Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Just had a look at the bmreports site.
Wind producing 3/5 of 4/5 of nothing much at all.. Yet 24 hrs ago it was pretty much at its peak for output although around 1000MW short of the most recent forecast for that period - which would have been made about 24hrs ahead iirc. So about 15% off 24hrs ahead. Still some challenges for accurate forecasting then.
However I picked up a link to renewableukcom and stumbled across this article.
http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases....
Quote:
RenewableUK is today releasing its Small and Medium Wind Strategy Report. This highlights the potential size of the small and medium wind market to the UK and aims to resolve the impending crisis in the small wind industry.
The report draws attention to the untapped contribution small and medium wind can provide to the UK by 2023. These include:
· Installing 2,460 megawatts in total capacity – enough to power 1.3 million homes
· Saving 2.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions
· Creating 11,448 jobs
· Adding £863 million to the UK economy
- See more at: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases....
Not sure if their 1.3 million homes is a theoretical number based on notional max output or a realistic number based on say 20% of output. I suspect the latter and then for it to be more than a little optimistic. If directly supplied right now there would be 1.3 million homes in the dark.
If they will have genuinely created 11,448 jobs by 2023 (a remarkably precise figure) that means the cost of energy production is planned to increase by 11,448 salaries and that seemingly equates to £863 million in total cost to population. All for no net increase in capacity once you take out the older technology that has and will be be retired and a political policy of managing people's usage of whatever electrical power will by then be available.
With immigration one might allow that the additional costs might simply be what is required for increasing supply for the enlarged population but is that so? I don't think that demand has changed very much in some years. Increased numbers of users have been offset by changes in use and changes in technology and almost certainly by changes in the industrial business mix in the countries.
There must be some figures or actual and forecasts somewhere - anyone have them already to save a lot of search time?
Note that the report claims it is discussing just small and medium sized deployments - i.e. Landowner pension fund projects.
Such are the politics of demand and supply in the energy industry.
Wind producing 3/5 of 4/5 of nothing much at all.. Yet 24 hrs ago it was pretty much at its peak for output although around 1000MW short of the most recent forecast for that period - which would have been made about 24hrs ahead iirc. So about 15% off 24hrs ahead. Still some challenges for accurate forecasting then.
However I picked up a link to renewableukcom and stumbled across this article.
http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases....
Quote:
RenewableUK is today releasing its Small and Medium Wind Strategy Report. This highlights the potential size of the small and medium wind market to the UK and aims to resolve the impending crisis in the small wind industry.
The report draws attention to the untapped contribution small and medium wind can provide to the UK by 2023. These include:
· Installing 2,460 megawatts in total capacity – enough to power 1.3 million homes
· Saving 2.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions
· Creating 11,448 jobs
· Adding £863 million to the UK economy
- See more at: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases....
Not sure if their 1.3 million homes is a theoretical number based on notional max output or a realistic number based on say 20% of output. I suspect the latter and then for it to be more than a little optimistic. If directly supplied right now there would be 1.3 million homes in the dark.
If they will have genuinely created 11,448 jobs by 2023 (a remarkably precise figure) that means the cost of energy production is planned to increase by 11,448 salaries and that seemingly equates to £863 million in total cost to population. All for no net increase in capacity once you take out the older technology that has and will be be retired and a political policy of managing people's usage of whatever electrical power will by then be available.
With immigration one might allow that the additional costs might simply be what is required for increasing supply for the enlarged population but is that so? I don't think that demand has changed very much in some years. Increased numbers of users have been offset by changes in use and changes in technology and almost certainly by changes in the industrial business mix in the countries.
There must be some figures or actual and forecasts somewhere - anyone have them already to save a lot of search time?
Note that the report claims it is discussing just small and medium sized deployments - i.e. Landowner pension fund projects.
Such are the politics of demand and supply in the energy industry.
Seems that Solar panels are a hot topic for Sainsburys today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30...
Surely can't be due to sun burn .... can it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30...
Surely can't be due to sun burn .... can it?
LongQ said:
Seems that Solar panels are a hot topic for Sainsburys today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30...
Surely can't be due to sun burn .... can it?
Thank Gaia for Co2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30...
Surely can't be due to sun burn .... can it?
mybrainhurts said:
Passed all the windymills on the M1 today, from Sheffield to the M25.
Every single one was idle.
Well they are currently reported as output around 470MW. That's double what they giving earlier in the day but only just over half the incoming from the Dutch interconnect.Every single one was idle.
Still, when all the estimates pointed out that in the UK the wind is always blowing somewhere they were not wrong. Just a pity they did not point out how weakly that "somewhere" might see the air moving.
mybrainhurts said:
Thanks MBH. That's a revealing essay in one sense but then it confirms what we've been saying for many years and what Dr Moore the co-founder of Greenpeace said long ago and which we've aired on PH threads many times. It gets to the money shot early on, and the section following this extract is informative in how the climate myths can be fought and defeated as a political phenomenon.
Article said:
With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty, felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left. Climate change and the moral common good of saving the planet, with its claimed scientific certainties, offered to fill the vacuum. It may or may not be a coincidence that the climate change faith gained momentum in the 1990s immediately after Marxism collapsed with the Berlin Wall.
I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don't want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.
Read on for how to defeat the damaging faith even though it may "take a while to win". Lord Lawson got there first and the clock is ticking.I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don't want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.
hidetheelephants said:
The irony is strong.
I hope the tide came in before they took their heads out of the sand.Grauniad said:
G20: Australians bury heads in sand to mock government climate stance
Bondi Beach protest highlights Abbott administration’s perceived failure to put climate change on G20 summit agenda.
Bondi Beach protest highlights Abbott administration’s perceived failure to put climate change on G20 summit agenda.
mybrainhurts said:
Passed all the windymills on the M1 today, from Sheffield to the M25.
Every single one was idle.
That's nothing, a nuclear power station can be offline for a month at a time when it needs major works.Every single one was idle.
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet as none has totally been done to completion!
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 16th November 15:21
turbobloke said:
mybrainhurts said:
Thanks MBH. That's a revealing essay in one sense but then it confirms what we've been saying for many years and what Dr Moore the co-founder of Greenpeace said long ago and which we've aired on PH threads many times. It gets to the money shot early on, and the section following this extract is informative in how the climate myths can be fought and defeated as a political phenomenon.
Article said:
With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty, felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left. Climate change and the moral common good of saving the planet, with its claimed scientific certainties, offered to fill the vacuum. It may or may not be a coincidence that the climate change faith gained momentum in the 1990s immediately after Marxism collapsed with the Berlin Wall.
I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don't want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.
Read on for how to defeat the damaging faith even though it may "take a while to win". Lord Lawson got there first and the clock is ticking.I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don't want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.
It probably holds a lot more water with you than someone more neutral who can see both sides.
Gandahar said:
mybrainhurts said:
Passed all the windymills on the M1 today, from Sheffield to the M25.
Every single one was idle.
That's nothing, a nuclear power station can be offline for a month at a time when it needs major works.Every single one was idle.
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet and none has totally been done !
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
And given the vast number of turbines, I doubt chemical and radioactive land poisoning from those will be overshadowed by the nuclear power industry.
Gandahar said:
mybrainhurts said:
Passed all the windymills on the M1 today, from Sheffield to the M25.
Every single one was idle.
That's nothing, a nuclear power station can be offline for a month at a time when it needs major works.Every single one was idle.
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet as none has totally been done to completion!
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 16th November 15:21
Wind... well, you try predicting the precise amount of power you're going to get even as far ahead as later that day.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff