Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
dickymint said:
For clarity..... NOBODY ON HERE DENIES CLIMATE CHANGE FFS
Some do.But that's beside the point. You deny human caused climate change which is what that video (and the protest) is about.
PRTVR said:
How strange, I would imagine most of the people protesting have little or no idea about the science of AGW, having discussed the subject with quite a few believers it always shocked me how little they actually understand when asked to explain how it works
What a bizarre argument - you could say that about absolutely any field of expertise. I can't say I know much about aerodynamics but I'm happy to accept that planes fly.The question is: why don't you accept the findings of all the people who do know what they're talking about?
PRTVR said:
they are also unwilling to listen to anything that conflicts with their beliefs,even when provided with a logical explanation.
Not serious, surely. Every single objective source agrees with AGW, so how on earth can denying AGW be logical?
The point about denying AGW and logic was about the way they looked at things, they were unwilling to consider an alternative even when they didn't understand what they were talking about ,
it then becomes a belief system, like yourself quoting the weight of evidence , there is no such thing , there are numerous ideas, nothing more, if there was evidence we would not be having this discussion,
it's interesting that people get angry when questioning AGW, surely the way forward is instead of protesting try to understand the other view point.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
surely the way forward is instead of protesting try to understand the other view point.
Yet no one in the tin foil hat team do. The Labour luvvie Lord Donoughue put his tinfoil hat away to understand the bizarre vewpoint seen in many of his lefty chums.
Variously the Noble Lord said:
The issue of why the political left is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change alarmist ideology/faith, and hence there are relatively few left wing sceptics, is quite complex...
With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty, felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left. Climate change and the moral common good of saving the planet , with its claimed scientific certainties, offered to fill the vacuum...
My second point concerns the Stalinist tactics of the Green activists in trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith and to damage the lives and careers of any professional person who attempts to examine this subject in an honest way which might undermine their dogmatic claims. Their use of Holocaust language such as 'Denier', implying their target is akin to a neo Nazi, is but one example of the Stalinist mentality...
There are some excellent word/phrase choices there.With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty, felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left. Climate change and the moral common good of saving the planet , with its claimed scientific certainties, offered to fill the vacuum...
My second point concerns the Stalinist tactics of the Green activists in trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith and to damage the lives and careers of any professional person who attempts to examine this subject in an honest way which might undermine their dogmatic claims. Their use of Holocaust language such as 'Denier', implying their target is akin to a neo Nazi, is but one example of the Stalinist mentality...
the climate change alarmist ideology/faith
claimed scientific certainties
those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to
trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith
Thank goodness Lord D took the tinfoil off
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
surely the way forward is instead of protesting try to understand the other view point.
Yet no one in the tin foil hat team do. Bizarre.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I meant on this 'ere thread. You and your chums fapping on the biscuit.
You should know, having taken the biscuit with every faithful vested interest boring ad hom post.Still waiting for your enviable insider knowledge to slam dunk these UK per-turbine costs in addition to the astronomically expensive construction/installation/connection costs that are routinely confessed.
- location-specific capital costs in addition to the above
- maintenance and repair
- decommissioning
- social / health (human)
- environmental impacts e.g. clean-up after rare earth extraction
- environmental e.g. large-scale deaths of birds of prey and bats
- social e.g. property price decline for homes near white elephant eyerores
- conventional-powered plant back-up
- baseload cycling costs
- reduced grid reliability
Tick tock.
California to start taxing electric cars.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/13/california-ele...
Looks like the free lunch suddenly has a sell by date
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/13/california-ele...
Looks like the free lunch suddenly has a sell by date
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
AKA the sale of them no longer needs incentivising, as the uptake and sales are now self supporting ?
Non Subsidised if you will.
Probably, but it will be interesting to see how sales hold up without being subsidised , my friend has a Tesla and it's been nothing but trouble, to the point Tesla are replacing it with a new one, I wonder if we are at the point electric cars can compete without support.Non Subsidised if you will.
PRTVR said:
With aerodynamics? if I wanted to I could do test with repeatable results, not so with AGW, you say all the people associated with AGW know what they are talking about, I question that statement , I do not believe we have the ability to measure the earth's temperature accurately over a meaningful period of time, then I do not believe we understand the whole energy balance of the earth , without both of these everything becomes guesswork, especially when you are looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
So you don't believe that. That doesn't make it true.PRTVR said:
The point about denying AGW and logic was about the way they looked at things, they were unwilling to consider an alternative even when they didn't understand what they were talking about ,
it then becomes a belief system, like yourself quoting the weight of evidence , there is no such thing , there are numerous ideas, nothing more, if there was evidence we would not be having this discussion,
it's interesting that people get angry when questioning AGW, surely the way forward is instead of protesting try to understand the other view point.
Meh. Homeopaths make make exactly the same argument.it then becomes a belief system, like yourself quoting the weight of evidence , there is no such thing , there are numerous ideas, nothing more, if there was evidence we would not be having this discussion,
it's interesting that people get angry when questioning AGW, surely the way forward is instead of protesting try to understand the other view point.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Does subsidy free mean that the costs are coming down in real terms (perhaps making the previous subsidised installation uneconomic in unsibsidised terms?)) of have the cost of the electricity produced now risen far enough that in some cases the subsidy can be presented as not being necessary any more?
Is the consumer about to benefit from lower prices for electricity? Or maybe the prices will plateau for a few years?
Or will they just do up having become "the norm" for such to happen in the energy market around Europe?
I still wonder how this Brave New Industry can promote the idealism of creating "a hundred thousand jobs", the implication being NEW jobs, without mentioning that there has to be an increase in recurring costs to support the expense year after year.
Something seems to be missing.
It's an interesting gambling parallel though.
Suck the punters in until giving money away becomes normal and the losses are quietly forgotten while every "win" becomes a reason for celebration.
Very addictive. Not often a good lifestyle choice.
The "smart money" will make the concept pay by supporting legislation that mandates putting money in their bank accounts. Never out of the accounts.
Costs are coming down in real terms - the sad thing is that whilst material / construction costs are coming down, the red tape / QHSE aspects are pushing them up. Net effect is only a slight decline despite huge inroads in the efficiency of the 'plant' / wind farm. (hence my original statement / bet)Is the consumer about to benefit from lower prices for electricity? Or maybe the prices will plateau for a few years?
Or will they just do up having become "the norm" for such to happen in the energy market around Europe?
I still wonder how this Brave New Industry can promote the idealism of creating "a hundred thousand jobs", the implication being NEW jobs, without mentioning that there has to be an increase in recurring costs to support the expense year after year.
Something seems to be missing.
It's an interesting gambling parallel though.
Suck the punters in until giving money away becomes normal and the losses are quietly forgotten while every "win" becomes a reason for celebration.
Very addictive. Not often a good lifestyle choice.
The "smart money" will make the concept pay by supporting legislation that mandates putting money in their bank accounts. Never out of the accounts.
There are new jobs - I am not sure what you are meaning, and not in a sneery way.
Jobs for the factories, jobs for some of the defunct O&G fabrication sites (OGN at Wallsend, OSB on the River Tees, Harland and Wolff as just three throw away examples) and the infrastructure nearby - I was on the A47 last night, driving past the new landfall connection for the Dudgeon wind farm for example. That's all good 'work creation'.
The nature of the work and then the following lifecycle of the wind farms are also breathing life back in to dead fishing ports / towns. Grimsby for example.
Now a hive of activity and employment in the Fishdocks within the lock gates.
Clearly 'lots' of the WTG and foundations are made overseas - but thats the same as any 'product' and by using the CFD funding regime, and the 'Supply Chain Plan' that accompanies any auction submittal it at least creates a nod to the need to pump money back through UK Plc in return for the subsidy. (and I know, it is not' linked' or a demand but does create the connection and desire amongst the big picture)
ETA : the EAO1 from 2014 is the last accessible one : https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk...
Your cynicism still shines through however.
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Thursday 20th April 13:33
If you think that is cynicism (and unworthy cynicism of "the system" at that) then you ain't yet seen much of "life". Either that or you are an eternal optimist who never sees the faults in anything (except people who seem to have different opinions to you).
After a busy long weekend away I can't allocate the time to put a detailed response into play here - but maybe some simple points would give you something to respond to.
The UK's Electricity use has in recent times been falling, probably mainly because household demand has been relatively flat year on year with mild winter and no great uptake of aircon for not very hot summers. Efficiencies in certain areas are creeping in - lighting for example.
Industrial demand had been falling fast as traditional manufacturing demand shifts down and in some cases moves abroad due to cost savings.
So we need to create less electricity to satisfy typical demand levels even in the winter peaks that the UK experiences (rather then summer peaks that other locations experience).
Agreed so far?
On this basis the governments of the period have just about got away with a policy of no decision and investment in the traditional power sector for the last 2 or 3 decades.
More recently there have been disincentives for coal fired power leading to the closure, sometimes early closure, of already invested plant and the loss of some jobs in that area.
The Renewables Industry claims to be creating a large number of jobs, some of which presumably replace some of those lost in the traditional generation industry.
The figure of 100,000 jobs is often mentioned. Let's assume that at least some calcuations have been undertaken and the number is not purely plucked out of nowhere.
Are these permanent, year after year jobs with a recurring cost? Or are they "construction" jobs that last for a few years and then disappear?
Given the notionally shorter lifetime of renewable plant (20 to 25 years seems to be the most commonly offered number compared to 40 to 60 years for various types of "power station") one should probably assume we are looking at permanent jobs since at any point in time, once a "full fleet" has been delivered, at least 5% of that fleet will be subject to replacement based on the suggest life expectancy.
Unless the value of these 100k new jobs is miserably low the pay they will demand is likely to be at the upper end of the "middle sector" as things stand. So let's say that is an average of £60k per employee and so more like £120k at least by the time employer overheads have been added. So £12 billion a year.
So the new jobs, as required to match existing peak demand needs, will cost the consumer the capital costs of the plant plus a recurring £12billion per annum over and above the cost of electricity production costs in the prior "non-renewables" era, plant capital costs being perhaps equal when amortized over the period of life expectancy. (I'm not at all sure they are for a number of reasons related to economics but lets put that to one side for now.)
This amount is then added to bills in one form or another. If added to bills it does not count as a "subsidy" in political thinking but the net effect is the same - it's just not a largesse being paid out of state taxation. Rather it is an unavoidable charge based on state policy that leaves the state free to claim it is not subsidising anything and so to add further taxes for other things by re-calculating it's total current tax take to be smaller than existing policies actually take.
(The further wheeze here is that once you have forced prices up to the level at which new technologies can appear to be self funding in some form of "energy market re-rigging" it is then possible to make a claim that their comparative costs have come down and so they are now competitive without subsidies. This works really well if you have taken out the cost of connection to grids (and other required network infrastructure changes as well) and applied a separate billing amount for those services direct to the consumer. As I understand it this is what has been happening in some places, most notably in Canada.)
The recent Finnish university report seems to be suggesting that the UK could be more or less self sufficient in renewable electricity generation if the available plated wind capacity, mostly offshore, was increased to about 3 time the current maximum winter demand. In other words a huge investment in redundancy that still has potential gaps in supply generation - but not as many are there might be with a lower capacity available.
That could be seen either as a nice career gravy train for those involved or a huge financial penalty for everyone that could be avoided entirely.
The only way the intermittent excess production might be used is to find a means of absorbing it when it arises and which replaces existing facilities (and one that does not demand availability when supply is lacking).
So that suggests electrified heating, electric vehicles and so on. All of which will tend to add to social costs in the short term and persist in the long term whilst inducing scrappage of goods that have been engineered for a life expectancy (including energy and materials consumption) that will now be truncated and in part duplicated at additional cost. (All types of costs including CO2 output one notes. Own goal there?) )
Is this a good thing?
Should we all be applauding this concept?
If so, why?
Finally, even assuming that 100k jobs is likely to be "real" and "permanent", are jobs really the best measure of effectiveness of policy in the technological age of the proposed "Internet of Things?" and ever advancing robotics?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
How does that compare for example with the cost of the Oil platforms build / installation running (Turbobloke will have the full shopping list of costs for this no doubt
I'm not an insider within the oil industry so there's no reason to expect me to have a shopping list with costs. It was/is a silly and unfounded expectation, basically, not unlike expecting renewables to power a developed western economy without returning its citizens to localised medieval lifestyles.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Looking forward to the 'detailed' response 
There are a lot of probably's in there, by your own reckoning.
The aspect of the bill payers paying -sorry to sound a naive, but isn't that what happens with most things in life? Buying a BMW 3 series will not entail solely the costs for the car, but the running of the company, the R&D, the failures and successes, the Motorsport even. What happens if you don't want to fund the touring car / DTM ? do you ask for a rebate on the car purchase price?
Oil, or petrol. Buying fuels funds the new activities in exploration - in fact wins and fails : You know how many dusters you get per lease location ? and costs involved? Who do you think pays for that.
Actually, perhaps thats why Big Oil is moving in to wind? Less of a gamble per site / expenditure for the energy sold.
I'll leave that with you.
Moving on.
It also appears that you believe once 'Construction' is complete, there is no Jobs per site / location ?
Would you say there are more or less jobs created per site location when under build, or active?
How does that compare for example with the cost of the Oil platforms build / installation running (Turbobloke will have the full shopping list of costs for this no doubt, as it is normal to smell the colour seven in O&G cost terms)
Some of the queries you raise, and then yet guessing the answer are in fact what is planned - so good forecasting on the progress.
So what is your answer on the question of costs for perpetuated labour in the renewables industry being about 12billion per year more than would be required to generate, let alone distribute, the same amount of electricity using non-renewable facilities?There are a lot of probably's in there, by your own reckoning.
The aspect of the bill payers paying -sorry to sound a naive, but isn't that what happens with most things in life? Buying a BMW 3 series will not entail solely the costs for the car, but the running of the company, the R&D, the failures and successes, the Motorsport even. What happens if you don't want to fund the touring car / DTM ? do you ask for a rebate on the car purchase price?
Oil, or petrol. Buying fuels funds the new activities in exploration - in fact wins and fails : You know how many dusters you get per lease location ? and costs involved? Who do you think pays for that.
Actually, perhaps thats why Big Oil is moving in to wind? Less of a gamble per site / expenditure for the energy sold.
I'll leave that with you.
Moving on.
It also appears that you believe once 'Construction' is complete, there is no Jobs per site / location ?
Would you say there are more or less jobs created per site location when under build, or active?
How does that compare for example with the cost of the Oil platforms build / installation running (Turbobloke will have the full shopping list of costs for this no doubt, as it is normal to smell the colour seven in O&G cost terms)
Some of the queries you raise, and then yet guessing the answer are in fact what is planned - so good forecasting on the progress.
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Monday 24th April 18:27
Is that a reasonable estimate or not?
Are the jobs really NEW jobs or just re-positioning of old ones?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Moving on.
It also appears that you believe once 'Construction' is complete, there is no Jobs per site / location ?
Would you say there are more or less jobs created per site location when under build, or active?
I'm curious what the jobs/GW installed ratio is, both for construction and repairs/maintenance; from what I've read the R/M jobs seem well paid but fairly sparse yet non-industry cheerleaders like the Green Party etc generally go on about how wind power creates loads of jobs, which is a weird thing to trumpet as lots of jobs implies poor productivity/high cost, the same stick they use to beat nuclear power with.It also appears that you believe once 'Construction' is complete, there is no Jobs per site / location ?
Would you say there are more or less jobs created per site location when under build, or active?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The aspect of the bill payers paying -sorry to sound a naive, but isn't that what happens with most things in life? Buying a BMW 3 series will not entail solely the costs for the car, but the running of the company, the R&D, the failures and successes, the Motorsport even. What happens if you don't want to fund the touring car / DTM ? do you ask for a rebate on the car purchase price?
Oil, or petrol. Buying fuels funds the new activities in exploration - in fact wins and fails : You know how many dusters you get per lease location ? and costs involved? Who do you think pays for that.
Are you assuming that everyone is, by law, forced to buy a BMW 3 series and only a BMW 3 series?Oil, or petrol. Buying fuels funds the new activities in exploration - in fact wins and fails : You know how many dusters you get per lease location ? and costs involved? Who do you think pays for that.
Then, after they have bought a diesel BMW 3 series being told they have to scrap it or pay extra to use it because the rules have changed?
And maybe, shortly, then be told that any ICE is unaccaptable so that they must scrap what they have no matter how invested they are and buy an electric transportation device of some sort?
Exactly how does the average non-landowner benefit from being forced to buy ever more expensive electricity no matter whether the payment is to a service provider, as a cost increased above what is really necessary, or as taxation payment to the government which is then distributed by them as selected commercial largesse? At the moment it seems we have both in play.
(Which they can't undertake so easily now they have agreed to global anti-bribery regulations.)
I await the next 5 year plan revelation with interest but firstly I look forward to your considered answer.
Paddy is delusion/dishonest or just stirring as ever.
Just about every green energy initiative (meaning wind/solar/bio fuel, bio mass) so far has been worse for the environment and made no significant decrease to CO2 emissions, or actually increased!
The only reason CO2 emissions have dropped in some countries is because heavy industry (like steel in the UK) has abandoned, and coal generation has switched to gas.
Expensive (not affordable) energy prices/energy poverty levels and destruction of industry/manufacturing by country are directly proportional to the amount of wind/solar installed.
The green energy industry destroys far more jobs than it creates - because every green energy job is massively subsidized because green energy is not economically/commercially viable.
The poorest countries with the most extreme poverty/starvation/health issues, are the ones that use the least fossil fuels.
In the UK repeatedly last winter (not even cold so low demand), wind/solar made no contribution, went awol - it was coal/gas/nuclear that kept the lights on, there is no point the windmills/solar being there at all, just a white elephant inflating bills.
etc. etc.
And the latest scientific studies again confirm the pause, and again confirm that adjusted for volcanoes/ENSO there has been no warming at all, let alone any that can be attributed to man's CO2.
Just about every green energy initiative (meaning wind/solar/bio fuel, bio mass) so far has been worse for the environment and made no significant decrease to CO2 emissions, or actually increased!
The only reason CO2 emissions have dropped in some countries is because heavy industry (like steel in the UK) has abandoned, and coal generation has switched to gas.
Expensive (not affordable) energy prices/energy poverty levels and destruction of industry/manufacturing by country are directly proportional to the amount of wind/solar installed.
The green energy industry destroys far more jobs than it creates - because every green energy job is massively subsidized because green energy is not economically/commercially viable.
The poorest countries with the most extreme poverty/starvation/health issues, are the ones that use the least fossil fuels.
In the UK repeatedly last winter (not even cold so low demand), wind/solar made no contribution, went awol - it was coal/gas/nuclear that kept the lights on, there is no point the windmills/solar being there at all, just a white elephant inflating bills.
etc. etc.
And the latest scientific studies again confirm the pause, and again confirm that adjusted for volcanoes/ENSO there has been no warming at all, let alone any that can be attributed to man's CO2.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Well, all the others here know everything, and seem to think once the last one is plugged in to a diesel generator to make it flap around then its bob your uncle.
Like most comments on here by most people. They are wrong.
I can indicate the actuals, but already can hear the arguments I am wrong, and have not accounted for the the costs of the Animal sanctuaries for the displacement of seagull / fish.
i.e. I'm bored of contributing to be told Colour 7 arguments.
Pot, this is kettle; colour sitrep required. then its bob your uncle.Like most comments on here by most people. They are wrong.
I can indicate the actuals, but already can hear the arguments I am wrong, and have not accounted for the the costs of the Animal sanctuaries for the displacement of seagull / fish.
i.e. I'm bored of contributing to be told Colour 7 arguments.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Are you assuming that everyone is, by law, forced to buy a BMW 3 series and only a BMW 3 series?
Then, after they have bought a diesel BMW 3 series being told they have to scrap it or pay extra to use it because the rules have changed?
And maybe, shortly, then be told that any ICE is unaccaptable so that they must scrap what they have no matter how invested they are and buy an electric transportation device of some sort?
Not sure there's an argument here. Vote with your feet. Do as you will.Then, after they have bought a diesel BMW 3 series being told they have to scrap it or pay extra to use it because the rules have changed?
And maybe, shortly, then be told that any ICE is unaccaptable so that they must scrap what they have no matter how invested they are and buy an electric transportation device of some sort?
Buy your electricity from elsewhere?
LongQ said:
Exactly how does the average non-landowner benefit from being forced to buy ever more expensive electricity no matter whether the payment is to a service provider, as a cost increased above what is really necessary, or as taxation payment to the government which is then distributed by them as selected commercial largesse? At the moment it seems we have both in play.
(Which they can't undertake so easily now they have agreed to global anti-bribery regulations.)
I await the next 5 year plan revelation with interest but firstly I look forward to your considered answer.
Hate the Game, not the player. Is the price of electricity going up because of the price of the Fuels possibly ? The Cost of the Red Tape ? The cost of the labour and opex of the Power systems ? I would say this is where you should examine, as I have said and backed up with reports to say that despite the saving in technology, scale, contracting strategy and financing, the Red Tape / Human angle bumps it back up (although not to the same extent). Perhaps a touch of index linked pricing too as the futures of fuels and alike were bought, and never dialled back.(Which they can't undertake so easily now they have agreed to global anti-bribery regulations.)
I await the next 5 year plan revelation with interest but firstly I look forward to your considered answer.
Stick to your version if it grinds your teeth though. You seem to enjoy it
I'm only here too.... you get the point yet?
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Monday 24th April 22:59
You have previously claimed that you know that costs are coming down in the renewables sector for turbine deployment and thus the generation it sometimes provides.
Yet when I suggest the numbers reported might imply something else you suddenly have no answers and just offer .... nothing of any use at all.
I think it is very clear why you are here.
The point?
Yes. Pointless.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff