Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I


ETA - just heard him. WTF is 'Cleeeeean Coal. Reeaaalllly Cleeeeeean Coal' ?

Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Tuesday 28th March 22:32

It's the stuff that produces your 'Cleeeeeean' windymills !!

[PRTVR]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

If Trump is the Saviour to many on this thread, then the delusion runs deep, wide, thick and dumb.



Anyway. The travel ban and Obamacare repeal have both been roaring successes so far - the Wall is a doddle for a few brickies, should all be boxed off by 2020......




Muppets.


ETA - just heard him. WTF is 'Cleeeeean Coal. Reeaaalllly Cleeeeeean Coal' ?

Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Tuesday 28th March 22:32

Clean coal is if you discount CO2, that is plant food and necessary for life to exist on earth, it is just the need to remove the particulats from the emissions.

The difference with repealing the climate change act is there are no costs involved just gain.

[powerstroke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

powerstroke said:

How much does gas cost per MWH ?????

Gas?

Or the Gas powered power station, grid connection etc AND the Gas.



Either way, I don't know or care - ask the Gas man ?

So you are a self appointed windy mill promoter and you don't know how much the opposition costs!!!
not good, lucky you're not in sales !!!

[powerstroke]

Gandahar said:

Not read too much about Trumps first stab at altering the US political scene on climate change but some initial thoughts -

Having lost a congress vote on health care, which is a hard get, he has resorted back to executive orders which are a quick fix and easier but then can be more easily overturned, as per his and Obamas other executive orders. Rather than going for tax reform in the house which might be another bleeding battle it seems like a side adjourn to something where he can get a quick win and a photo opportunity to show the "can do, make the deal man" is back in the driving seat.

It's actually quite a good move; his staff and he must have talked a lot about this in the last 12 to 24 hours to right the ship. So good thinking and the Captain is in charge again. Problem is this is rather a knee jerk reaction to the loss on healthcare. Does it mean an iceberg ahead for them?

Sorry for using the word iceberg, something warmer and more rocky if you do want.

Sorry but this was a big part of his pitch for becoming president , he promised to deal with this nonsense on which he has made a good start ,
like cutting the EPA's budget and getting some better people in ... the Green Blob are upset so looks like he doing a better job on this than
obarma care ...

[turbobloke]

Watts on the wailing wets and their latest application of the epidemiological / ecological fallacy.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/28/and-the-wai...

Maybe there are Obana placemen who can knock this back so it's too soon to cheer. At least we got an accurate description of this new generation of professional wailing wets: paid ecochondriacs.

Details of the above fallacy are here for those who missed it last time, or would like a refresher:

http://wmbriggs.com/post/13029/

[turbobloke]

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/03/trump-resc...

[LongQ]

pgtips said:

LongQ said:

One can't help but feel somewhat bamboozled as a simple and obviously ignorant member of the public when reading the text of the Contract for difference terms and conditions.

ROCs were almost understandable to the layman in terms of numbers.

CfD is an entirely different game which I don;t believe the laymen is expected to understand nor are they to be encouraged to take in interest - other than to compare one published price to another and perhaps make an assumption, right or wrong, based on what we have been fed through the compliant media.

So we have the "strike price" as the only "measure" of supposed effectiveness offered to the plebs.

Everyone, possibly rightly, was suggesting that the stike price for Hinckley Point nuclear generated electricity at somewhere between £92.50 and £95.00 comparative measurement units was far too much to pay.

I note that OffshoreWIND.biz has this comment about the strike price for East Anglia ONE.

"Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a UK government-owned company created to deliver key elements of the Electricity Market Reform Programme, confirmed that Contract for Difference (CfD) milestones for East Anglia ONE have been fulfilled.

With the CfD milestones achieved and confirmed by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the project will be delivered at a price of £119/MWh, a cost reduction of 20% compared to other offshore wind farms that have been built in the UK, ScottishPower Renewables said."

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/04/27/east-anglia...


The strike price being confirmed by official numbers from the Government.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Maybe Paddy could explain why a variable and difficult to predict resource at 119 is good value when a far more consistent resource (based on the expected performance of the construction) at 95 is not.

It's not quite apples and applies unfortunately. I think the Hinkley CfD is 35 years, whereas offshore are 15 years. So you can't read across from CfD levels to technology costs. Either extend the annuity period on the wind to 35 years (and it becomes much cheaper comparatively) or reduce the nuc period to 15 years for a more reasonable comparison.

Reading this thread with interest... it struck me the only generation plant that have been built without some form of direct subsidy, or limited indirect subsidy (assuming the NTS is a sunk cost) is CCGT. Everything else has had massive direct subsidy - including renewables and, lest we forget, state-built coal and nucs. And no more CCGT will be built without substantial Capacity Payments.

I'm less optimistic than PnM about subsidy free offshore - I too see all the cost reductions, but I just see investors perceiving low gas prices as too high risk to invest on the back of - at least within 5 years. It does then beg the question, given history and current investment climate whether anything can be built without subsidy - direct or indirect?

But maybe some aspect of the difference is that a Hinckley point might be expected to have a decent life span and off-shore wind installations will have a shorter plan.

But then that is hardly the point.

We can thing of this as an interesting pissing contest about "costs" that will, no doubt, be figures manipulated by any and probably all partisan parties or we can take the number and say "that looks expensive in the short term".

It's a real "now" cost both financial and in terms of high "carbon" output with so much metal bashing, special materials, concrete and other materials being deployed.

All of this large construction "pollution" being enacted at a time when, we were told, there was a tipping point after which there would be an unsolvable "runaway" effect.

So in effect to throw away early the investments that were made some decades ago is incredibly wasteful as a starting point for discussion.

That the action also introduces additional "pollution", costs and potential supply failures when demand cannot be met hardly makes for wise decisions.

And all of that fails to propose a cost effective scheme for capacity supply in the event that the "free" energy may often fail to generate sufficient output meaning some other resources will need to be deployed for warmth, heat and light and, in many cases, other uses like keeping businesses able to function in a fully computerised electronically connected world.

If the level of "renewables" is achieved the investment incentive will be justified by making the "free" energy the preferred source of supply.

So other sources only get a look in when the "free" stuff cannot deliver sufficient power to fulfill demand. Eventually nothing gets a good commercially viable run and so investment stops. Or you find special arrangements in place, like STOR, which are relatively low on set up cost and quick to deploy but expensive to use and defeat the "CO2" reduction objective.

Thinking in extremely simplistic terms if the electricity production industry needs to create hundreds of thousand of new (and expensive) jobs in order for output to do no more than stand still (or potentially fall) there is no way the potential fuel cost free energy is going to be cheap.

It's also not as reliable or consistent as our developed societies have come to expect.

So what exactly is the point of it?

More specifically, what is the point and rationale for the target of 100% renewables that various governments seem to be hell bent on aiming for?

Is all of that truly anything more that massive cargo cult style vanity project?

[robinessex]

Todays Beeb CC story:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3941...

Trump makes major change to US climate change narrative

Matt McGrath obviosly not a happy bunny now

[robinessex]

The Daily Mirror brainwashes it's readers. CO2 is pollution !!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/really-clean...

"Coal is coal. It’s dirty, it comes out of the ground and when you burn it releases damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 29th March 11:53

[robinessex]

Try googling Clean Coal. Seems as if the entire world had been brain washed into believing that CO2 is a pollutant!! Did they all go to sleep during science at school? Never heard of photosynthesis? Gawd help us from the ignorant.

[LongQ]

robinessex said:

Try googling Clean Coal. Seems as if the entire world had been brain washed into believing that CO2 is a pollutant!! Did they all go to sleep during science at school? Never heard of photosynthesis? Gawd help us from the ignorant.

Just needs someone to point out that we all pollute the world with CO2 by breathing.

Then the masses may be persuaded to either stop breathing or, better, reject the stupidity of those who would try to influence them with poor reasoning.

[robinessex]

LongQ said:

robinessex said:

Try googling Clean Coal. Seems as if the entire world had been brain washed into believing that CO2 is a pollutant!! Did they all go to sleep during science at school? Never heard of photosynthesis? Gawd help us from the ignorant.

Just needs someone to point out that we all pollute the world with CO2 by breathing.

Then the masses may be persuaded to either stop breathing or, better, reject the stupidity of those who would try to influence them with poor reasoning.

Ok then. Olympics banned. Football Banned. Athletics banned. ALL Sport banned. To many going out there and polluting, just got to stop it to save the planet !!!

[The Don of Croy]

robinessex said:

LongQ said:

robinessex said:

Try googling Clean Coal. Seems as if the entire world had been brain washed into believing that CO2 is a pollutant!! Did they all go to sleep during science at school? Never heard of photosynthesis? Gawd help us from the ignorant.

Just needs someone to point out that we all pollute the world with CO2 by breathing.

Then the masses may be persuaded to either stop breathing or, better, reject the stupidity of those who would try to influence them with poor reasoning.

Ok then. Olympics banned. Football Banned. Athletics banned. ALL Sport banned. To many going out there and polluting, just got to stop it to save the planet !!!

Imagine if you were to tell the great unwashed that unscrupulous mega-corps inject this death-gas into their fizzy drinks. Their heads might explode.

[LongQ]

The Don of Croy said:

robinessex said:

LongQ said:

robinessex said:

Try googling Clean Coal. Seems as if the entire world had been brain washed into believing that CO2 is a pollutant!! Did they all go to sleep during science at school? Never heard of photosynthesis? Gawd help us from the ignorant.

Just needs someone to point out that we all pollute the world with CO2 by breathing.

Then the masses may be persuaded to either stop breathing or, better, reject the stupidity of those who would try to influence them with poor reasoning.

Ok then. Olympics banned. Football Banned. Athletics banned. ALL Sport banned. To many going out there and polluting, just got to stop it to save the planet !!!

Imagine if you were to tell the great unwashed that unscrupulous mega-corps inject this death-gas into their fizzy drinks. Their heads might explode.

It's tempting to wonder whether a campaign against water - given the climate change powers ascribed to water vapour - might gain momentum if presented in a similar way.

The picture accompanying the red top article a few posts back has the standard photo of power station cooling towers and water vapour output inserted so it must be something they are trying to promote as a new danger.

Either that or the photo librarians are as thick as two bricks.

Maybe both.

[turbobloke]

Michael Mann embarrasses himself (again). Delingpole provides a no holds barred commentary,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/31...

D'pole said:

Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.

Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007) This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here. So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University: “Liar, liar. Your pants on fire.” Here’s the evidence:

Click the link above for evidence of the four porkies - some if it was even in his own written testimony, what a biuffoon.

[hidetheelephants]

Countdown said:

s2art said:

DapperDanMan said:

Could you tell me what energy sources will power the human race into the future then?

Nuclear. There is enough fissile or fertile fuel to power the world for thousands of years. We might even get fusion to work by then.

Doesn't nuclear require a shedload of subsidy? IIRC EDF are wanting something like £53bn in subsidies to build Hickley Point....

Depends on the specific technology used, who is building it and under what regulatory regime; Koreans building in the middle east results in overnight costs in the ballpark of gas, EDF in Somerset results in overnight costs rivalling offshore wind(minus the intermittency). The Chinese, Indians and numerous private parties are working hard to bring MSR technology to fruition, which may actually deliver on the 1950s slogan of 'too cheap to meter' oft-cited by those with an irrational opposition to nuclear power.

[Gandahar]

Having thought about Donald chasing the coal mining vote I do think he's like the 21st C Arthur Scargill. When you have the US as world leaders in fracking and other oil / gas based products why go back to old fashioned coal?

I'd just like to point out to Donald that his navy, which is the best in the world by far, went from coal to oil more than 100 years back and his biggest ships went from oil to nuclear 60+ years back.

Maybe he will convert his plane to coal powered ?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 2nd April 18:40

[Gandahar]

powerstroke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

powerstroke said:

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 ,

Opinions are like aholes as they say, and thank you for helping me form an opinion on yourself with a view to the subject.

Cearly trolling with an axe to grind- albeit if you miss the grind stone in the same fashion as youve missed the facts, you'll have to watch you don't chop yourself down. As you've no sensible questions or points to make, I think 'Ignore' is for the best.

Yes the point is they work for small scale off grid , otherwise just a waste of time if you want secure constant power !!

Is there something called storage? Like when you charge up your phone overnight?

[Gandahar]

LongQ said:

robinessex said:

Try googling Clean Coal. Seems as if the entire world had been brain washed into believing that CO2 is a pollutant!! Did they all go to sleep during science at school? Never heard of photosynthesis? Gawd help us from the ignorant.

Just needs someone to point out that we all pollute the world with CO2 by breathing.

Then the masses may be persuaded to either stop breathing or, better, reject the stupidity of those who would try to influence them with poor reasoning.

Good argument about population control !

[Gandahar]

powerstroke said:

Gandahar said:

Not read too much about Trumps first stab at altering the US political scene on climate change but some initial thoughts -

Having lost a congress vote on health care, which is a hard get, he has resorted back to executive orders which are a quick fix and easier but then can be more easily overturned, as per his and Obamas other executive orders. Rather than going for tax reform in the house which might be another bleeding battle it seems like a side adjourn to something where he can get a quick win and a photo opportunity to show the "can do, make the deal man" is back in the driving seat.

It's actually quite a good move; his staff and he must have talked a lot about this in the last 12 to 24 hours to right the ship. So good thinking and the Captain is in charge again. Problem is this is rather a knee jerk reaction to the loss on healthcare. Does it mean an iceberg ahead for them?

Sorry for using the word iceberg, something warmer and more rocky if you do want.

Sorry but this was a big part of his pitch for becoming president , he promised to deal with this nonsense on which he has made a good start ,
like cutting the EPA's budget and getting some better people in ... the Green Blob are upset so looks like he doing a better job on this than
obarma care ...

When you say sorry as a first word I know you are on the back foot....

"he promised to deal with this nonsense on which he has made a good start ,
like cutting the EPA's budget and getting some better people in "

Go on then, name names.

I'll name Scott Pruitt as mine

From today

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/pruitt-epa-c...

""There's a warming trend, the climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that change in some measure," Pruitt said on "Fox News Sunday"


Read my lips

and human activity contributes to that change in some measure


Trumps got far more important things to sort out than you lot with your tin foil hats it seems.