Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Crush]

turbobloke said:

People like her provide a marvellous bonus - to climate realism.

She and other uninformed celebs like her are doing a Corbynesque job.

She's well-educated thus demonstrating that intelligence and education are no barrier to foolishness.

Nullius (etc), follow the data, buy Damart and candles.

I wouldn't say there's a link between education and intelligence. Just look at the modern university system in the UK

[XJ40]

turbobloke said:

XJ40 said:

PRTVR said:

So let's see what advancements have been forthcoming from the development of renewable energy, solar panels, not that effective at night, so need normal generators for the times when we use most electricity,
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.

I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.

I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.

That's a step too far...the point some are making is that when if ever fossil fuels are more expensive than renewables (presumably with subsidies removed) then unless nuclear power plays a significant part, renweables sinply cannot power a developed western economy as per the two links I posted earlier today:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...

If you haven't taken a look at these I would respectfully suggest that you do, if you already have taken a look then you will appreciate that the attempted smear/rejection by durbster fails totally as there is a fundamental and irreducible problem facing renewables.

Thanks for posting the links again, I've given them a read now. Interesting and I see the points presented, I shall have to undertake further reading.. From what I understand I'm sure nuclear will have a major part to play in at the very least our medium term energy future (again though there's an issue of us mining a finite material out of the ground, not sure how abundant it is..)

One problem I have is with reading these types of links on the interweb though is how credible and trustworthy the source of information is. I'm not saying I think what you've posted is factually wrong, nescessarily, it's just that I see links to a couple of websites with a clear skeptical agenda, and various blogs of which I am unfamiliar with the author and could be written by anyone quite frankly, for all I know. It can make sence in and of itself but to me I don't think I can really take it as "proof" of anything, yet. If were seeing pieces in major news outlets and science publication then I'd probably hold the info in higher regard, even if a pitch of salt was still taken along with.

I hold this view generally and not just for climate science info, there's an interesting philosophical issue about truth and what information we can "know" for certain. I usually follow the consensus reality, apparent "facts" that are oft repeated enough to be belived in can change beneath us and we all have to perform a kind of paradigm shift and go with it, if we can the mental flexibility. I have to say I'm dubious about the idea that there's a world wide conspiracy to misrepresent climate science, though I will stay open minded and won't dismiss it out of hand. I will continue to mentally go along with the mainstream consensus view on climate without believing in it as such..

In addition, it seems that people on both side of the arguements over climate can often have something of an ideological view which colours there thinking on the matter, and can produce "evidence" to support whatever assertion they are making..

[XJ40]

PRTVR said:

XJ40 said:

PRTVR said:

So let's see what advancements have been forthcoming from the development of renewable energy, solar panels, not that effective at night, so need normal generators for the times when we use most electricity,
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.

I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.

I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.

You are free to assume what ever you like, how you arrive at that conclusion from my post is confusing, all I did was point out the failings in the present attempt at providing electricity without fossil fuels, my view is we need a modern nuclear energy policy, as a temporary measure till something comes along fusion perhaps.

Sorry I was being somewhat facetious/flippant, I don't disagree with you point about nuclear.

Edited by XJ40 on Wednesday 2nd December 23:34

[XJ40]

jurbie said:

Your current approach appears to assume that peak oil will come as a surprise and without renewables we will be plunged back into the dark ages. My view is that when we need to make the change renewables won't be part of that equation as we would have long since found a better solution.

That is in part my thinking yes. I think this climate change agenda is already preparing us for alternatives to fossil fuels, we are seeing the development of electric vehicles for instance.. whatever the long term energy future I very much doubt that internal combustion engine will be a part of it, sadly!

By definition, any alternative to renewable will involve the use of some kind of finite fuel useage?

Edited by XJ40 on Wednesday 2nd December 23:22

[Ali G]

For what it is worth.

As a physics grad, I undertook a decent amount of research from basics upwards (in spare time) of the 'science' behind MMGW and happened upon a few difficulties, being:

(1) How best to take the planet's temperature
(2) Absorption of H20 vs CO2 in the relevant IR wavelenghhts
(3) Mathematical modelling of climate systems
(4) Computer simulations of chaotic systems

Now, whilst education and keen minds are generally accepted as being a 'good thing', the flip side may be something of a challenge to politicians.

[Mr GrimNasty]

XJ40 said:

From what I understand I'm sure nuclear will have a major part to play in at the very least our medium term energy future..

You'd think so wouldn't you! Germany's 'Energiewende' (A policy to replace fossil AND nuclear energy with renewables) is already a basket case, massively expensive energy and millions of households disconnected or under threat, heavy industry at risk, grid management issues. It's an unmitigated disaster. But every guest on the BBC tells you it's a perfect example of what we should aspire to.

Oh, and France has committed itself to cutting nuclear power too.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Thursday 3rd December 00:15

[LongQ]

XJ40 said:

Well you can see I'm not making any such predictions. Just because some have been wrong in the past with regards to timescale doesn't in any way detract from my general point that oil is a finite resource and can't be relied upon forever.

There's plenty of criticism of climate science and renewable energy here, rightly or wrongly, but no answers to what we'd do in a post fossil fuel reality, which will come at some point. This is relevant to the politics of the situation. I can completely understand the will to present the science correctly, that's commendable. But what outcome is desired beyond that? It seems to me that looking to curtail fossil fuel useage into the future, and developing more and better renewable energy technology is a positive aim, if not for climate change then for the reasons I've given.

Edited by XJ40 on Wednesday 2nd December 21:01

That was exactly my thinking 15 or so years back.

But then if you take away the opportunity to innovate widely as needs arise, necessity being the mother of invention, you run the risk of adversely influencing what happen to, for and with future generation. ]

At some point, maybe after the next ice age has significantly changed the surface of the planet again, people will discover coal. And Oil. And other things - maybe even back to burning charcoal for cooking ....

It seems that the world leaders, as you have spotted, have decided that they would like to have ever more control and influence. They can in the modern era. For practical purposes we have technologies in place that provide that control pretty much individual by individual. Some of the idea the leaders and their underling politicians most favour are not at all designed to conserve resources of any sort but to consume more. They may not know this of course and the real motivations may be hidden from their consciousness. But then democratic politics is always likely to produce uncontrolled results and autocratic politics will produce the results that the autocrat desires.

None of it need relate even vaguely to science, scientific research or "facts". The politicians and the social psychologists recognise that and have done for years.

In short I concluded that although being logical, in a scientific sense, is interesting the real movers and shakers and opinion formers (via their media savvy) operate in an almost exclusively political arena. Science, for them, is a side show.

There seems to be no other way to explain what has been developing in terms of attempts at social influence, whether they be proving correct or not or might be considered wise "just in case" - or not. These days I don't think they even see Science a a side show. More like disposable chaff, some smoke and a load of energy sapping mirrors that enable them to protect their vanity projects and reputations from scrutiny.

Paris, as was always clear, is about politics on a world scale. Once they cobble together something that can be presented as an agreement (Cop30 anyone? Or COP50?) they will be able to drop the pretence, claim a "mandate" and do pretty much whatever they like.

Will that be good for those alive at the time? Who knows?

The hubris that they exhibit in suggesting that they believe such a process can, for the first time in know human history, provide overarching social controls globally is an interesting pointer to their collective self belief.

I wonder what they really think things will be like for "the grandchildren" that they seem so keen to look out for lest they ever be born. Of course many of the early leading lights of the movement that became the centre of the AGW PR onslaught would very much hope that these potential future humans never come to into existence. Whether the people that see them as heroes really understand that message and others like it I am not sure. I suspect not.

[turbobloke]

XJ40 said:

There's plenty of criticism of climate science and renewable energy here, rightly or wrongly, but no answers to what we'd do in a post fossil fuel reality, which will come at some point.

Criticism of the current IPCC brand of climate junkscience is well-deserved as criticism is the only truly scientific approach to what's going on. The current paradigm is political not scientific, and here we are in the LongQ climate politics thread.

Criticism of renewable energy is a recognition of the fact, a fact just as facty as any fossil fuel fact, that it cannot power a developed western economy with schools and hosptials and universities as well as factories and shops (EROEI). The alternative has been mentioned since the thread(s) began, nuclear power will do the job either as fission now or fusion in the future. There may be room for a small vanity project-type renewables component if only to demonstrate to future generations that it's very costly and can't cope alone.

That said, personally I doubt that the current crop of functionaries have looked as far as decommissioning the current crop of white elephants to consider building the next. That's a short timescale but too long for them to cope with right now.

Zealots and the politicians currently in thrall to them won't be allowed to take their economic suicide pact much further. Once the average member of the public, who doesn't mind driving their Volvo or BMW to the recycling point with bags of clothes and tin cans and empty Évian won't vote for the end of capitalism and a return to a localised medieval lifestyle once it becomes tangible rather than audible or even visible.

We've already started to see some of the consequences of governments 'Doing A Germany' (notably in Germany) - which used to be called 'Doing A Japan' and may soon be known as 'Doing A France' but more will be needed to take tackling non-existent manmade climate change from the bottom of the global priorities list, where it currently sits in a UN global poll with millions of respondents, to off the list completely. A Dalton or Maunder Minimum would help to focus minds.

[turbobloke]

While we're at it. the political fall-out from a full-on grand minimum would be profound.

At this point with solar data and unmolested temperature data showing that a Dalton or Maunder event remains on the cards, due to foolish UK energy policy our energy security is already dire.

This has a reasonable parallel with Labour spunking away our financial resilience, but the more worrying aspect is that all political parties with the exception of UKIP are actively spunking away our energy resilience. As a result the worse-than-it-need-have been job losses after the financial crunch translate into unnecessary life losses in an impending energy crunch. Real cold is much, much worse than warm.

This is why enormous banks of environmentally friendly diesel generators are on standby to chomp through fossil fuel like billy-o when it's very cold, cloudy, calm and the country puts its collective kettle on with the heating already blazing away (for those that can afford it) and why we see ramping of non-cuddly Smart Meters which can remotely brown-out sections of the community in an attempt to prevent black-outs.

[rovermorris999]

XJ40 said:

Thanks for posting the links again, I've given them a read now. Interesting and I see the points presented, I shall have to undertake further reading.. From what I understand I'm sure nuclear will have a major part to play in at the very least our medium term energy future (again though there's an issue of us mining a finite material out of the ground, not sure how abundant it is..)

One problem I have is with reading these types of links on the interweb though is how credible and trustworthy the source of information is. I'm not saying I think what you've posted is factually wrong, nescessarily, it's just that I see links to a couple of websites with a clear skeptical agenda, and various blogs of which I am unfamiliar with the author and could be written by anyone quite frankly, for all I know. It can make sence in and of itself but to me I don't think I can really take it as "proof" of anything, yet. If were seeing pieces in major news outlets and science publication then I'd probably hold the info in higher regard, even if a pitch of salt was still taken along with.

I hold this view generally and not just for climate science info, there's an interesting philosophical issue about truth and what information we can "know" for certain. I usually follow the consensus reality, apparent "facts" that are oft repeated enough to be belived in can change beneath us and we all have to perform a kind of paradigm shift and go with it, if we can the mental flexibility. I have to say I'm dubious about the idea that there's a world wide conspiracy to misrepresent climate science, though I will stay open minded and won't dismiss it out of hand. I will continue to mentally go along with the mainstream consensus view on climate without believing in it as such..

In addition, it seems that people on both side of the arguements over climate can often have something of an ideological view which colours there thinking on the matter, and can produce "evidence" to support whatever assertion they are making..

You're not 'on the fence' are you?

[PRTVR]

Interesting on the daily politics show on the 1st, Peter Lilly MP was on, he talked about small nucular power stations, I presume that he was talking about the type that are fitted to nuclear submarine's I believe they are built by Rolls Royce, I found it an interesting concept, we already have the technology, built by a respected British company, that could be built a lot faster if production was upscaled, then maybe sell them around the world.

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

Interesting on the daily politics show on the 1st, Peter Lilly MP was on, he talked about small nucular power stations, I presume that he was talking about the type that are fitted to nuclear submarine's I believe they are built by Rolls Royce, I found it an interesting concept, we already have the technology, built by a respected British company, that could be built a lot faster if production was upscaled, then maybe sell them around the world.

It could work so it'll never catch on. For now...

[jshell]

turbobloke said:

PRTVR said:

Interesting on the daily politics show on the 1st, Peter Lilly MP was on, he talked about small nucular power stations, I presume that he was talking about the type that are fitted to nuclear submarine's I believe they are built by Rolls Royce, I found it an interesting concept, we already have the technology, built by a respected British company, that could be built a lot faster if production was upscaled, then maybe sell them around the world.

It could work so it'll never catch on. For now...

I've been promoting these for use in remote locations for Subsea oil production facilities as we cannot practically lay cables from shore. People look at me like I have two heads! However, the hydrocarbon prize is monumental if we could.

just look up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtokman_field

3.8 Trillion Cubic Metres of gas, and associated condensate.

[robinessex]

I learnt years ago that very few people give a toss about anything until it directly affects them. So future energy supplies are about no 100 in most peoples list of concerns. Until that is, the bloody lights go out. Then you'll see lots of howling.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

PRTVR said:

Interesting on the daily politics show on the 1st, Peter Lilly MP was on, he talked about small nucular power stations, I presume that he was talking about the type that are fitted to nuclear submarine's I believe they are built by Rolls Royce, I found it an interesting concept, we already have the technology, built by a respected British company, that could be built a lot faster if production was upscaled, then maybe sell them around the world.

A better option is Pebble bed modular reactor concept, passively fail safe due to being self temperature limiting, and they do not contain enough fissile material to go critical. It can also use a variety of fissile material, Uranium, Thorium etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 3rd December 08:58

[robinessex]

Here’s what ought to happen. The politicians first admit they haven’t a clue about energy, and how to supply it. Therefore, they have decided that an action energy ministry will be formed, staffed SOLELY with ENGINEERS and TECHNOLOGIST who’ll analyse our future energy needs, and then formulate a plan solely based on what is required to provide it, with fk all to do with politics. Then pass this into law, that this plan will be followed unless Armageddon or something similar comes along. An energy plan needs to have a least a 100yr time scale ahead of it to be of any practical use.

[The Don of Croy]

robinessex said:

Here’s what ought to happen. The politicians first admit they haven’t a clue about energy, and how to supply it. Therefore, they have decided that an action energy ministry will be formed, staffed SOLELY with ENGINEERS and TECHNOLOGIST who’ll analyse our future energy needs, and then formulate a plan solely based on what is required to provide it, with fk all to do with politics. Then pass this into law, that this plan will be followed unless Armageddon or something similar comes along. An energy plan needs to have a least a 100yr time scale ahead of it to be of any practical use.

Will this bring us back to the CEGB?

If so, who do I vote for?

Following the recent discussion upthread, if - as some expect - the UK suffers a power outtage over an inclement winter period, just how quickly (and badly) will our excitable politicos react? How long before Joe Public demands reliable energy, and bugger the Greens?

I'm afraid I'm not too hopeful - the anti-nuclear lobby has been so successful in recent decades that it's going to take some major PR work to overturn the embedded hysteria, and that's before they dismantle the overblown regulatory system that has hamstrung the industry for so long. IMHO.

[robinessex]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

PRTVR said:

Interesting on the daily politics show on the 1st, Peter Lilly MP was on, he talked about small nucular power stations, I presume that he was talking about the type that are fitted to nuclear submarine's I believe they are built by Rolls Royce, I found it an interesting concept, we already have the technology, built by a respected British company, that could be built a lot faster if production was upscaled, then maybe sell them around the world.

A better option is Pebble bed modular reactor concept, passively fail safe due to being self temperature limiting, and they do not contain enough fissile material to go critical. It can also use a variety of fissile material, Uranium, Thorium etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 3rd December 08:58

Well, if successive governments hadn't dismantled our manufacturing industry, we'd still have the ability to look into and research energy generation methods. But they have, and private companies choose the most economic route FOR THEMSELVES they can to provide energy system. Even if they are out of date, and virtually useless, and they get away with it because the fkwit politicians haven’t a clue themselves, and have dumped all the civil servants who did. Example is the crap Chinese nuclear power station we MIGHT get one day.

[hidetheelephants]

XJ40 said:

jurbie said:

Your current approach appears to assume that peak oil will come as a surprise and without renewables we will be plunged back into the dark ages. My view is that when we need to make the change renewables won't be part of that equation as we would have long since found a better solution.

That is in part my thinking yes. I think this climate change agenda is already preparing us for alternatives to fossil fuels, we are seeing the development of electric vehicles for instance.. whatever the long term energy future I very much doubt that internal combustion engine will be a part of it, sadly!

By definition, any alternative to renewable will involve the use of some kind of finite fuel useage?

How are you defining finite? There's quite a lot of uranium and a practically inexhaustable supply of thorium; assuming some improvement of fission technology and some rationalisation of regulatory burden it's not unreasonable to predict a point at which liquid fuel can be synthesised from CO2 and water for less than the cost of drilling for oil and refining it. The technology is being perfected by the US navy and may end up on carriers within a decade or so. Whether the cost of battery vehicles drops enough and the range increases enough for the need for liquid fuel to be dissipated is moot as plentiful and cheap baseload electricity will be needed either way.

PRTVR said:

Interesting on the daily politics show on the 1st, Peter Lilly MP was on, he talked about small nucular power stations, I presume that he was talking about the type that are fitted to nuclear submarine's I believe they are built by Rolls Royce, I found it an interesting concept, we already have the technology, built by a respected British company, that could be built a lot faster if production was upscaled, then maybe sell them around the world.

He was probably refering to Nuscale; I doubt there's much commonality with RR's sub reactors as the criteria are quite different beyond both being small PWRs.

Some kind of modern equivalent of CEGB, not necessarily running power stations but commissioning, building and leasing them to industry might be better than the bks we have now.

jshell said:

I've been promoting these for use in remote locations for Subsea oil production facilities as we cannot practically lay cables from shore. People look at me like I have two heads! However, the hydrocarbon prize is monumental if we could.

just look up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtokman_field

3.8 Trillion Cubic Metres of gas, and associated condensate.

There's quite a lot of effort going into selling nuclear reactors for steam generation in oil sands processing, although the low gas prices at the moment seem to have stalled it a bit.

[turbobloke]

Meanwhile, Paris or not and gesture politics notwithstanding, Osborne appears to have retained the sense to listen to Lord Lawson including on energy security and related matters...he (Osb) has significant influence in government giving moderate cause for optimism.