Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LongQ said:
Lower cost.
Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
pity there were no huge wind farms off the south coast of florida the last few days ,might have been able to keep the power on Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
LongQ said:
Lower cost.
Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
Yes - I take your points but even as a skeptic/non-alarmist in principle I'm all for lower cost renewables. The fossil fuels will run out someday and until nuclear gets properly sorted (in terms of the science/engineering) then they surely have a part to play?Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
DibblyDobbler said:
LongQ said:
Lower cost.
Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
Yes - I take your points but even as a skeptic/non-alarmist in principle I'm all for lower cost renewables. The fossil fuels will run out someday and until nuclear gets properly sorted (in terms of the science/engineering) then they surely have a part to play?Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
PRTVR said:
I personally don't think so,the variability was main reason we switched from wind power in the first place, nothing has changed, Nuclear works and has for a long time, all we need is large ones for base load, and small ones to fill in during peak demand, yes it will cost but , really there is no alternative,long term.
Well I'm not for a minute saying wind could do it all but wind + fossil or even better wind + nuclear seems like a good mix to me so if they can get wind working better then I'm happy.DibblyDobbler said:
PRTVR said:
I personally don't think so,the variability was main reason we switched from wind power in the first place, nothing has changed, Nuclear works and has for a long time, all we need is large ones for base load, and small ones to fill in during peak demand, yes it will cost but , really there is no alternative,long term.
Well I'm not for a minute saying wind could do it all but wind + fossil or even better wind + nuclear seems like a good mix to me so if they can get wind working better then I'm happy.DibblyDobbler said:
LongQ said:
Lower cost.
Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
Yes - I take your points but even as a skeptic/non-alarmist in principle I'm all for lower cost renewables. The fossil fuels will run out someday and until nuclear gets properly sorted (in terms of the science/engineering) then they surely have a part to play?Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
There are additional costs for the overall supply that are not borne as costs of the developments. And if renewable should somehow become really cheap and therefore dominate the market (assuming a relatively free market) the chance of any company investing in anything else - without significant support from "the State" - would be slight. So infrastructure and generation capability to reduce the risk of serious outages due to intermittency would become very expensive. In effect the subsidy pendulum will just swing the other way.
Worth case scenario is that we have a full generation capacity maximum demand matching full cost non renewable generating capability, used a few days a year mostly in the winter, a full capacity specified renewables complement that is over specified at plated value six fold in order to get it to the point that it could be claimed to be all renewable, even at low wind at night, for all but those few days or weeks of the year when the backup has to run and all investment in anything else that might be a bit costly has been abandoned in order to satisfy the build costs of this completely wasteful over capacity for no obvious long term benefit at all.
Worse still the renewable stuff, being relaltively short life, will be like the Forth bridge and need replacing at the rate of about 5% per annum.
If you "add jobs", as is so often proudly claimed for the Offshore wind industry, you will add to costs. At some point economies in other areas will be impossible to find and prices may plateau for a while before starting to increase. However I would guess that is actually very unlikely given the apparently aggressive objectives for wind.in particular in the next few years.
Now if the wind supporters can drive gas out on a limb now that coal has gone and then general stop much progress on Nuclear they will open up for themselves at least 20 or 30 years of no real competition for the available largess. Governments will have no realistic options for short terms response where wind of solar fails to deliver than wind or solar. Or portable Diesel generators.
In any case there would be no budget left to build new despatchable power generation facilities. Not enough will be left over once the pay day loans have been serviced.
The best they can really do is inflate the cost of everything else to make electricity appear cheap at an price.
It would be interesting to test the new subsidy rate basis by looking to replace early some of the existing off-shore installations sooner rather than later in order to see how the market would respond. tions that are now lookiing
DibblyDobbler said:
PRTVR said:
I personally don't think so,the variability was main reason we switched from wind power in the first place, nothing has changed, Nuclear works and has for a long time, all we need is large ones for base load, and small ones to fill in during peak demand, yes it will cost but , really there is no alternative,long term.
Well I'm not for a minute saying wind could do it all but wind + fossil or even better wind + nuclear seems like a good mix to me so if they can get wind working better then I'm happy.DibblyDobbler said:
Don't want to come over all stuffy but that's in rather poor taste isn't it? People died.
people die every day from all sorts of things , fairly sure many jokes could be taken in poor taste depending on circumstances. apologies if it offends you , feel free to make any joke you like about me when i pop my clogs, i won't care, i will be dead.Just seen this posted on twitter as defence of global warming, is japense met a good source or poor one?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp...
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp...
revrange said:
Just seen this posted on twitter as defence of global warming, is japense met a good source or poor one?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp...
It's an anomaly plot showing a trend.http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp...
The validity of the temperature data behind the plot isn't questioned or analysed, nor is it easily available for inspection, and there's no causality to humans in any trend of itself.
This exercise invites the reader to assume that the trend is real and has been attributed to humans when the latter is false so the former is moot anyway.
revrange said:
Just seen this posted on twitter as defence of global warming, is japense met a good source or poor one?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp...
It depends on your view point , if it confirms your beliefs it will be a good source, I struggle with the relevance of a global temperature, it's a man made number and as such is open to adjustment, anybody remember the Russians complaining that their data was missing lots of the coldest readings, it exists only in a computer program and it's relevance is totally man made.http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp...
PRTVR said:
It depends on your view point , if it confirms your beliefs it will be a good source, I struggle with the relevance of a global temperature, it's a man made number and as such is open to adjustment, anybody remember the Russians complaining that their data was missing lots of the coldest readings, it exists only in a computer program and it's relevance is totally man made.
And historically it is not even a mean value but the median point between highest and lowest air temps recorded mixed with bucket temps with error bars falsely reduced by misusing the law of large numbers (number of identically distributed, randomly generated variables increases, their sample mean (average) approaches their theoretical mean.)One thing that has puzzled me for a while is why "the world" seems to be able to discuss and fund putting people on Mars (for reasons I cannot fathom at all) and perform all sort of other remarkable feats, often using very old technology, "flying" spacecraft around the universe and yet does not seem able or have the will to properly monitor the base camp planet for what we are constantly told is a major threat to humanity's continued existence.
Is it really too expensive to replace dodgy satellites that have non-working sensors when the data they deliver is the key to all modelling and policy decisions?
If science says the planet can be considered to be rather akin to a black body, would it be too difficult to create and launch some satellites that can monitor the "visible" temperature over the entire sphere from space? It seems it can be done for other very distant objects (we are told) so why not our own planet?
Even land and sea based measurement projects seem to provide less coverage than they might and probably should.
Various futile publicity stunts related to trying to show there is no ice in the Arctic seem to get funding that, surely, could be better used if allocated to some decent solid technology backed data capture.
It's almost like people may not want to know the numbers that might result, although why that should be is beyond me.
Is it really too expensive to replace dodgy satellites that have non-working sensors when the data they deliver is the key to all modelling and policy decisions?
If science says the planet can be considered to be rather akin to a black body, would it be too difficult to create and launch some satellites that can monitor the "visible" temperature over the entire sphere from space? It seems it can be done for other very distant objects (we are told) so why not our own planet?
Even land and sea based measurement projects seem to provide less coverage than they might and probably should.
Various futile publicity stunts related to trying to show there is no ice in the Arctic seem to get funding that, surely, could be better used if allocated to some decent solid technology backed data capture.
It's almost like people may not want to know the numbers that might result, although why that should be is beyond me.
The Beebs CC news today:-
Paris climate deal: US denies it will stay in accord
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41296988
Will he, won't he ?
Paris climate deal: US denies it will stay in accord
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41296988
Will he, won't he ?
Computer models wrong shock horror..................
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-were-wr...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-were-wr...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
At least there is some awareness in the models. One step ahead I'd say.
Awareness of what - where the next grant cheque will come from and how to expedite it?Similar to milking wind subsidies.
One step ahead of what - tossing a coin?
IPCC Expert Reviewer Ross McKitrick said:
Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change? I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.
Anything else "you'd say" on climate models, don't hold back 
turbobloke said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
At least there is some awareness in the models. One step ahead I'd say.
Awareness of what - where the next grant cheque will come from and how to expedite it?Similar to milking wind subsidies.
One step ahead of what - tossing a coin?
IPCC Expert Reviewer Ross McKitrick said:
Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change? I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.
Anything else "you'd say" on climate models, don't hold back Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff