Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
BIANCO said:
PKLD said:
Another PH poster more clever than me (with references and everyfink) posted this in the EV forum, just to put that article to bed: dpeilow
This story is absolute nonsense. Totally fails to understand how and when EV drivers recharge but more embarrasingly it makes schoolboy errors in the maths. I have sent the following letter to the Times.
Sir,
Your 11th February article "Electric cars mean UK could need 20 new nuclear plants" by Graham Paton shows both a lack of understanding of charging patterns of electric vehicle drivers and a failing of basic arithmetic.
Ninety per cent of all electric vehicle charging is done at home (source: OLEV) and of this the vast majority is done at night. Like many EV drivers, I programme mine to charge during the Economy 7 period to take advantage of cheap electricity rates of 8p per unit (kilowatt-hour). That charge is enough to cover my typical daily needs. Nationally, 73% of all vehicles are garaged or parked on private property overnight and even in urban areas the majority of cars are parked on private property (source: RAC Foundation), so there is scope for much of the fleet to be charged at off peak times today, even in cities.
Your article states that "At the maximum level of uptake in the city green cars would demand between seven and eight gigawatt-hours per year" and "Experts said this was equivalent to the output of more than two nuclear power stations similar to that being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset". Hinkley C will have an output of 3.2 gigawatts, meaning that in one hour, two such power stations would produce 6.4 gigawatt-hours. Clearly 8 gigawatt-hours in a year is not going to trouble such a facility, but in fact your total is very wide of the mark.
An electric vehicle like mine typically drives 4 miles with one kilowatt-hour. Therefore, taking average annual mileage of 7,900 miles per year (source: RAC Foundation), annual usage is just under 2,000 kWh or 2 megawatt-hours per car. Thus the 8 gigawatt-hours quoted in your article equates to only 4,000 cars' worth of electricity in a year. This is clearly incorrect, as London already has more electric vehicles on the road than that. Furthermore, it is 0.8% of the just over 1 Terawatt-hour (1,000 Gigawatt-hours) Transport for London states London Underground uses in one year (source: TfL).
More importantly, the article also completely misses the point that demand on the National Grid is not constant, but during the winter period varies from approximately 30 gigawatts at night to 50 gigawatts in the daytime peak (source: National Grid Demand). It is even less during the summer. Average annual mileage is under 22 miles per day, equating to a demand of under 6 kilowatt-hours per car, per day. If everyone recharged 90% of their needs during the seven hour Economy 7 period, each car would require under 1 kilowatt (or about 4 amps, less than a single electric heater). So today, during the Economy 7 period, 20 million cars can recharge before electricity demand reaches the same as the daytime peak. If all 31 million cars in the UK were electric, peak overnight demand (including existing demand) would be approximately 62 gigawatts - which was the peak demand in 2007 before LED lights and A+ appliances were commonplace. The other 10% of "away from home" daytime charging, which the government's proposed new initiative is aiming to meet by rolling out new fast chargers, will also comfortably remain within this historical threshold.
As the National Grid currently has a total generating capacity of 75 gigawatts and a further 3 gigawatts of foreign interconnectors (source: National Grid Winter Outlook Report 2016/17), it is therefore apparent that no new capacity is needed for a mass uptake of battery electric vehicles (note this is not true of electrolysed hydrogen, also mentioned in your article, which requires over three times as much electricity per mile to manufacture). In fact, a mass uptake of electric vehicles benefits the grid by allowing assets that would be idled overnight to continue to operate at full capacity. An electric vehicle fleet is complementary to existing National Grid domestic and industrial demand, not a burden to it.
What is needed is demand management - the so-called "Smart Grid" - to ensure that 31 million drivers do not arrive home and immediately recharge during the evening peak. To an extent this is done today through tariffs like Economy 7, but overnight charging should be the default option rather than merely encouraged (of course, like with a heater, this would not preclude an immediate boost if essential). As many domestic charging stations already include remote management via cellular links, by comparison this is relatively easy to implement and certainly not comparable to the expense and complication of an unnecessary build of 20 new nuclear power stations.
Yours faithfully...
OLEV: Drive an EV and you may never have to visit a petrol station again - Electric cars, low emission motoring - Go Ultra Low
RAC Foundation: Mobility
TfL: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-underground-carbo...
National Grid Demand: G. B. National Grid status
National Grid Winter Outlook Report: http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsse...
I'm sorry but I think you are wrong, you are using figures and patterns on the use of electric cars owned now and thinking that will continue. This story is absolute nonsense. Totally fails to understand how and when EV drivers recharge but more embarrasingly it makes schoolboy errors in the maths. I have sent the following letter to the Times.
Sir,
Your 11th February article "Electric cars mean UK could need 20 new nuclear plants" by Graham Paton shows both a lack of understanding of charging patterns of electric vehicle drivers and a failing of basic arithmetic.
Ninety per cent of all electric vehicle charging is done at home (source: OLEV) and of this the vast majority is done at night. Like many EV drivers, I programme mine to charge during the Economy 7 period to take advantage of cheap electricity rates of 8p per unit (kilowatt-hour). That charge is enough to cover my typical daily needs. Nationally, 73% of all vehicles are garaged or parked on private property overnight and even in urban areas the majority of cars are parked on private property (source: RAC Foundation), so there is scope for much of the fleet to be charged at off peak times today, even in cities.
Your article states that "At the maximum level of uptake in the city green cars would demand between seven and eight gigawatt-hours per year" and "Experts said this was equivalent to the output of more than two nuclear power stations similar to that being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset". Hinkley C will have an output of 3.2 gigawatts, meaning that in one hour, two such power stations would produce 6.4 gigawatt-hours. Clearly 8 gigawatt-hours in a year is not going to trouble such a facility, but in fact your total is very wide of the mark.
An electric vehicle like mine typically drives 4 miles with one kilowatt-hour. Therefore, taking average annual mileage of 7,900 miles per year (source: RAC Foundation), annual usage is just under 2,000 kWh or 2 megawatt-hours per car. Thus the 8 gigawatt-hours quoted in your article equates to only 4,000 cars' worth of electricity in a year. This is clearly incorrect, as London already has more electric vehicles on the road than that. Furthermore, it is 0.8% of the just over 1 Terawatt-hour (1,000 Gigawatt-hours) Transport for London states London Underground uses in one year (source: TfL).
More importantly, the article also completely misses the point that demand on the National Grid is not constant, but during the winter period varies from approximately 30 gigawatts at night to 50 gigawatts in the daytime peak (source: National Grid Demand). It is even less during the summer. Average annual mileage is under 22 miles per day, equating to a demand of under 6 kilowatt-hours per car, per day. If everyone recharged 90% of their needs during the seven hour Economy 7 period, each car would require under 1 kilowatt (or about 4 amps, less than a single electric heater). So today, during the Economy 7 period, 20 million cars can recharge before electricity demand reaches the same as the daytime peak. If all 31 million cars in the UK were electric, peak overnight demand (including existing demand) would be approximately 62 gigawatts - which was the peak demand in 2007 before LED lights and A+ appliances were commonplace. The other 10% of "away from home" daytime charging, which the government's proposed new initiative is aiming to meet by rolling out new fast chargers, will also comfortably remain within this historical threshold.
As the National Grid currently has a total generating capacity of 75 gigawatts and a further 3 gigawatts of foreign interconnectors (source: National Grid Winter Outlook Report 2016/17), it is therefore apparent that no new capacity is needed for a mass uptake of battery electric vehicles (note this is not true of electrolysed hydrogen, also mentioned in your article, which requires over three times as much electricity per mile to manufacture). In fact, a mass uptake of electric vehicles benefits the grid by allowing assets that would be idled overnight to continue to operate at full capacity. An electric vehicle fleet is complementary to existing National Grid domestic and industrial demand, not a burden to it.
What is needed is demand management - the so-called "Smart Grid" - to ensure that 31 million drivers do not arrive home and immediately recharge during the evening peak. To an extent this is done today through tariffs like Economy 7, but overnight charging should be the default option rather than merely encouraged (of course, like with a heater, this would not preclude an immediate boost if essential). As many domestic charging stations already include remote management via cellular links, by comparison this is relatively easy to implement and certainly not comparable to the expense and complication of an unnecessary build of 20 new nuclear power stations.
Yours faithfully...
OLEV: Drive an EV and you may never have to visit a petrol station again - Electric cars, low emission motoring - Go Ultra Low
RAC Foundation: Mobility
TfL: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-underground-carbo...
National Grid Demand: G. B. National Grid status
National Grid Winter Outlook Report: http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsse...
You say that 90% of cars are charged at home at night, that is because people who have them now are almost certain to have a drive or garage. The vast majority of cars in the UK are parked on the road which makes overnight charging almost impossible.
The only people that will be able to take advantage of them are people who have a drive or can charge up at work in a car park in work hours. I don't think the 90% figure will last.
Upton Sinclair strikes again.
PKLD said:
As the National Grid currently has a total generating capacity of 75 gigawatts and a further 3 gigawatts of foreign interconnectors (source: National Grid Winter Outlook Report 2016/17), it is therefore apparent that no new capacity is needed for a mass uptake of battery electric vehicles (note this is not true of electrolysed hydrogen, also mentioned in your article, which requires over three times as much electricity per mile to manufacture). In fact, a mass uptake of electric vehicles benefits the grid by allowing assets that would be idled overnight to continue to operate at full capacity. An electric vehicle fleet is complementary to existing National Grid domestic and industrial demand, not a burden to it.
What is needed is demand management - the so-called "Smart Grid" - to ensure that 31 million drivers do not arrive home and immediately recharge during the evening peak. To an extent this is done today through tariffs like Economy 7, but overnight charging should be the default option rather than merely encouraged (of course, like with a heater, this would not preclude an immediate boost if essential). As many domestic charging stations already include remote management via cellular links, by comparison this is relatively easy to implement and certainly not comparable to the expense and complication of an unnecessary build of 20 new nuclear power stations.
Yours faithfully...
OLEV: Drive an EV and you may never have to visit a petrol station again - Electric cars, low emission motoring - Go Ultra Low
RAC Foundation: Mobility
TfL: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-underground-carbo...
National Grid Demand: G. B. National Grid status
National Grid Winter Outlook Report: http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsse...
What's missing from all that wonderful information is that most of the nuclear power stations are well past their sell by date, Hinkley point.... The only other EPR power stations have not gone on line yet facing massive cost over runs, Finland has cancelled a second EPR power station so it may take sometime to get it working ,then we have Moorside the proposed plant near selefields looks to be in trouble ,What is needed is demand management - the so-called "Smart Grid" - to ensure that 31 million drivers do not arrive home and immediately recharge during the evening peak. To an extent this is done today through tariffs like Economy 7, but overnight charging should be the default option rather than merely encouraged (of course, like with a heater, this would not preclude an immediate boost if essential). As many domestic charging stations already include remote management via cellular links, by comparison this is relatively easy to implement and certainly not comparable to the expense and complication of an unnecessary build of 20 new nuclear power stations.
Yours faithfully...
OLEV: Drive an EV and you may never have to visit a petrol station again - Electric cars, low emission motoring - Go Ultra Low
RAC Foundation: Mobility
TfL: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-underground-carbo...
National Grid Demand: G. B. National Grid status
National Grid Winter Outlook Report: http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsse...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/03/t...
Electricity production appears to be heading into a black hole, into this hole let's all drive EV, yep that makes sense,smart grids only work if you have the power in the first place.
Who on earth will want to own an all electric car if the technology continues to advance - as it surely needs to do.
Will "the government" offer people a few grand every few years to replace their obsolete battery technology? The equivalent of the proposed diesel scrappage scam?
Would such a scheme achieve anything more than a huge manufacturing waste and an increase in "carbon" output to support it?
London is a classic example of why it is, for most people, insane to consider owning a car especially if the "authorities" are keen to promote "solutions" their pet hates. If those solutions can offer the additional benefit of populace control and managed billing, such as that which would surely be the objective of an autonomous pod fleet, and be sold to the masses as an opportunity to improve safety and security, then the authorities will be very attracted to the concept.
"The Masses", who live in flats and cramped houses and risk having their recharging cables stolen or re-purposed every night, would surely go for a solution that might be soled rather like a mobile phone contract or paid for by contactless payment technology. Not real spending at all. And not you the hirer's problem if they are out of fuel or something breaks.
Better yet you can rent the sort of vehicle you need for the journey. Bunch of mates going to a club? Call for an 8 seater. Everyone leaving separately later - take a small pod for less the the price of a taxi. Off your head after a night out - no problem, autonocab does not care although you might find an extra charge on the bill for "deep cleaning".
To roll the technology out quickly - as may be necessary to make the concept work and get non-autonomous vehicles off the roads - would require government supported investment. That will be justified by the authorities on the basis of cutting CO2 and pollution levels and no doubt a few other things. What they really want of course is the ability to constantly track as many people as possibly for reasons of "security". The networks of CCTV cameras could be augmented by vehicle based monitoring systems. That will save a few quid as the cameras come up for replacement.
I would guess that in about 10 years from now the kids coming out of the education system will have very different objectives to just about any generations that have gone before. The curriculum and methods used to influence thought and ideology will likely make sure of that. It will be perceive to be in the interest of all for that to happen. No political party could turn down the opportunity to know just about everything about their funding sources at all times.
In this way they will have control over matters of energy supply and will be able to enforce demand management probably using second generation Smart Meters as a primary control component in that mix to discourage the concept of privately owned and operated personal travel pods although for those with the wherewithal having a reserved personal pod run under a personal finance scheme and dedicated service levels may be offered as an option.
As for the availability of electricity? Easy to start with - each recharge station has a backup diesel powered energy generation farm "just in case" and that facility also acts as a STOR backup for the wider grid. That also means that the "parked" pods, resting between rentals, can be used if necessary to maintain a stable grid frequency for most of the day, thus allowing the potential problems of demand management at peak times to be addressed by extremely specific solutions rather than needing to be part of a more generic "catch all problems" investment policy.
Having "Climate Change" as an overarching "we are doing our bit for the world" moral crutch in such a scheme would be desirable - perhaps even necessary for it to be accepted widely.
That is why I expect to see the pressures continue and the likelihood of ever poorer political decisions being made becoming an odds on bet.
Will "the government" offer people a few grand every few years to replace their obsolete battery technology? The equivalent of the proposed diesel scrappage scam?
Would such a scheme achieve anything more than a huge manufacturing waste and an increase in "carbon" output to support it?
London is a classic example of why it is, for most people, insane to consider owning a car especially if the "authorities" are keen to promote "solutions" their pet hates. If those solutions can offer the additional benefit of populace control and managed billing, such as that which would surely be the objective of an autonomous pod fleet, and be sold to the masses as an opportunity to improve safety and security, then the authorities will be very attracted to the concept.
"The Masses", who live in flats and cramped houses and risk having their recharging cables stolen or re-purposed every night, would surely go for a solution that might be soled rather like a mobile phone contract or paid for by contactless payment technology. Not real spending at all. And not you the hirer's problem if they are out of fuel or something breaks.
Better yet you can rent the sort of vehicle you need for the journey. Bunch of mates going to a club? Call for an 8 seater. Everyone leaving separately later - take a small pod for less the the price of a taxi. Off your head after a night out - no problem, autonocab does not care although you might find an extra charge on the bill for "deep cleaning".
To roll the technology out quickly - as may be necessary to make the concept work and get non-autonomous vehicles off the roads - would require government supported investment. That will be justified by the authorities on the basis of cutting CO2 and pollution levels and no doubt a few other things. What they really want of course is the ability to constantly track as many people as possibly for reasons of "security". The networks of CCTV cameras could be augmented by vehicle based monitoring systems. That will save a few quid as the cameras come up for replacement.
I would guess that in about 10 years from now the kids coming out of the education system will have very different objectives to just about any generations that have gone before. The curriculum and methods used to influence thought and ideology will likely make sure of that. It will be perceive to be in the interest of all for that to happen. No political party could turn down the opportunity to know just about everything about their funding sources at all times.
In this way they will have control over matters of energy supply and will be able to enforce demand management probably using second generation Smart Meters as a primary control component in that mix to discourage the concept of privately owned and operated personal travel pods although for those with the wherewithal having a reserved personal pod run under a personal finance scheme and dedicated service levels may be offered as an option.
As for the availability of electricity? Easy to start with - each recharge station has a backup diesel powered energy generation farm "just in case" and that facility also acts as a STOR backup for the wider grid. That also means that the "parked" pods, resting between rentals, can be used if necessary to maintain a stable grid frequency for most of the day, thus allowing the potential problems of demand management at peak times to be addressed by extremely specific solutions rather than needing to be part of a more generic "catch all problems" investment policy.
Having "Climate Change" as an overarching "we are doing our bit for the world" moral crutch in such a scheme would be desirable - perhaps even necessary for it to be accepted widely.
That is why I expect to see the pressures continue and the likelihood of ever poorer political decisions being made becoming an odds on bet.
dickymint said:
That's the thing see Durbs it is YOU that keeps spouting off about nobody "does the research" and reads the "scientific papers". When in fact many of us actually do. It is YOU that has a closed mind and refuses to read the alternative view. It is YOU that switches off when any source of information (wether it be science based or political) does not fit your mindset.
The problem here is that anyone who reads the thread knows that's complete rubbish. I recently contacted dozens of scientists cited in here by turbobloke to ask them if he was accurately representing their work and all who replied told me he wasn't. That is the exact opposite of what you're describing.You're mistaking questioning the "alternative view", with not blindly accepting it.
dickymint said:
And in answer to your question: yes I did find the source and read it.
I'm surprised when your contributions seem to be limited to passive aggressive personal attacks and/or back-slapping.dickymint said:
In answer to your other question, it has no relevance, much like most of your guff, in this thread about POLITICS!
I'm guessing this means that you've since looked the graph up and seen that it's garbage. Your argument is in a dead-end so all of a sudden you're really concerned about being off-topic. 
It was robinessex who posted the graph, not me. You and LongQ can direct your complaints at him.
Moonhawk said:
There are references at the bottom of the chart.
turbobloke said:
Awesome post, miss the references ...
Jacobyte said:
It took me under 2 minutes to Google the names to find the relevant sources.
OK, so what about this version? It's the same data, apparently, but completely different results:
dickymint said:
turbobloke said:
It seemed that way. Time for a spot of Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".
Yet another poster with actual relevant knowledge of the subject attacked and undermined.Are you really so frightened that your position won't stand up to being challenged? I can't think of any other reason why you're only interested in reading contributions from people who have no knowledge of the subject.
PKLD said:
powerstroke said:
f
king epic and the gravy train jumper hasn't even got a electric car according to his profile 
And as mechanic/tech do you have a vested interest in slagging off EVs that eh, don't need as much servicing? These traditional ICE cars are great income stream for the service industry - a gravy train of work for technology that has to be repaired, fixed and serviced as it wears out king epic and the gravy train jumper hasn't even got a electric car according to his profile 
durbster said:
Jacobyte said:
It took me under 2 minutes to Google the names to find the relevant sources.
OK, so what about this version? It's the same data, apparently, but completely different results:durbster said:
so what about this version
It's garbage. Smoothing to that degree is hilarious."Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!"
http://wmbriggs.com/post/195/
durbster said:
I recently contacted dozens of scientists cited in here by turbobloke to ask them if he was accurately representing their work and all who replied told me he wasn't. That is the exact opposite of what you're describing.
Of course you did, dozens it was, and after you'd done that the results are opinion, whereas the papers contain evidence.The data in the papers is what matters, not how worried the authors are about putting their heads above the parapet.
Remember CERN CLOUD? The head honcho scientist made any discussion of implications of the result forbidden territory for the scientists involved; the rest of us know what the implications are of course.
Heads over the parapet is a career-risking, grant-risking bad move. Your point is lost.
Good for the hat-trick:
https://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/front-pages.cfm
Scroll down to see 'The Independent'
https://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/front-pages.cfm
Scroll down to see 'The Independent'
durbster said:
The problem here is that anyone who reads the thread knows that's complete rubbish. I recently contacted dozens of scientists cited in here by turbobloke to ask them if he was accurately representing their work and all who replied told me he wasn't. That is the exact opposite of what you're describing.
Ok I'll bite and call your bluff.Care to publish your actual question/s? Who you contacted (dozens of them please)? exactly how many responded and what did they actually say?
No doubt you will claim the fifth amendment (not applicable in the uk
) and I suppose an FOI request would be declined as well So come on fezz up as it's normally you demanding "source"!!
dickymint said:
Ok I'll bite and call your bluff.
Care to publish your actual question/s? Who you contacted (dozens of them please)? exactly how many responded and what did they actually say?
No doubt you will claim the fifth amendment (not applicable in the uk ) and I suppose an FOI request would be declined as well
So come on fezz up as it's normally you demanding "source"!!
What bluff? It's on page 4 of this thread, January 14th. Care to publish your actual question/s? Who you contacted (dozens of them please)? exactly how many responded and what did they actually say?
No doubt you will claim the fifth amendment (not applicable in the uk
) and I suppose an FOI request would be declined as well So come on fezz up as it's normally you demanding "source"!!
Relavant posts from durbster on 14 January would appear to be these:
I have checked out this list of papers from No Tricks Zone, that you claim is scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming. A list you claim contains evidence that all the things attributed to human-induced global warming have been explained by ocean cycles and solar activity.
But I didn't analyse them myself. What I actually did was contact the authors of every single paper in your list that I could find contact details for, and simply asked them.
It's been an enlightening week, with a great response from around half the scientists I've contacted already.
In summary:
It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why. scratchchin
(Edit: this isn't quite right. As wc98 pointed out, registration isn't actually necessary but the ability to comment on particular articles seems to be at the discretion of the site owner).
But more importantly, every single scientist rejected the assertion from NTZ and yourself, that their work constituted evidence against AGW. Some said the AGW signal had been identified in their data, others said they incorporated it into their research because it was such an important factor in ocean cycles.
And every single one said AGW was real, and was happening.
Also:
It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.
Apart from hanging on how many contact details were found, other details are thin whereas the assertions aren't...not that it matters. As already pointed out, putting heads above the parapet, and advertising the fact, can be very dangerous for careers and grant funding, and there are often fudge statements in conclusions to leave the door open to plausible denial because of this. That's also been commented on before now.
What would have been impressive is if somebody had replied with details of the visible causal human signal in global climate data but as this doesn't exist it's not surprisingly absent from comms. As 'some said' that this signal had been identified in their data, how come others missed it? That claim is risible.
I have checked out this list of papers from No Tricks Zone, that you claim is scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming. A list you claim contains evidence that all the things attributed to human-induced global warming have been explained by ocean cycles and solar activity.
But I didn't analyse them myself. What I actually did was contact the authors of every single paper in your list that I could find contact details for, and simply asked them.
It's been an enlightening week, with a great response from around half the scientists I've contacted already.
In summary:
It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why. scratchchin
(Edit: this isn't quite right. As wc98 pointed out, registration isn't actually necessary but the ability to comment on particular articles seems to be at the discretion of the site owner).
But more importantly, every single scientist rejected the assertion from NTZ and yourself, that their work constituted evidence against AGW. Some said the AGW signal had been identified in their data, others said they incorporated it into their research because it was such an important factor in ocean cycles.
And every single one said AGW was real, and was happening.
Also:
It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.
Apart from hanging on how many contact details were found, other details are thin whereas the assertions aren't...not that it matters. As already pointed out, putting heads above the parapet, and advertising the fact, can be very dangerous for careers and grant funding, and there are often fudge statements in conclusions to leave the door open to plausible denial because of this. That's also been commented on before now.
What would have been impressive is if somebody had replied with details of the visible causal human signal in global climate data but as this doesn't exist it's not surprisingly absent from comms. As 'some said' that this signal had been identified in their data, how come others missed it? That claim is risible.
durbster said:
dickymint said:
Ok I'll bite and call your bluff.
Care to publish your actual question/s? Who you contacted (dozens of them please)? exactly how many responded and what did they actually say?
No doubt you will claim the fifth amendment (not applicable in the uk ) and I suppose an FOI request would be declined as well
So come on fezz up as it's normally you demanding "source"!!
What bluff? It's on page 4 of this thread, January 14th. Care to publish your actual question/s? Who you contacted (dozens of them please)? exactly how many responded and what did they actually say?
No doubt you will claim the fifth amendment (not applicable in the uk
) and I suppose an FOI request would be declined as well So come on fezz up as it's normally you demanding "source"!!
Anything that came back, if indeed anything ever went out to those dozens of authors (we have no compelling evidence either way) would inevitably have been along the lines of Dr Roy Spencer who has said of agw "I believe but cannot prove". That's what and where agw is: belief with no available proof. No visible causal human signal exists. Anyone can believe they see it in data, but seeing invisible things requires quasi-religious faith when there is no causal attribution. Political patronage seems to help.
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
The problem here is that anyone who reads the thread knows that's complete rubbish. I recently contacted dozens of scientists cited in here by turbobloke to ask them if he was accurately representing their work and all who replied told me he wasn't. That is the exact opposite of what you're describing.
Ok I'll bite and call your bluff.Care to publish your actual question/s? Who you contacted (dozens of them please)? exactly how many responded and what did they actually say?
No doubt you will claim the fifth amendment (not applicable in the uk
) and I suppose an FOI request would be declined as well So come on fezz up as it's normally you demanding "source"!!
durbster said:
There were 35 papers listed. I sent 21 emails and have had 10 replies so far.
... but that does not even reach ONE dozen anonymous replies to an unstated question, which he says backs his position.Some of us are not holding our breath, but have asked for a little more detail, durbster
Trump so far on "climate change", so far as I can deduce, and it's certainly fast flowing
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...
And that's not even climate change. I think he did something about allowing polluting streams in the USA again, though it's hard to keep up.
Meanwhile he lost one of his top staff, very nice way of draining the swamp, at least by one and now has Israel visiting for a round of golf, and gulf, matters
The great white knight for the skeptical/alarmist/itmightcostme£1 brigade is off jousting on other fronts it seems.
I think Paris and Coal might be on the "back burner" at the moment.
Depending on how those go though he should get around to it. In the meantime, ripe pickings at him I guess on his stumbling around.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...
And that's not even climate change. I think he did something about allowing polluting streams in the USA again, though it's hard to keep up.
Meanwhile he lost one of his top staff, very nice way of draining the swamp, at least by one
and now has Israel visiting for a round of golf, and gulf, matters The great white knight for the skeptical/alarmist/itmightcostme£1 brigade is off jousting on other fronts it seems.
I think Paris and Coal might be on the "back burner" at the moment.
Depending on how those go though he should get around to it. In the meantime, ripe pickings at him I guess on his stumbling around.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 15th February 20:12
Why nuclear is worse than coal or wind turbines
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
Gandahar said:
Why nuclear is worse than coal or wind turbines
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
You and the Guardian would be in strong disagreement with James Hansen in respect of Nuclear vs Coal.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
Fukishima was clearly an outlier event but of course having created the fear the numbers can be ramped up for any purpose that suits. Will anyone ever know what the actual costs are - either higher of lower and whether estimates or actual opportunities lost for alternative investment?
Dounraey was a research establishment and recycling plant, not an electricity generating facility, run in a way that seemed acceptable for standards at the time but, as with so many things, condemned subsequently. That, in so many areas of our world, seems to be a 21st Century trait.
Things have moved on. Revised thinking from the experts may take some while to appear in the massed arena of public consciousness. It may never appear.
Russia, for one, seems to be keen to help countries around the world build Nuclear plants from its designs. One has to assume that those countries think the investment will be cost effective for their purpose.
The USA, despite many apparent "issues" with Nuclear power, has a number of Nuclear Powered plants and a long delayed project related to where the 'nasty waste' is to be stored safely for eternity.
The target location has for some time been Yucca Mountain.
For some sort of background to that try Wikipedia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nucle...
However that project seems to be making incredibly slow process given what one might assume to be its apparent importance to all concerned.
Maybe it is simply not that important any more?
https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_n...
Unless, or course, the person in question is simply a shill for the Nuclear industry and possibly a mate of James Hansen.
They all have it in for coal though.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-UNSCEAR-studi...
Except for Bangladesh and a few other places where Governments seem to like it a lot as port of their energy future.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/09/bangla...
By the way, has anyone ever seen any cleanup costs for wind turbines mentioned anywhere? Ever?
I can't remember seeing anything myself and the planning applications I have looked into don't even raise the subject.
I have from time to time asked the question in various places but so far no response.
I would assume that that it the question never asked and the responsibility never set in place.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff