Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
turbobloke said:
Only another half hour to go with all the lights on.
Well I'm only using the power I need; I still have to pay for it, after all.
Yes I appreciate that aspect but is Earth Hour not about putting all the lights on to illuminate climate change? Maybe I've had the wrong end of the thermometer all these years.

dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Einion Yrth said:
turbobloke said:
Only another half hour to go with all the lights on.
Well I'm only using the power I need; I still have to pay for it, after all.
Yes I appreciate that aspect but is Earth Hour not about putting all the lights on to illuminate climate change? Maybe I've had the wrong end of the thermometer all these years.
If you had a smart meter they'd turn it off for you hippy

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single rofl as there will be more to follow.
Fancy a Tenner it will be within 10 years?

I'll take the bet happily.
A few now becomes ten! rofl

I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.
Then all of sudden you wanted a huge odds on bet in your favour rofl

I rest my case wavey

Edited by dickymint on Saturday 25th March 19:59
Feel free to squeak to Teacher, but for both ours sake - please fk Off


From another thread earlier this evening: "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." (Rousseau)

Aphorisms are OK though.

dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single rofl as there will be more to follow.
Fancy a Tenner it will be within 10 years?

I'll take the bet happily.
A few now becomes ten! rofl

I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.
Then all of sudden you wanted a huge odds on bet in your favour rofl

I rest my case wavey


Edited by dickymint on Saturday 25th March 19:59
Feel free to squeak to Teacher, but for both ours sake - please fk Off
"both of ours sake" what you worried about? I'm not at all bothered by your insults confused

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
So get the same with Wind (forget solar in most of Europe in the winter). you have to accept that you need to build about 7 or 8 times the faceplate rating and hope that the wind blows.

When it doesn't you try to import from elsewhere.
Sorry to bring people to task, but again - wrong


and factored in with regards to the site, location, previous reading from the LIDAR / Met Masts et Al monitoring a location prior to construction - hell, even the Array configuration is CFD modelled for the effects

it's nearer 42% according to ORE Catupult I recall from recent discussions.
Off shore in a good location over a month or so on average (or maybe for a year) maybe.

However during those occasions when the wind drops over a wide area (and it does, despite the claims that "it is always blowing somewhere" the effective output can be very low indeed, even including offshore.

If people want close to 100% renewables and a reliable supply they need to take that into account. They may or may not be able to afford the cost.


Given a choice they would probably choose lower cost delivered by a proven means with a generally reliable ability to generate day or night and during any season of the year as and when needed.

Ideally that generation capacity would be connected to the consumer by a well funded and reliable grid system.

By and large that is what we had up and running about 20 years ago, reasonably self sufficient in critical fuel supplies and well prepared, in the main, to take the country into an electronics centric future.

Since around that time our wondrous political system has produced governments that seem intent only on eliminating that level of potential stability that we had then in favour of chasing vanity pipe dreams while assuming that they and their successors will always be able to extract whatever funds are required from the social organisation around them. Thus there is no need for them to make sensible and considered decisions. So they don't.


This problem seems to be afflicting most, perhaps all, of Europe and much of the world beyond.

http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-internet-of...

I really do recommend reading the link above and the comments that follow it.

There was a preceding post that might also be useful preparation.

http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-renewable-e...



Bear in mind that the paper referred to in these posts seems to be considered state of the art thinking at this time in the Renewables world and is projection for how to do something be 2030. So 12 years away. By which time UK needs to deploy 7 times the number of turbines that currently exist or are being installed, a whole load of solar fields and something close to 15 times the interconnector capacity that currently exists to other places.

Then it has to hope that the rest of the participants can do something similar with their parts of the scheme.

Oh, and that some as yet undeveloped technology is developed and working reliably.

Of course, the paper could be complete rubbish but if it is will the politicians discover this in time to avoid disaster?

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Offshore Yes, and Yes - as I have alluded - Over a Year. Of a single site, not the country, not the corporate portfolio blah blah.

BUT - despite the humour built in to the will of failure : it is a known, a factor, and guess what ? Considered in the business case.

Your links?

Well - once i read : "Parts of Scotland are already despoiled by the deployment of wind turbines and I do not want to see this environmental vandalism spread." its fair to say the rest is not of a learned, balanced and bipartisan perspective - more likely a Nimby unable to be published by the Daily Mail. Which is something in itself


Feel free to use it as your guidance however. I prefer information, context and performance analysis.







(still no takers)
hopefully one day we will go back to people just generating power and selling it !!! so if they think a windmill is good , or something that makes bio gas out of squirrel st let them sink or swim without the largess of the tax payer....

voyds9

8,488 posts

282 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
Earth Hour yesterday, BBC have some pictures of (mainly) governments turning off lights in large buildings.

Looking at the pictures it seems as if the general public kept their lights on.

It does make me wonder how far their pious attitudes extended, did they turn off any computers, heating, air conditioning, life support or was it only lights.

grumbledoak

31,499 posts

232 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
voyds9 said:
It does make me wonder how far their pious attitudes extended, did they turn off any computers, heating, air conditioning, life support or was it only lights.
I'm sure the lights are quite enough for this type of signalling.

alock

4,224 posts

210 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
voyds9 said:
Earth Hour yesterday, BBC have some pictures of (mainly) governments turning off lights in large buildings.
My son's cub group had an event. About 20 cars each with a couple of cubs in drove 6 miles to drop them off at a nearby scout camp. They did some cooking over an enormous bonfire and 4 hours later we all went to collect them. 240 miles of cold engine running along with the fire. You couldn't make it up!

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
Environ mentalism is thriving in Salt Lake City where a support group has been set up to provide “a safe space for confronting” what it calls “climate grief.”

silly

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Whilst lengthy and articulate - your opening lines invalidated the majority of your context.

LongQ said:
Off shore [SIC] in a good location over a month or so on average (or maybe for a year) maybe.
Offshore Yes, and Yes - as I have alluded - Over a Year. Of a single site, not the country, not the corporate portfolio blah blah.

BUT - despite the humour built in to the will of failure : it is a known, a factor, and guess what ? Considered in the business case.

Your links?

Well - once i read : "Parts of Scotland are already despoiled by the deployment of wind turbines and I do not want to see this environmental vandalism spread." its fair to say the rest is not of a learned, balanced and bipartisan perspective - more likely a Nimby unable to be published by the Daily Mail. Which is something in itself


Feel free to use it as your guidance however. I prefer information, context and performance analysis.







(still no takers)
Paddy,

OK, go to the referenced report produced by the Lappeenranta University in Finland and read that instead.

Work out what it seems to be saying and take it from there.

Alternatively go back to the link you rejected, ignore the lines that for some reason do not fit with your sensibilities (and bear in mind that that comment referred to on-shore and therefore lower reliable output installation where the future installations would likely be less efficient than existing installations for the most part since the better available locations are already in use) and consider the analysis for what it is.


Bear in mind that the author of the analysis has been in contact with the academics in Finland as has been noted in the article.

Bear in mind that many, I would think most, of the comments are provided by people who are or have been involved in some way by people in the power industry, claim related engineering experience or are academics researching the options.

There is mention of the original report's authors being likely to provide comments but so far I have not seen any comments that suggest that has happened. However they clearly have, according to the author of the piece, provided input when asked questions before the piece was published.

Waft it away if you will because you cannot be bothered or because you have no answers but not just because the author prefers that his local landscapes (in an area that appeals to many people because of its perceived beauty) are very likely to become less attractive (notably to the tourism market) by being industrialised due to political dogma.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
alock said:
voyds9 said:
Earth Hour yesterday, BBC have some pictures of (mainly) governments turning off lights in large buildings.
My son's cub group had an event. About 20 cars each with a couple of cubs in drove 6 miles to drop them off at a nearby scout camp. They did some cooking over an enormous bonfire and 4 hours later we all went to collect them. 240 miles of cold engine running along with the fire. You couldn't make it up!
Sounds rather like the COP conferences model.

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills - Grind crops


Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand

Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
Windmills have open blades or sails ,turbines work in a housing ,, giving them a fancy name doesn't
make them better ,they are unreliable ugly and wasteful of the worlds resources ,and green tokenisim
It would be better if we stuck to wind subsidy equpment as a name for them ,


LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills - Grind crops


Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand

Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
Windmills have open blades or sails ,turbines work in a housing ,, giving them a fancy name doesn't
make them better ,they are unreliable ugly and wasteful of the worlds resources ,and green tokenisim
It would be better if we stuck to wind subsidy equpment as a name for them ,
There could be an argument for saying that Windmills, using the generated power directly and locally, were conceptually more effective, when the wind blew, than anything used for remote generation.

They share the same downside - reliability of supply - that led to them being left behind in the age of coal, steam and the industrial revolution.

Make of that what ever philosophy and policy that you will.

dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
LongQ said:
powerstroke said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills - Grind crops


Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand

Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
Windmills have open blades or sails ,turbines work in a housing ,, giving them a fancy name doesn't
make them better ,they are unreliable ugly and wasteful of the worlds resources ,and green tokenisim
It would be better if we stuck to wind subsidy equpment as a name for them ,
There could be an argument for saying that Windmills, using the generated power directly and locally, were conceptually more effective, when the wind blew, than anything used for remote generation.

They share the same downside - reliability of supply - that led to them being left behind in the age of coal, steam and the industrial revolution.

Make of that what ever philosophy and policy that you will.
I'd go along with local use but instead of grinding flour the windymill or should I say disturbine could power a press to stamp out pound coins that the land owner can pick up at his leisure - cuts out a lot of hassle in the middle!

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills - Grind crops
They can, but the term is generic. Mill just means to turn, windmill is to turn something by using wind. Think of a machine shop milling machine. You have confused milling with grinding. So windmill is perfectly correct usage.

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
s2art said:
They can, but the term is generic. Mill just means to turn, windmill is to turn something by using wind. Think of a machine shop milling machine. You have confused milling with grinding. So windmill is perfectly correct usage.
I think you'll find 'milling' is a process not "turning something".

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
s2art said:
They can, but the term is generic. Mill just means to turn, windmill is to turn something by using wind. Think of a machine shop milling machine. You have confused milling with grinding. So windmill is perfectly correct usage.
I think you'll find 'milling' is a process not "turning something".
No, for example 'a crowd milling around'. Originally the word did mean to grind corn/grain, but the usage changed over time to a more generic turning something.

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
s2art said:
gadgetmac said:
s2art said:
They can, but the term is generic. Mill just means to turn, windmill is to turn something by using wind. Think of a machine shop milling machine. You have confused milling with grinding. So windmill is perfectly correct usage.
I think you'll find 'milling' is a process not "turning something".
No, for example 'a crowd milling around'. Originally the word did mean to grind corn/grain, but the usage changed over time to a more generic turning something.
No it hasn't.

OED: A building with sails or vanes that turn in the wind and generate power to grind corn into flour.

Therefore the word Windmill refers to a wind driven mill...the mill being a tool for use in the process of milling, usually involving corn.

Would you like a picture of one?

There are many ways of milling something not just by means of wind driven mills but that particular process utilises a 'windmill'.

The word windmill has absolutely nothing to do with 'wind' and just 'turning something'.

dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
If you don't know - put you hand up and ask. I'll get back to you with some assistance.
Do you really think that YOU are the font of all knowledge on this topic and nobody else keeps up to speed? Go back a few years worth of this thread when many on here rejoiced over the Tories pledge to scrap subsidies for onshore windymills?

Thanks anyway for your offer of "assistance" but I'd rather gather my knowledge from less arrogant and rude sources wavey
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED