Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[johnfm]

LongQ said:

With the UK's Electricity generation in a very tenuous position for winter operations (and Gas is dodgy too but that hardly matters if there ain't no 'leccy) I see that Coal generation was at almost zero earlier today.

So what to do?

Well, here is one report that suggest some big money expenditure is required.

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/uk-needs-to-invest-2...

£215 Billion by 2030 apparently.

Meanwhile with all the intermittent and highly variable mainly windy renewables coming on to the scene replacing spinning generation the system frequency is ever more difficult to manage.

So the National Grid is having to contract out the services which will mean, absent anything like enough Hydro to replace the traditional powered turbines and no chance of building more, BATTERIES.

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/storage-sweeps-board...

£66 million worth of deals.

They claims these deasl will save £200 million and offer a faster response to the correction of frequencies.

However the £200 million cost most likely came about only because by shifting everything to subsidised disturbines and other erratic producers the spinning generators became uneconomic to run and the virtually free controls they offered during normal operations suddenly became expensive. Even more expensive when one looks at the first report linked above.

All politics here - well, except for the so called options of converting existing spinning plant to CCS and being allowed to continue burning coal and gas.

Now if only the scientists and engineers could get CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) to work at all things might not look so black.

Alternatively without the "Carbon" scam decisions and the making of them should have been much easier and indeed would have been much easier for the past 2 or 3 decades. (That's not to say that our Political classes would have managed to make the decisions - but that's a different discussion.)

Just one of the negative "benefits" of Climate Change Politics.

Isn't the battery stuff (Enhanced Frequency Response) more to do with speed of response - in that they want some capacity that can respond within 1 sec to frequency changes to fill the gap to when other capacity (diesel/gas) can provide frequency response?

Note also the tender scoring is 'technology agnostic' - so there are no enhanced tender scores for using, say, renewable energy sources to recharge your batteries.

Edited by johnfm on Tuesday 30th August 11:21

[Gandahar]

Whatever the means of generating it, the fact Russia is getting more belligerent and the middle least is undergoing an Arab meltdown, sorry, spring, we do need to be sourcing more energy from the uk.

Forgetting the CO2 side for the moment, this does mean that we have to use any resource we have. Just for energy security.

Wind and tidal plus gas and oil.

Not sure yet on the Chinese French nuclear powerplant, they seem to have added a massive tariff even before they start selling ! Fecking left wingers / red commies .....

[motco]

Gandahar said:

Whatever the means of generating it, the fact Russia is getting more belligerent and the middle least is undergoing an Arab meltdown, sorry, spring, we do need to be sourcing more energy from the uk.

I ahve been wondering for a long while whether this wasn't the real driver behond climate change propaganda. Independence from unstable sources of energy. Sadly, though, too many people have started to believe the fairy story and it risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[turbobloke]

motco said:

Gandahar said:

Whatever the means of generating it, the fact Russia is getting more belligerent and the middle least is undergoing an Arab meltdown, sorry, spring, we do need to be sourcing more energy from the uk.

I ahve been wondering for a long while whether this wasn't the real driver behond climate change propaganda. Independence from unstable sources of energy. Sadly, though, too many people have started to believe the fairy story and it risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The idea of swapping 'unstable sources' for unreliable sources is curious at best, surely the main points of concern with the unstable sources is their unreliability at certain times and the potential for high costs.

[motco]

turbobloke said:

motco said:

Gandahar said:

Whatever the means of generating it, the fact Russia is getting more belligerent and the middle least is undergoing an Arab meltdown, sorry, spring, we do need to be sourcing more energy from the uk.

I ahve been wondering for a long while whether this wasn't the real driver behond climate change propaganda. Independence from unstable sources of energy. Sadly, though, too many people have started to believe the fairy story and it risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The idea of swapping 'unstable sources' for unreliable sources is curious at best, surely the main points of concern with the unstable sources is their unreliability at certain times and the potential for high costs.

No, TB, I agree. But that is part of where a half-baked idea for scaring the populace into using less energy may have gone wrong. Possibly the initial idea was to urge the British into saving energy - a laudable idea. However it was clear that saying that the Russians are warlike and cannot be trusted not to cut off our gas, and that the Arabs are unstable and cannot be relied on at all, wasn't going to wash. So what was needed was a good old fashioned scare story. Sadly, though, it became a Great Wheeze to the Greens and they wheeled out their favourite principles vis-a-vis windmills and solar farms. If the original idea was to simply reduce energy consumption and to simultanteously develop our own resources, then unreliable 'alternative' energy would not have been part of the mix. But the genii is out and cannot be poked back into the bottle. Once it became hijacked by the wealth sharing parties it was out of control. Feasible?

[turbobloke]

motco said:

turbobloke said:

motco said:

Gandahar said:

Whatever the means of generating it, the fact Russia is getting more belligerent and the middle least is undergoing an Arab meltdown, sorry, spring, we do need to be sourcing more energy from the uk.

I ahve been wondering for a long while whether this wasn't the real driver behond climate change propaganda. Independence from unstable sources of energy. Sadly, though, too many people have started to believe the fairy story and it risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The idea of swapping 'unstable sources' for unreliable sources is curious at best, surely the main points of concern with the unstable sources is their unreliability at certain times and the potential for high costs.

No, TB, I agree. But that is part of where a half-baked idea for scaring the populace into using less energy may have gone wrong.

Yes that's understood, and in turn I was agreeing with you.

motco said:

Possibly the initial idea was to urge the British into saving energy - a laudable idea. However it was clear that saying that the Russians are warlike and cannot be trusted not to cut off our gas, and that the Arabs are unstable and cannot be relied on at all, wasn't going to wash. So what was needed was a good old fashioned scare story. Sadly, though, it became a Great Wheeze to the Greens and they wheeled out their favourite principles vis-a-vis windmills and solar farms. If the original idea was to simply reduce energy consumption and to simultanteously develop our own resources, then unreliable 'alternative' energy would not have been part of the mix. But the genii is out and cannot be poked back into the bottle. Once it became hijacked by the wealth sharing parties it was out of control. Feasible?

It's all part of the coincidence of vested interests that keeps the green blob a-blobbing along.

When it comes to pointless unworkable renewables, rather than anything going back in a bottle, I suggest that poo going back in a donkey is a more apt metaphor

[motco]

turbobloke said:

motco said:

turbobloke said:

motco said:

Gandahar said:

Whatever the means of generating it, the fact Russia is getting more belligerent and the middle least is undergoing an Arab meltdown, sorry, spring, we do need to be sourcing more energy from the uk.

I ahve been wondering for a long while whether this wasn't the real driver behond climate change propaganda. Independence from unstable sources of energy. Sadly, though, too many people have started to believe the fairy story and it risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The idea of swapping 'unstable sources' for unreliable sources is curious at best, surely the main points of concern with the unstable sources is their unreliability at certain times and the potential for high costs.

No, TB, I agree. But that is part of where a half-baked idea for scaring the populace into using less energy may have gone wrong.

Yes that's understood, and in turn I was agreeing with you.

motco said:

Possibly the initial idea was to urge the British into saving energy - a laudable idea. However it was clear that saying that the Russians are warlike and cannot be trusted not to cut off our gas, and that the Arabs are unstable and cannot be relied on at all, wasn't going to wash. So what was needed was a good old fashioned scare story. Sadly, though, it became a Great Wheeze to the Greens and they wheeled out their favourite principles vis-a-vis windmills and solar farms. If the original idea was to simply reduce energy consumption and to simultanteously develop our own resources, then unreliable 'alternative' energy would not have been part of the mix. But the genii is out and cannot be poked back into the bottle. Once it became hijacked by the wealth sharing parties it was out of control. Feasible?

It's all part of the coincidence of vested interests that keeps the green blob a-blobbing along.

When it comes to pointless unworkable renewables, rather than anything going back in a bottle, I suggest that poo going back in a donkey is a more apt metaphor

The latter as I've just been starting a new batch of home brewed bitter! Cheers!

[turbobloke]

[DibblyDobbler]

motco said:

I've just been starting a new batch of home brewed bitter! Cheers!

Fermentation produces carbon dioxide! BURN HIM!! TAX HIM!!

[motco]

DibblyDobbler said:

motco said:

I've just been starting a new batch of home brewed bitter! Cheers!

Fermentation produces carbon dioxide! BURN HIM!! TAX HIM!!

[Mr GrimNasty]

According to this article UK solar provides less than 1% of UK primary energy demand, but for the same total cost, we could of had ~40.0 Gigawatts of gas-fired capacity - which would often be sufficient to meet the entire UK grid demand!

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...

No wonder bills are only going one way.

[zygalski]

Nice to see business as usual in this thread now & full-on global conspiracy froth-mode is resumed.

[hidetheelephants]

The daft bat in charge of National Grid is being quoted on Today that we don't need baseload anymore, as smart electrickery and magic batteries will cure all. I've heard some bks in my time and that was some of it; statements predicated upon wishful thinking are not something I look for from a CEO. Harrabin then chimed in, as clearly there hadn't been enough bks talked, and promulgated that nuclear was uniquely ill-suited to operate alongside renewables as it can't load-follow...

[QuantumTokoloshi]

hidetheelephants said:

The daft bat in charge of National Grid is being quoted on Today that we don't need baseload anymore, as smart electrickery and magic batteries will cure all. I've heard some bks in my time and that was some of it; statements predicated upon wishful thinking are not something I look for from a CEO. Harrabin then chimed in, as clearly there hadn't been enough bks talked, and promulgated that nuclear was uniquely ill-suited to operate alongside renewables as it can't load-follow...

I heard that segment, on the face of that, a domestic genset will be a basic requirement in a year or two.

If that woman is making decision on the functioning of the National grid, shares in candle makers are going to go crazy.

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

Nice to see business as usual in this thread now & full-on global conspiracy froth-mode is resumed.

Care to contribute, one way or another ?

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

Nice to see business as usual in this thread now & full-on global conspiracy froth-mode is resumed.

Care to contribute, one way or another ?

Chances are it would be more heat less light, as above.

The only people suggesting a conspiracy, full-on global no less, are those who claim others are suggesting it. One of the more tedious strawman attrition loops.

[hidetheelephants]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

hidetheelephants said:

The daft bat in charge of National Grid is being quoted on Today that we don't need baseload anymore, as smart electrickery and magic batteries will cure all. I've heard some bks in my time and that was some of it; statements predicated upon wishful thinking are not something I look for from a CEO. Harrabin then chimed in, as clearly there hadn't been enough bks talked, and promulgated that nuclear was uniquely ill-suited to operate alongside renewables as it can't load-follow...

I heard that segment, on the face of that, a domestic genset will be a basic requirement in a year or two.

If that woman is making decision on the functioning of the National grid, shares in candle makers are going to go crazy.

Indeed, apparently it will all be fine as everyone will have vapourware batteries and solar panels on the roof.

[durbster]

zygalski said:

Nice to see business as usual in this thread now & full-on global conspiracy froth-mode is resumed.

Sometimes it's interesting to release this thread from the unwelcome burden of criticism just to see what happens

turbobloke said:

The only people suggesting a conspiracy, full-on global no less, are those who claim others are suggesting it. One of the more tedious strawman attrition loops.

It's interesting how you retreat from calling it a conspiracy when every part of your argument implies exactly that.

I guess it's critical that you appear sufficiently detched from the anti-vaxxer, chemtrail type people, since that association would undermine your efforts to put a credible spin on the argument (your heart must sink every time Grim posts another ramble ).

Having said that, when your argument contradicts itself at almost every step I suppose it should be no surprise to see repeated claims of evidence cover-ups, tampered data, silenced/sacked naysayers, diverted research funds, Government/BBC propaganda etc., and at the same time insisting that nobody is claiming conspiracy.

[Blib]

It's disheartening that a nation which has the ability to easily meet its energy needs will have to endure brown outs and black outs.

Still, chins up lads, it's only the poor and disadvantaged who will really suffer.

[powerstroke]

durbster said:

zygalski said:

Nice to see business as usual in this thread now & full-on global conspiracy froth-mode is resumed.

Sometimes it's interesting to release this thread from the unwelcome burden of criticism just to see what happens

turbobloke said:

The only people suggesting a conspiracy, full-on global no less, are those who claim others are suggesting it. One of the more tedious strawman attrition loops.

It's interesting how you retreat from calling it a conspiracy when every part of your argument implies exactly that.

I guess it's critical that you appear sufficiently detched from the anti-vaxxer, chemtrail type people, since that association would undermine your efforts to put a credible spin on the argument (your heart must sink every time Grim posts another ramble ).

Having said that, when your argument contradicts itself at almost every step I suppose it should be no surprise to see repeated claims of evidence cover-ups, tampered data, silenced/sacked naysayers, diverted research funds, Government/BBC propaganda etc., and at the same time insisting that nobody is claiming conspiracy.

No conspiracy , its straight forward open warfare on common sense dressed up as doing good for the planet...