Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
rovermorris999 said:
George111 said:
turbobloke said:
Renewables Catch 22
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
That's really interesting, not seen it before. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
In terms of expectations being placed on renewable energy to 'save the planet' the headline "Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach" is entirely accurate and it derives from two Google engineers (Koningstein and Fork).
Then in terms of the Catch 22 article, which you don't comment on muchly, the EROEI calculations showed that renewables won't work in terms of expectations of powering a developed technological civilised society with universities, libraries and hospitals as well as factories and stock exchanges. If you have alternative fully worked-up calculations showing errors in the original link, post up and we can take a look.
Or perhaps you have other reasons for thinking that the vast expense of pointless renewables is worth it? A vanity project or two could be acceptable but wholesale wasting of money is...a waste of money. At least with Google the significant sums of money spent were private funds not money derived wholly from taxes.
turbobloke said:
Done already, and there are no crumbs of comfort at all. My first inference is that you haven't gone beyond blogs - though yours will likely be different blogs with buckets of green faith - and that's not to say that what all blogs report is neccessarily inaccurate or misleading.
Wrong. I keep telling you I don't read advocacy blogs and in this case the original interview is even linked from the WUWT piece so there's no need to.turbobloke said:
The WUWT report is accurate. Why leave a trailing remark on the quote rather than just give it? Better to leave a hanging implication than reveal the fact that renewables, as advertised, simply will not work.
Ugh, we've done this at least once. I didn't say it was inaccurate, I said it was spin. Why is the beginning of the quote snipped off?turbobloke said:
Then in terms of the Catch 22 article, which you don't comment on muchly, the EROEI calculations showed that renewables won't work in terms of expectations of powering a developed technological civilised society with universities, libraries and hospitals as well as factories and stock exchanges. If you have alternative fully worked-up calculations showing errors in the original link, post up and we can take a look.
Again, you are assuming my position on everything.durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Done already, and there are no crumbs of comfort at all. My first inference is that you haven't gone beyond blogs - though yours will likely be different blogs with buckets of green faith - and that's not to say that what all blogs report is neccessarily inaccurate or misleading.
Wrong. I keep telling you I don't read advocacy blogs and in this case the original interview is even linked from the WUWT piece so there's no need to.turbobloke said:
The WUWT report is accurate. Why leave a trailing remark on the quote rather than just give it? Better to leave a hanging implication than reveal the fact that renewables, as advertised, simply will not work.
Ugh, we've done this at least once. I didn't say it was inaccurate, I said it was spin. Why is the beginning of the quote snipped off?turbobloke said:
Then in terms of the Catch 22 article, which you don't comment on muchly, the EROEI calculations showed that renewables won't work in terms of expectations of powering a developed technological civilised society with universities, libraries and hospitals as well as factories and stock exchanges. If you have alternative fully worked-up calculations showing errors in the original link, post up and we can take a look.
Again, you are assuming my position on everything.At least this article snip on the Google abandonment isn't vague.
Article said:
There are two things that make the Google study stand out from all of the others:
-The frank admission that renewables won’t get us there.
-People listen to what Google has to say.
Others came to the conclusion that we don’t have the technology needed to pull this off long ago but the politicos and ideologues have a big advantage in that their message, although wrong, is simple enough for a journalist to understand and write a short article about. It’s a time honored formula.
Elsewhere in this article and others it's clear that at least some of the people involved in RE<C have true belief, not entirely good for scientists and engineers to say the least. Approaching any problem with presuppositions is a bad recipe.-The frank admission that renewables won’t get us there.
-People listen to what Google has to say.
Others came to the conclusion that we don’t have the technology needed to pull this off long ago but the politicos and ideologues have a big advantage in that their message, although wrong, is simple enough for a journalist to understand and write a short article about. It’s a time honored formula.
We're still waiting for alternative EROIE calculations - I suspect we can 'assume' that you don't have any.
Renewables simply will not work.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Renewables simply will not work.
Please explain why you keep referring to an edited version of the full Google quote and not the full thing.
1. Renewables cannot save the planet. In this respect they simply will not work.
2. Renewables cannot power a developed civilised society. In this respect they simply will not work.
The reasons are in the IEEE article from Google's engineers and in the EROEI link. You've provided nothing to argue against either, so I'm going to 'assume' you have nothing except bluster.
turbobloke said:
It was my statement and it's already been explained. Which bit did you miss?
1. Renewables cannot save the planet.
2. Renewables cannot power a developed civilised society.
The reasons are in the IEEE article from Google's engineers and in the EROEI link. You've provided nothing to argue against either, so I'm going to 'assume' you have nothing except bluster.
Nope, I'm not having that. You have explicitly cited Google engineers as the source of your quote. All I'm asking you why you won't post the full quote.1. Renewables cannot save the planet.
2. Renewables cannot power a developed civilised society.
The reasons are in the IEEE article from Google's engineers and in the EROEI link. You've provided nothing to argue against either, so I'm going to 'assume' you have nothing except bluster.
Jeez, at first I had you as working for a PR firm, then I thought you were a journalist, and now I'm wondering if you're a politician.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
It was my statement and it's already been explained. Which bit did you miss?
1. Renewables cannot save the planet.
2. Renewables cannot power a developed civilised society.
The reasons are in the IEEE article from Google's engineers and in the EROEI link. You've provided nothing to argue against either, so I'm going to 'assume' you have nothing except bluster.
Nope, I'm not having that. You have explicitly cited Google engineers as the source of your quote. All I'm asking you why you won't post the full quote.1. Renewables cannot save the planet.
2. Renewables cannot power a developed civilised society.
The reasons are in the IEEE article from Google's engineers and in the EROEI link. You've provided nothing to argue against either, so I'm going to 'assume' you have nothing except bluster.
I also said that Google's engineers found that renewables simply will not work to save the planet (from tax gas effects that aren't happening). This is accurate.
In addition I said that the EROEI article calculations showed that renewables cannot power a developed civilised society. This is also accurate.
These two findings are combined in my very straightforward and crystal clear statement that renewables simply will not work. I have provided evidence for it several times so will repeat it with or without your consent.
How else are they supposed to work ...in successfully wasting money? Ask me that one.
Anyone can find the longer version of the Google engineers' statement very easily and it offers your (unknown) viewpoint no assistance in arguing against what I've posted.
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2015/01/26/goog...
The best bit is that if you look hard enough you can find Google-sourced links to IPCC content as though it "definitely shows" something other than the political, faith-based nature of the IPCC.
Here's the core of it from another source, the one which quotes the two engineers as follows:
Renewables simply won't work. Renewables simply will not work. Tomayto tomarto.
Then there's the EROEI article. Against which you offer 'no evidence'.
Quote from the two Google engineers said:
At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Won't is an abbreviation for will not.Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Renewables simply won't work. Renewables simply will not work. Tomayto tomarto.
Then there's the EROEI article. Against which you offer 'no evidence'.
I love the way Turdster says 'I haven't read.......' then in the next retort 'have you read'......
What an inconsistent plonker.
Anyway,............
The renewables edifice continues to crumble. Can't survive without subsidies - 'no commercial value' in renewables.
https://stopthesethings.com/2016/05/01/denmark-sla...
Energy (fossil fuels) underpins our growth and prosperity and to deny its use would be nuts.
http://www.thegwpf.com/energy-and-the-theory-of-gr...
What an inconsistent plonker.
Anyway,............
The renewables edifice continues to crumble. Can't survive without subsidies - 'no commercial value' in renewables.
https://stopthesethings.com/2016/05/01/denmark-sla...
Energy (fossil fuels) underpins our growth and prosperity and to deny its use would be nuts.
http://www.thegwpf.com/energy-and-the-theory-of-gr...
jshell said:
Yeah, he was gone just long enough dodge the previously presented issues, and now we're off again...
What evidence am I avoiding? I'm simply asking tb why he continues to post an edited version of a quote from Google rather than the full one (via a WUWT article; because those blogs are absolutely fine apparently).It is extremely telling that a simple request for more information is met with snide remarks. How outrageous of me to question the credibility of something written on an advocacy blog, by asking for the original quote rather than the edited one. How dare I ask people to go to the original source instead of relying on an openly biased source's interpretation.
Oh, and I was only away because I'm really busy at work
durbster said:
jshell said:
Yeah, he was gone just long enough dodge the previously presented issues, and now we're off again...
What evidence am I avoiding? I'm simply asking tb why he continues to post an edited version of a quote from Google rather than the full one (via a WUWT article; because those blogs are absolutely fine apparently).It is extremely telling that a simple request for more information is met with snide remarks. How outrageous of me to question the credibility of something written on an advocacy blog, by asking for the original quote rather than the edited one. How dare I ask people to go to the original source instead of relying on an openly biased source's interpretation.
Oh, and I was only away because I'm really busy at work
Maybe you're different and can prove that man is having a significant effect on global temperatures, but I doubt it.
Me, I worry about the genuine and serious adverse effects we are having on this planet. I believe that AGW is a politically & economically motivated scam that ran out of control and it shields us from the true issues that may affect our long-term wellbeing.
durbster said:
I've not read the first link but I would recommend you seek out the full quote about renewables from the Google engineers in its original context, rather than relying on the edited and spun version from the advocacy blog.
I did read the whole thing and it lays out pretty clearly that the EROI of solar or windmills is a little over unity, so they produce very little energy over that which they cost to make. That's not a productive path to head down.Presumably the point you wish to make but are being coy about is that these chaps were contractors and were just paid by Google to find out whether it was possible to produce renewable energy cheaper than coal, they weren't on the google payroll. When they discovered that it wasn't possible Google understandably cut them loose.
hidetheelephants said:
durbster said:
I've not read the first link but I would recommend you seek out the full quote about renewables from the Google engineers in its original context, rather than relying on the edited and spun version from the advocacy blog.
I did read the whole thing and it lays out pretty clearly that the EROI of solar or windmills is a little over unity, so they produce very little energy over that which they cost to make. That's not a productive path to head down.Presumably the point you wish to make but are being coy about is that these chaps were contractors and were just paid by Google to find out whether it was possible to produce renewable energy cheaper than coal, they weren't on the google payroll. When they discovered that it wasn't possible Google understandably cut them loose.
"At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists"
turbobloke said:
Here's the core of it from another source, the one which quotes the two engineers as follows:
Renewables simply won't work. Renewables simply will not work. Tomayto tomarto.
Then there's the EROEI article. Against which you offer 'no evidence'.
Hey TB, I can't fathom how you manage to keep up on this all this all of the time.Quote from the two Google engineers said:
At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. ( 
)We now know that to be a false hope ...
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Won't is an abbreviation for will not. )We now know that to be a false hope ...Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Renewables simply won't work. Renewables simply will not work. Tomayto tomarto.
Then there's the EROEI article. Against which you offer 'no evidence'.
@Durbster, please go and read some other material, not the blog based rhetoric you are puking up onto the floor of AGW for us all to pick through and examine. As if looking for a bit of carrot amongst a pile of potato, or rice [/Chris Morris].
I will say one thing though, at least Mr Durbster does come across as being polite, so he is beating the majority of people we've seen cross these threads over the last 12 years.
(I have to admit though, I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get a decent response to my list of scientists that don't believe in AGW. Still I suppose Durb's response stating it was an old list wins the game, so I'll trump him with a wiki article that must be believed)
durbster said:
jshell said:
Yeah, he was gone just long enough dodge the previously presented issues, and now we're off again...
What evidence am I avoiding? I'm simply asking tb why he continues to post an edited version of a quote from Google rather than the full one (via a WUWT article; because those blogs are absolutely fine apparently).It is extremely telling that a simple request for more information is met with snide remarks. How outrageous of me to question the credibility of something written on an advocacy blog, by asking for the original quote rather than the edited one. How dare I ask people to go to the original source instead of relying on an openly biased source's interpretation.
Oh, and I was only away because I'm really busy at work
let us not resort to ad hominem attacks. In my view it is actually healthy for the debate to have Mr D around Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff