Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

V8 Fettler said:

turbobloke said:

When the Labour Party was in government, they put the cost of their nonsensical Climate Change Act as between £324bn and £404bn.
-
-
-

That level of funding would provide fission baseload until at least 2075 and reasonable certainty of commercial fusion power perhaps 2050 onwards (if not sooner).

Why are we dabbling with renewables?

It's the three Fs...faith, fashion and fk knows.

[Terminator X]

DapperDanMan said:

It is a great pity that the evident energy that some people put into AGW denial is not more constructively spent in devising alternative strategies for power generation. Even if you are adamant that AGW is tosh how can you look to the future and believe that business as usual is the only option?

Is it even possible to have a sensible discussion on this subject either from a political or scientific basis on these forums? Have you noticed that posts often end up single sided when it comes to AGW as most people just cannot be bothered with the tirade of abuse that is directed towards them because they would prefer a house with some insulation or a car driven by electricity. The only thing you end up hearing are echoes of your own opinions.

Imho the majority on here would be happy to see alternative power sources as long as there wasn't (a) massive tax incentives in place to "encourage" it and (b) it wasn't all blamed on man made global warming which can be argued is pure speculation based upon made up models of the future that may or may not come true in 100's of years time. Let's face it if someone eventually discovers the flux capacitor we will be laughing.

TX.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

That level of funding would provide fission baseload until at least 2075 and reasonable certainty of commercial fusion power perhaps 2050 onwards (if not sooner).

Why are we dabbling with renewables?

Because you can have Energy within years. Not Decades.


Oh and because cheaper - http://renews.biz/103387/lagoon-cost-same-as-hinkl...

Nuclear has its place in the balanced portfolio too.

How many lagoons will be required?

How much electricity will they generate?

Any other factors to consider?

[LongQ]

A propos of nothing much, this headline grabbed my attention.

Renewables hit by 'lack of talent'
Too few professionals are moving into the industry, new report shows

http://renews.biz/106410/renewables-hit-by-lack-of...

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

That level of funding would provide fission baseload until at least 2075 and reasonable certainty of commercial fusion power perhaps 2050 onwards (if not sooner).

Why are we dabbling with renewables?

Because you can have Energy within years. Not Decades.


Oh and because cheaper - http://renews.biz/103387/lagoon-cost-same-as-hinkl...

Nuclear has its place in the balanced portfolio too.

Long-term coherent planning eliminates the energy gap.

Estimated cost of Sizewell C (twin reactor) was GBP3.5 billion in 1995, a GBP100 billion nuclear construction programme commencing with Sizwell C would have met our baseload requirements for decades. The money was and is there, but it has been and continues to be wasted on renewables.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/critical...

Fusion research is being starved of funds, GBP2 billion per annum worldwide stated here http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/projects?ref=720161

[turbobloke]

DapperDanMan said:

AGW denial

It's hardly your fault that you get this wrong, in several ways, as nobody could be expected to trawl through all the posts in over ten years' worth of climate threads to see what people are actually saying. That's quite apart from the irony involved in use of the term 'denial' which does nothing except reinforce the nature of AGW as faith-based while revealing the groupthink approach of the person using it.

After participating in most of the above threads I would say that what people are posting about climte change, and I can't speak for all of the well-informed contributors to these threads, varies. Big surprise.

Nobody is saying that climate change doesn't happen. It's been happening for billions of years, naturally, and will continue to change. The forces changing our climate haven't stopped and won't stop for billins of years to come.

The key question is whether there's a human influence, and if so, how significant is it.

The faith side - and it is a faith - believes truly that there is dangerous permanent manmade global warming afoot. This is in spite of the fact - and it is a fact - that there is no visible causal human signal in global climate data. The human signal arises from computer modelling, and it arises because the modellers assume it's real and programme it in. This is not evidence or data it's the models reproducing the assumptions of the modellers around dangerous manmade global warming. In spite of the desperate hype in support of climate models from the faithful, there is overwhelming evidence based on data showing that these gigo models are wholly inadequate. This evidence has been presented in PH climate threads, including this one, several times.

In the middle are those who accept that in spite of there being no visible causal human signal in any global climate data, there is a human element to warming, but it's been exaggerated by means of overly sensitive climate sensitivity. In other words, nothing worth wasting $trillions on.

My position as posted n times is this: there is an influence but it's not permanent dangerous warming, and in the absence of any visible human signal (etc) what can be said (which is consistent with the data) is that adding a small ~5% human perturbation to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels starting at around 280ppmv back in time pre-industrialisation,there will be an insignificant and transient additional delay in cooling. After all, if there were significant warming taking place caused by humans, it would be visible by now in the data, as opposed to remaining invisible and totally swamped by the noise of natural variation, requiring the hand of man on a keyboard to make it appear in the gigo of computer models.

Hopefully thst clears up the position to a satisfactory degree but I need to apologise in advance to other PHers whose position isn't described sufficiently well by the necessarily brief summary above.

Terminator X said:

Imho the majority on here would be happy to see alternative power sources as long as there wasn't (a) massive tax incentives in place to "encourage" it and (b) it wasn't all blamed on man made global warming which can be argued is pure speculation based upon made up models of the future that may or may not come true in 100's of years time. Let's face it if someone eventually discovers the flux capacitor we will be laughing.

TX.

Exactly this.

If renewables lacked subsidies from the off, that would be OK by me, as they would never have got off the ground and we could have invested in nuclear sooner. If renewables in the form of wind and solar power stopped consuming taxpayers' money in order to enrich wealthy land owners and vested interest investors, and became cheaper in reality rather than via the 'unknown costs costing method' currently in use, with no subsidies whatsoever, that would be OK as less taxpayer money would be wasted.

Best of all, if basic concepts such as causality, EROEI and damning conclusions from the report by Google Corporation's engineers and scientists (using as-yet unavailable technology while trying and failing to make a viability case for renewables) were more widely understood and we cut pointless and costly renewables loose at this point, that would also be OK. The lifetime of their devices isn't too lengthy and it would be worth the decommissioning costs to get rid of them at some future point. Untold hundreds of thousands of birds of prey and bats would also be grateful on a generational basis if they could express an opinion, though we/I can express one anysay.

[robinessex]

Great TB. The problem is, politicians only have two tasks on their brain. To make new laws, and save the planet. If you want to make that three, it's to retire with a shed load of fake/useless directorships to line their pockets. So I'm afriad it's hopeless to expect rational thought on anything really from them.

[chris watton]

robinessex said:

Great TB. The problem is, politicians only have two tasks on their brain. To make new laws, and save the planet. If you want to make that three, it's to retire with a shed load of fake/useless directorships to line their pockets. So I'm afriad it's hopeless to expect rational thought on anything really from them.

You neglected to mention the biggest driver of all, financial gain, Chris Huhne and quite a few others have done pretty well out of this..

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

no idea - just 'one option' or harnessing energy isn't it.

I would hedge my bets on Hydrogen production from excess 'off peak' Wind energy generation as the 'next big thing' - in time for Hydrogen fuel cells and alike.
Interesting that Siemens have also filed patents this last month for something I have always queried :
Why not harness some sub sea energy local to the offshore turbines - capitalising on the maintenance, inter array and OFTO / Grid connection from existing / installed WTG's.

Despite the huge energy in the movement in the seas, the capture is less fruitful, so only some small scale capture around the Foundations from what I have seen.
(of course the Lagoon 'way' is different due to speed over a 'generator' by channeling flow, versus 'tide' per se.

there is an experimental wind turbine/hydrogen fuel cell project near me. https://www.scottish-enterprise-mediacentre.com/ne...
the interesting thing for me is why after several years this tech hasn't been rolled out on a bigger scale elsewhere? at a glance it certainly looks the correct way to make wind energy useful and cost effective.

when you start talking about harvesting the energy from the seas my interest is peaked yet again. this is an area i do have some knowledge and where i start to realise some of the hypocrisy in the green energy proponents .

apparently taking an inert substance out of the ground and burning it releasing a chemical compound whose whose main effect on the biosphere is to feed plants is a bad thing ,yet removing energy from air and ocean currents that are responsible for natural energy transfer around the planet, distribution of pollen, migrating birds and fish , excess heat to the poles to be radiated to space etc,etc is a good thing.

no one in the industry can tell me what the long term effects of removing energy from air masses will have on global air circulation or any of the other things it is responsible for .in the case of tidal lagoons even the short term environmental impacts should be enough to cancel out any benefits yet because "green" apparently these environmental concerns should be brushed aside.

good to see you have calmed down a bit, the previous couple of pages were very strange indeed . i have never felt the need to label people discussing climate change, renewable energy or betting on those subjects "tough guys" . there is nothing "tough" about any of that.

regarding the bet, your terms appear to have changed a few times. spell the terms out and then we can decide if it is a fair bet for both parties or one is trying to swing the odds in their favour. again the big problem will be checking the facts at the end of the time period. too many previous wind and solar projects have fantastical figures bandied about (every business proposal is like that, no one is going to invest in maybe's,they all want certainties) at the money raising stage only to find the numbers didn't add up some years into the project,ivanpah solar farm springs to mind in relation to the higher than anticipated gas consumption . i trust you won't have a problem with using the clean power exchange as a source.

http://cleanpowerexchange.org/ivanpah-solar-plant-...

The most recent numbers from the California Air Resources Board show that in 2015, the plant’s second year of operation, carbon emissions from Ivanpah’s gas use jumped by 48.4 percent to 68,676 metric tons.

That’s more than twice the pollution threshold for power plants or factories in California to be required to participate in the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions.

things like this are why people that have a passing interest in "green energy" are so dismissive of the contin ual obfuscation and in some cases outright lies that come from the sector. every time i have met someone from the sector i come away from the discussion feeling like i have been talking to a double glazing salesman . that is not a good impression to leave on anyone.

[dickymint]

wc98 said:

regarding the bet, your terms appear to have changed a few times. spell the terms out and then we can decide if it is a fair bet for both parties or one is trying to swing the odds in their favour.ve.

Appear to have changed is a massive understatement but hey ho I'll stick to Paddy Power;)

[Einion Yrth]

Perhaps I misread it; did you not offer them the opportunity to give you 3:1 on an inadequately defined bet? Or did you offer them threes, in which case, apart from nailing down the terms of the wager fair play. If, as seems to me, you were demanding an odds on bet, well I wouldn't be at all surprised to see no takers. Hardly welching.

[Gandahar]

So how is Donald doing so far sorting out those pesky climate nutters ?

Bugger all, got bigger fish to fry. Or not fry, perhaps a tweet on how it will be "frying tonight"

Meanwhile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUzGF401vLc

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 25th March 17:25

[jet_noise]

turbobloke said:

It's an interesting graphic certainly but optimistic insider forecasts are optimistic and as yet no insider has provided an accurate up-to-date list of all/most of the relevant costs as identified in the question I posed earlier.

How anything resembling total cost forecasts from vested interets are supposed to be credible when various contributory costs aren't known by them is an intriguing thought.

Follow the vested interest gradient; I seem to recall mentioning this earlier in 'the carnage'

I think I caveat-ed the data sufficiently.

It does seem extraordinary that any business is sustainable when it's own in house magazine (exaggerating to make a point) can't demonstrate competitiveness. And why anyone would buy something, a commodity, which is more expensive, by a lot, is beyond me. There's something very wrong in the house of Usher.

[turbobloke]

jet_noise said:

turbobloke said:

It's an interesting graphic certainly but optimistic insider forecasts are optimistic and as yet no insider has provided an accurate up-to-date list of all/most of the relevant costs as identified in the question I posed earlier.

How anything resembling total cost forecasts from vested interets are supposed to be credible when various contributory costs aren't known by them is an intriguing thought.

Follow the vested interest gradient; I seem to recall mentioning this earlier in 'the carnage'

I think I caveat-ed the data sufficiently.

That is true, you did indeed.

jet_noise said:

It does seem extraordinary that any business is sustainable when it's own in house magazine (exaggerating to make a point) can't demonstrate competitiveness. And why anyone would buy something, a commodity, which is more expensive, by a lot, is beyond me.

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Dicky, WC - say what you like- but I think, and judging by the 9 personal messages received , most here think :
Your full of bulsst and bluster and your arses have fallen out, and carefully stepping backwards



What did PaddyPower odds offer ?

Or the bookies you went to?

Or the - either way everyone else clearly understands the offer I made - but like most things on here your selective absorption of detail evades you.

So I chalk that up to all three of you welching.

A hollow victory- but victory all the same !

Thought you said you wouldn't respond to me again? 1-0 to me and still willing to accept the ORIGINAL bet

[LongQ]

Paddy,

You are right, everyones' bills go up.

Name for me an energy supplier that has low prices compared to the general market and is not planning to put them up this year.

I'll check them out and let you know what I think.

If you like you can even present the figures minus the green taxes, although that would probably no make much difference to the supplier comparisons.

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 25th March 22:39

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

So with the UK being a "very good" place to adopt Wind Power ... why is it that the price has increased so much in the past decade?

A Rhetorical question. No answer required.

Red Tape / Safety has contributed a lot to it.

So are you saying that the costs were suppressed because the entire industry was run using unsafe practises just so that supporters of the endeavour could claim low costs in the hope of creating a market?

Or are you saying that the 100k jobs that has always bandied about as part of the justification are not enough and health and safety dictates there must more people and lower productivity per person?

All of that extra, what, 100k, 150k, 200k jobs? Are now required to produce the same amount of net electricity generation as before? After all demand is stagnant or falling slowly according to official numbers.

No wonder the costs are going up despite the bid prices apparently coming down ... although is seems that depends on how one understands the market and its terminology.

[dickymint]

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 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!

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

I rest my case

Edited by dickymint on Saturday 25th March 19:59

[turbobloke]

Only another half hour to go with all the lights on.

[Einion Yrth]

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.