
Jessica Shankleman, Business Green, 10 November 2014
Red Red Cooperation Leaves EU And Obama Searching For Political Viagra
The leaders of China and Russia signed agreements Sunday to boost energy cooperation, including an understanding to develop a second major route to supply the Chinese side with Russian gas following an initial $400 billion deal in May. The cooperation with China gives Russia a boost at a time when Washington and the European Union have imposed sanctions against Moscow and grown increasingly wary of the Kremlin because of the crisis in Ukraine.
Associated Press, 09 November 2014
Eastern Europe Says 'Non' To The Team & The Cause
Poland and other eastern Europe countries have categorically rejected the target put forward by the world’s climate scientists to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2100 to avoid dangerous global warming, leaked documents show.
Arthur Neslen, The Guardian, 07 November 2014
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is supporting plans to set up a sovereign wealth fund for the North of England using shale gas revenue. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Osborne said: “There’s a very interesting idea which we want to explore, which is whether you could create a sovereign wealth fund for the money that comes from the shale gas that we’re going to be pulling out of the ground, particularly in the north of England. That’s a way of making sure this money is not squandered on day-to-day spending, but invested in the long-term economic health of the North of England to create jobs and investment there."
Yorkshire Post, 09 November 2014
The natural assets of a country are, in part, infinite – the sunshine, rain, wind or wave power. But others are finite, for example the coal that powered Britain’s industrial revolution and for a time made this country the workshop of the world. Today the House of Lords will debate an amendment I have proposed to the Infrastructure Bill that will give the Government powers to establish a sovereign wealth fund to receive part of the one-off revenues that may result from the extraction of shale gas.
Lord Hodgson, The Daily Telegraph, 10 November 2014
The UK's House of Lords is set to consider plans to establish a sovereign wealth fund for revenues raised from future sales of shale gas. Britain's upper house will consider the proposal, revealed by the government over the weekend, during a session in London on Monday (10 November). "With the sovereign wealth fund everyone in the community will benefit, adding to known wider benefits of shale, such as increased tax revenues, growth and jobs," said British Energy Minister Matthew Hancock in a statement.
Nigel Wilson, International Business Times, 10 November 2014
The London Assembly's environment committee has launched a scathing attack on Mayor Boris Johnson, accusing him of taking a "regressive" approach to London's environmental challenges and rejecting his calls for fracking in the capital. The motion, proposed by Labour Assembly Member Murad Qureshi, also stated that it did not support any fracking activities within Greater London. The Committee said Johnson's support of fracking and criticism of renewable energy was "symbolic of his regressive approach to London's environmental challenges".
Jessica Shankleman, Business Green, 10 November 2014
Red Red Cooperation Leaves EU And Obama Searching For Political Viagra
The leaders of China and Russia signed agreements Sunday to boost energy cooperation, including an understanding to develop a second major route to supply the Chinese side with Russian gas following an initial $400 billion deal in May. The cooperation with China gives Russia a boost at a time when Washington and the European Union have imposed sanctions against Moscow and grown increasingly wary of the Kremlin because of the crisis in Ukraine.
Associated Press, 09 November 2014
Eastern Europe Says 'Non' To The Team & The Cause
Poland and other eastern Europe countries have categorically rejected the target put forward by the world’s climate scientists to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2100 to avoid dangerous global warming, leaked documents show.
Arthur Neslen, The Guardian, 07 November 2014
mybrainhurts said:
TransverseTight said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
More utter garbage from a green cobblers insider. Your cost assumptions are way off/screwed as usual, most people won't get payback in their lifetime. Leaving that aside, it's very bad for people and structures to be altered/built like you suggest. Toxic even.
Are you for real? I've not mentioned which products, the fixing method, and technical details about dewpoints and vapour barriers and you are already calling me out. Talk about asumptions.Insider? Did you read my post about what I actually do for a living a page or two back?
I don't work in the industry but thoroughly research what looks like a good idea before spending my own money.
Once bitten...
Was on Radio 4, so must be true.
Note for the diary. Look back in February 2015 and see if winter really is windier and wetter as the Met Office predicts.
motco said:
Note for the diary. Look back in February 2015 and see if winter really is windier and wetter as the Met Office predicts.
Good spot! Even with their new £97m soopadoopacomputer switched on, the odds must now be in favour of a calm dry winter that's ideal for windymills 
The world's largest bird incinerator complex is facing financial trouble. The massive solar plant only went live in February this year, but despite being in the Mojave desert, it has only generated a quarter of the energy they said it would. So of course they're using natural gas to fire the auxiliary generators to maintain output. Yay, so green!
Now they're trying to get a $539 million federal grant to help pay off part of a $1.6 billion federal loan they received to build the facility in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpa...
Now they're trying to get a $539 million federal grant to help pay off part of a $1.6 billion federal loan they received to build the facility in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpa...
Beati Dogu said:
Now they're trying to get a $539 million federal grant to help pay off part of a $1.6 billion federal loan they received to build the facility in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpa...
Not quite, at least the way I read it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpa...
the $1.6 billion was a loan guarantee so it seems what they are really looking for is a real loan to cover the revenue shortfall.
Or they are just following the usual approach of attracting more dosh in 3 or 4 tranches and troughing on it before going belly up at the expense of some tax payers. I would have thought it would be pocket money to Google .... but then you never know just how well the sand under the larger companies has been stabilised before they start to build.
Mr GrimNasty said:
TransverseTight said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
More utter garbage from a green cobblers insider. Your cost assumptions are way off/screwed as usual, most people won't get payback in their lifetime. Leaving that aside, it's very bad for people and structures to be altered/built like you suggest. Toxic even.
Are you for real? I've not mentioned which products, the fixing method, and technical details about dewpoints and vapour barriers and you are already calling me out. Talk about asumptions.Insider? Did you read my post about what I actually do for a living a page or two back?
I don't work in the industry but thoroughly research what looks like a good idea before spending my own money.
Once bitten...
Cavity fill should only be fitted to suitable houses. Personally I'd avoid fibre and stick to beads, it's less likely to wick damp across the cavity, les likely to get caught on wall ties when it's being blown in and leave gaps, and it won't slump over time leading to cold spots at the top of walls. If you live in the west of the country you would want to check the state of your walls before doing any type of cavity fill and conider changing the external wall covering, for example adding a cladding as a rain barrier if it won't mess up the look of the house. If you have pebble dash it may even improve it.
One problem with cavities not often discussed is the air gap acting as a channel for wind to come and suck and blow all the heat out your house via electric outlets and plumbing points etc. My previous house built in the 1960s had a bath panel that used to blow off in strong gusts. It was actually colder in windy wather than when it was minus 8. We had beads installed and the bills came down as expected. I've also got plots of the repsonse times of the heating system before and after the installation using a temp/humidity sensor borrowed from my now ex-wife who works in museums. Before the install the temp used to drop to 12 degrees over night and humidity would hit 80%. After it was 17 degrees and 60%. Less heat loss, less chance of condensation and the bath panel stopped blowing off. Though I did find about a cupfull of beads that has escaped under the bath from when it was installed. The house would get back up to 20 degrees in 1/2 an hour instead of 1 hour when the heating kicked in at 6am.
Cavity fill is known to have payback in 2-3 years as 1/3 of your heat heads out the walls. Yes there are risks, but the number of people who have it with no problems doesn't make good stories in the media.
On the same note... big problems with houses built in the 1980s when wet plastering went out of fashion and board and battens came in. Although the building regs lead to 100mm cavities with 50mm insulation, there's an air gap down the back of the plasterboard, which often means tyou are living in a plaster board tent, inside a tea cosy. Check the tops of the rooms for damp, beacuse if the loft insulation hasn't been fitted properly, and the boards haven';t been sealed at the top, the wind will get down from the attic,
All this from me responding to the point about people rationing their heating!?
There's a lot of misconception about damp and condensation. Insulation reduces the risk of condensation as it keep in heat, which keeps the dew point higher and hence the water carrying capacity of the air. The other ways to reduce it are keeping lids on saucepands and keeping kitchen and bathroom doors shut and using extractors. I mentioned using MVHR earlier. Once you get a house aritight, it still needs ventilating. But using heat recovery captures 80% of the heat in the outgoing extract air, rathren then replacing nice warm air you are sucking out, with freezing air from somewhere else.
A typical house in the UK has enough cracks, gaps and holes that if you added them up, they'd be the same as a 1m2 hole in the wall. Dealing with them is pretty hard work on an existing house, best done if it is unoccupied on a total refurb job.
PS Grim... lay off the ad-homs. They are mildly annonying but funny as they make your forum name suit you. Are you just playing a character or a share holder in british gas/edf etc?
I'll reiterate I don't work in the industry. I havce however bought / downloaded doznes of techincal manuals and product info and put myself though training courses so I can get proper information. I'm not a Al Gore disciple, but someone who thinks reducing energy costs is a good idea if it can be done cost effectively. I did consider a career as an energy advisor - not a sales man, but someone who did the opposite, freelance consulatant to tell people what not to buy and what is better suited to their needs. For example - I've seen people installing heat pumps to save money when mains gas is available. [head palm].
TT, your posts are very interesting. Indeed, they're the first things I look for when I log in to PH . However, please explain, in words of one sylable or less if possible, what ten paragraphs on the pros and cons of cavity wall insulation has to do with the politics of the global warming debate.
Wouldn't a new thread be more appropriate? After all, your expertise is clearly vwasted here on this backwater. Filled as it is by lunatics, deniers and other ne'redowells.
Thanking you.
Wouldn't a new thread be more appropriate? After all, your expertise is clearly vwasted here on this backwater. Filled as it is by lunatics, deniers and other ne'redowells.
Thanking you.
Blib said:
TT, your posts are very interesting. Indeed, they're the first things I look for when I log in to PH . However, please explain, in words of one sylable or less if possible, what ten paragraphs on the pros and cons of cavity wall insulation has to do with the politics of the global warming debate.
Wouldn't a new thread be more appropriate? After all, your expertise is clearly vwasted here on this backwater. Filled as it is by lunatics, deniers and other ne'redowells.
Thanking you.
It was grim that did it. Said i don't know what I'm on about.Wouldn't a new thread be more appropriate? After all, your expertise is clearly vwasted here on this backwater. Filled as it is by lunatics, deniers and other ne'redowells.
Thanking you.
That was to show otherwise.
Plus a few others that posted insulation is a bad idea. Red rag to a bull.
It was an offshoot from the "gov hasnt done much on insulation as its not sexy" compared to pv and wind.
I'm done now. Carry on posting links to stuff about new supercomputers at the met, climate scientists having misearable lives and what deals are being done on energy supplies around the world and other such stuff that is also vaguely related to climate change politics.
turbobloke said:
motco said:
Note for the diary. Look back in February 2015 and see if winter really is windier and wetter as the Met Office predicts.
Good spot! Even with their new £97m soopadoopacomputer switched on, the odds must now be in favour of a calm dry winter that's ideal for windymills To be fair though, it'll be mild and wet and windy - until it's not...
TransverseTight said:
I'm done now. Carry on posting links to stuff about new supercomputers at the met, climate scientists having misearable lives and what deals are being done on energy supplies around the world and other such stuff that is also vaguely related to climate change politics.
Not so fast laddie ...A few pages back you posted some links to a solar promoting site suggesting that it was clear that there was technical potential for going off-grid. I can see that in certain locations that would have some attraction most obviously anywhere that was a long way from grid supply options for electricity and gas. Lincolnshire for example where so many properties in villages seem to have to rely on oil rather than gas supplies which, for heating, have been historically somewhat less costly than electricity in the form of storage radiators and whatever backup they required.
Now, iirc, the web site was suggestion (mainly for boats but bear with me) that the safe level of installation specification to ensure that almost all need situations would be covered ought to be something approaching 3x the nominal capacity for everyday usage. (In a residential rather than leisure situation that sort of makes some sense on the basis that an extended period of no decent generation can be covered either by going home or by running the engines (in the case of a powered boat) or using the legacy heating system (based on the same fuel supply used to run the diesel engines).
However if one is truly off grid that would not be an option unless one also incurred the cost of backup systems. And had the space to install them in your property alongside the recycling boxes and bags. I would suggest there are limited existing opportunities in most of the country's housing stock and there seems to be no consideration of such options in the politics of new build house planning requirements.
If one accepts that the risk of freezing in winter is acceptable you might get a system for an afforcable equivalent cost, over its life, to being in the grid. If not and you decide you need to be certain that when the family arrive for Christmas in the middle of deep freeze period you can keep them warm, lit and the cooking equipment will be able to support feeding needs, you may need to up the specification by a considerable amount. All for rare occurrences (for most people).
Now apply that observation to every household. You would be, in effect, building in huge redundancy (and costs) to the system making it very difficult to justify. All on a "just in case" basis that would still not guarantee availability of electricity when it is required. You would need some form of personal backup - or a connection to the grid anyway for use as needed.
Meanwhile the business model for the grid become extremely erratic and so all consideration about economies of scale go out of the window. Balancing the grid load for stability would become even more challenging, especially if one had little or no information about potential consumers and their current (pun intended) power status.
So politically the grid would need to know about your present usage and, to some extent, your future planned usage in order to do its own planning.
Now one might argue that whenever you are entertaining will be using less electricity than usual as they are with you. So they could be selling their spare capacity back to the grid to top up your usage. But what if they don't wish to do that even if they could? The grid would still need to be able to provide full output for those few times when people are unable to generate enough electricity to support themselves. That would suggest another huge redundancy of generation potential yet still a requirement to maintain a distribution system even if it is only used intermittently.
I really cannot see such a free for all being accepted and underwritten politically.
Meanwhile you visitors are ready to leave having re-charged their electric cars but the weather looks bad for generation so you would rather like to have some of your shared capacity back from their car batteries. How do you ask for that? Moreover if they agree will they still be able to leave? Will they have enough "juice" to get them to a charging point?
So if, for the sake of argument, the entire country could become self sufficient from solar electricity generation and storage for, say, 340 days a year we would still need a widespread grid and a large generation capacity for the 25 days not covered - or accept power outages.
I suspect the over all economics are not unlike growing your own food. Unless you are so remote from anywhere that you have no options you are very unlikely to be able to grow stuff (or rear animals) at less cost than buying from a supermarket or "High Street" outlet. In fact it most likely will cost a lot more if you compare production costs to the retail prices at the time the produce is ready. And that would exclude any consideration of the labour time spent to prepare and generate whatever amount of the planned crop is successfully propagated and cropped.
I really cannot see a simple way forward for your proposed off grid solar solutions as far as the mainstream is concerned. There is no way that anything would develop naturally without political interference and the unpredicted results that will inevitably introduce to the plan.
If it happens it will be very costly and possibly highly destabilizing in a social sense whilst at no time really addressing whatever it is that the politicians wish to address other than giving them opportunities for publicity.
All IMO of course. YeMMV.
turbobloke said:
motco said:
Note for the diary. Look back in February 2015 and see if winter really is windier and wetter as the Met Office predicts.
Good spot! Even with their new £97m soopadoopacomputer switched on, the odds must now be in favour of a calm dry winter that's ideal for windymills TransverseTight said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
TransverseTight said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
More utter garbage from a green cobblers insider. Your cost assumptions are way off/screwed as usual, most people won't get payback in their lifetime. Leaving that aside, it's very bad for people and structures to be altered/built like you suggest. Toxic even.
Are you for real? I've not mentioned which products, the fixing method, and technical details about dewpoints and vapour barriers and you are already calling me out. Talk about asumptions.Insider? Did you read my post about what I actually do for a living a page or two back?
I don't work in the industry but thoroughly research what looks like a good idea before spending my own money.
Once bitten...
Cavity fill should only be fitted to suitable houses. Personally I'd avoid fibre and stick to beads, it's less likely to wick damp across the cavity, les likely to get caught on wall ties when it's being blown in and leave gaps, and it won't slump over time leading to cold spots at the top of walls. If you live in the west of the country you would want to check the state of your walls before doing any type of cavity fill and conider changing the external wall covering, for example adding a cladding as a rain barrier if it won't mess up the look of the house. If you have pebble dash it may even improve it.
One problem with cavities not often discussed is the air gap acting as a channel for wind to come and suck and blow all the heat out your house via electric outlets and plumbing points etc. My previous house built in the 1960s had a bath panel that used to blow off in strong gusts. It was actually colder in windy wather than when it was minus 8. We had beads installed and the bills came down as expected. I've also got plots of the repsonse times of the heating system before and after the installation using a temp/humidity sensor borrowed from my now ex-wife who works in museums. Before the install the temp used to drop to 12 degrees over night and humidity would hit 80%. After it was 17 degrees and 60%. Less heat loss, less chance of condensation and the bath panel stopped blowing off. Though I did find about a cupfull of beads that has escaped under the bath from when it was installed. The house would get back up to 20 degrees in 1/2 an hour instead of 1 hour when the heating kicked in at 6am.
Cavity fill is known to have payback in 2-3 years as 1/3 of your heat heads out the walls. Yes there are risks, but the number of people who have it with no problems doesn't make good stories in the media.
On the same note... big problems with houses built in the 1980s when wet plastering went out of fashion and board and battens came in. Although the building regs lead to 100mm cavities with 50mm insulation, there's an air gap down the back of the plasterboard, which often means tyou are living in a plaster board tent, inside a tea cosy. Check the tops of the rooms for damp, beacuse if the loft insulation hasn't been fitted properly, and the boards haven';t been sealed at the top, the wind will get down from the attic,
All this from me responding to the point about people rationing their heating!?
There's a lot of misconception about damp and condensation. Insulation reduces the risk of condensation as it keep in heat, which keeps the dew point higher and hence the water carrying capacity of the air. The other ways to reduce it are keeping lids on saucepands and keeping kitchen and bathroom doors shut and using extractors. I mentioned using MVHR earlier. Once you get a house aritight, it still needs ventilating. But using heat recovery captures 80% of the heat in the outgoing extract air, rathren then replacing nice warm air you are sucking out, with freezing air from somewhere else.
A typical house in the UK has enough cracks, gaps and holes that if you added them up, they'd be the same as a 1m2 hole in the wall. Dealing with them is pretty hard work on an existing house, best done if it is unoccupied on a total refurb job.
PS Grim... lay off the ad-homs. They are mildly annonying but funny as they make your forum name suit you. Are you just playing a character or a share holder in british gas/edf etc?
I'll reiterate I don't work in the industry. I havce however bought / downloaded doznes of techincal manuals and product info and put myself though training courses so I can get proper information. I'm not a Al Gore disciple, but someone who thinks reducing energy costs is a good idea if it can be done cost effectively. I did consider a career as an energy advisor - not a sales man, but someone who did the opposite, freelance consulatant to tell people what not to buy and what is better suited to their needs. For example - I've seen people installing heat pumps to save money when mains gas is available. [head palm].
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff