Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[dandarez]

robinessex said:

Just took the woof for a walk. May! It's more like bloody February outside. Where is the fking global warming? I'm freezing my bks off at the moment! Oh hang on, it’s 5degrees warmer in some bloody obscure island in the middle if the Pacific! So that’s where it is. Planet average temperature up then!!

Don't worry.

The Water Boards are gearing up for hosepipe ban. We have some dry bits again...

I remember the first one years ago, when the dick climate scientists showed us pics of dried up cracked areas of land, partially empty reservoirs... they 'said' it is so bleak that this is the 'future'. Water will be scarce. Next they'll tell kids there will be no snow ...oh wait a mo.

But it wasn't the future. It was just the 'weather'.

Await more in the coming month(s).

In the meantime I'm just going to wash the car. Thoroughly!

[Jinx]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Here's a direct quote from the greeny team of well-paid scientists and engineers:

Team Fantasy Will Not Save Renewables said:

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

You appear to be concerned about potayto potarto. Good for you! Try discerning can't from cant.

No it isn't.

It's not even the full sentence, it's an edited version.

Why don't you post the full sentence, in context?

Engineers said:

Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

Why don't you link to the source?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it...

It's intentionally misleading and the clearest example of how you are posting in this thread to deliberately spread misinformation.

How was that misleading Durbs? Without the threat of A-CO2 induced climate change the cost of renewables does not make sense. Hence if the renewables will not combat climate change then there is no reason for them. Ergo we need a "fundamentally different approach" .

[LongQ]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Here's a direct quote from the greeny team of well-paid scientists and engineers:

Team Fantasy Will Not Save Renewables said:

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

You appear to be concerned about potayto potarto. Good for you! Try discerning can't from cant.

No it isn't.

It's not even the full sentence, it's an edited version.

Why don't you post the full sentence, in context?

Engineers said:

Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

Why don't you link to the source?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it...

It's intentionally misleading and the clearest example of how you are posting in this thread to deliberately spread misinformation.

How was that misleading Durbs? Without the threat of A-CO2 induced climate change the cost of renewables does not make sense. Hence if the renewables will not combat climate change then there is no reason for them. Ergo we need a "fundamentally different approach" .

A fundamentally different approach using new technologies that are, currently, either unproven or simply unidentified so far.

In effect, at the point at which the sentence was written, taking that section of the sentence out simply make the message clearer. The current mix of efforts and does not work well enough, if at all, to achieve the objectives. So to use it for all forward planning is, absent a remarkable miracle discovery around the existing knowledge, planning to fail with commensurate huge social costs.

If they have written that there a a new miracle technology that can be fully implemented and replace current thinking with a proven result in the next 2 years .... I would agree that the quote (assuming all versions are correctly in line with the original document as released) should have a different emphasis. But that's not what it says.

So who is spreading misinformation?

[s2art]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

And if Renewables were to become the cheapest source of Electrical Generation ?

Still ignore ?

Not if its dispatchable electricity generation. But there is little prospect of that at the moment.

[robinessex]

No chance of that, ever ! Oh look, a Pig just flew past !!

[LongQ]

s2art said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

And if Renewables were to become the cheapest source of Electrical Generation ?

Still ignore ?

Not if its dispatchable electricity generation. But there is little prospect of that at the moment.

And the the question begs some clarification in terms of whether Paddy means "The cheapest available allowed source" or the "Cheapest possible source".

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

For the sake of clarity - and to unfortunately reign in the wonderful time some are having with regards to the chap from DONG saying "is confident about the technical, commercial and capital assumptions the bids are based on", and how that has over the course of a single page of this thread been translated in to betting on new technologies being 'magically' or 'miracle' technology - he is referencing the next generation of WTG, and transmission technology.

Paddy,

I think you are conflating two rather different threads within the Forum.

What the DONG chap is saying about the scaling up of existing technologies his company believes they can deliver for improved cost effectiveness is in no way the same thing as the quote that durbster is writing about and claiming is being misquoted.

You might want to connect them into being the same thing but they are not and have different contexts.

Shows us the number that you are so excited about and let's have a decent debate about them.

How have things advanced over the past decade (or any suitable period you might feel inclined to use) in terms of cost reduction and efficiencies of installation and serviceability) and lets take it from there. That would be much more meaningful that relying on speculative numbers from some point in the future. Especially if the numbers could be compared with some sort of similar industry development model that currently has a longer historical record.

(I do appreciate that such a thing may not exist but if anyone knows of anything that could compare it would likely be useful.)

[dickymint]

LongQ said:

(I do appreciate that such a thing may not exist but if anyone knows of anything that could compare it would likely be useful.)

Surely there's an model App for that?

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

<snip unsubstantiated opinions>

I would offer that a 32% reduction in the UK market from 2010/11 (£142MWh) to 2015/16 (£97MWh)

OK, that's a start.

What do your numbers relate to? i.e. what are they measuring per MWh?

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

Just for your reference there's a graph showing the estimated evolution of radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases since 1750 here:

http://old.grida.no//climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-...

see fig 6.8 on page 401.

It shows a +0.5W/m2 forcing by 1900 rising to 1W by 1950. To my mind that's ample justification for the IPCC to state there was likely an anthropogenic contribution to the early 20th century warming.

Edited by plunker on Monday 8th May 13:24

[cough]

link said:

Compared to the use of the earlier expressions, the
improved formulae, for fixed changes in gas concentrations,
decrease the carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
radiative forcing by 15%,

All GHG <> CO2

CO2 AGW prior to 1950 is even less likely with reduced CO2 forcing (remember all CO2 and not just A-CO2) so again nonsense and unicorn farts.

More IPCC mis-reading - that quote is irrelevent to the radiative forcing graph in the 3rd report as it's discussing changes since the second report.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

£'s

Clearly

Smart answer.

£ under what basis of measurement?

Chief executive's bonus?

Who knows, could be anything ...

[Phud]

It is direct from DONG and how much they have reduced the cost of power generation.

It does not take into account the cost of erecting these sites, the damage they do the disruption to the marine habitat pr CO2 uses in construction, just the improvement in delivering "green energy" which costs more that other methods.

Nor does it mention anywhere that the german green tax will still be accepted within the formula for the sites.

Interesting that DONG is a power company with fingers in many pies too

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

You could do better to admit you tripped up on the fact you missed it was £'s.


There has only ever been one benchmark in all of my postings : LCOE, as you well know.
Pick whatever unit -the 32% cost reduction is my response to your query.

So it was LCOE.

Thanks for the confirmation.

However you should not assume that I had missed the £ sign nor that everyone is going to assume that you are always offering the same numbers on those occasions when you offer any at all.

If you really want to make things clear for any reader who may come upon your post at some point in the future you really need to repeat the details - like units of measure - each time.

If you don't, don't bother. Then people will assume whatever they want to assume but that will allow you another opportunity to rant should you require it.

So, because you can't, apparently, be bothered to post links to your sources you want us to identify sources that confirm a shift for LCOE as follows

"the UK market from 2010/11 (£142MWh) to 2015/16 (£97MWh)"

and that is specifically applicable to renewables, right?

All renewables? Wind Only? Offshore Wind only?

I currently assume the latter since as far as I can work out that seems to be your favoured technology when talking about these things.

Let's see what we can find.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I am happy to post watertight sources all day and night, but such is yours and other perverse desire to cut and paste the parts that suit your belief to the extent as shown above where full sentences are curtailed to remove context I am reluctant these days.


I am equally frustrated with the likes of Phud shouting out a horsest answer / soundbite for the crowd with such conviction then sloping off when challenged.
Remember some donkey on here had crystal clear connection that Farmers (Landowners) were getting rich and the cause of dying pensioners, until we established it was due to the price hike of Gas that year.

I will have an educated, and informed discussion, pass on papers by independent studies and univerities on the macroeconomics if I felt that it would help educate.


But because it won't, I don't.


Phud - £60 says you are wrong on all points of your post or GTFO

Use any excuse you want Paddy - PH is a free and anonymous place to play out your personal fantasies.

But after that content I would not suggest that you make a claim about trying to educate people.

It's not a role that you seem very suited to.

Edited by LongQ on Monday 8th May 18:12

[Phud]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I am happy to post watertight sources all day and night, but such is yours and other perverse desire to cut and paste the parts that suit your belief to the extent as shown above where full sentences are curtailed to remove context I am reluctant these days.


I am equally frustrated with the likes of Phud shouting out a horsest answer / soundbite for the crowd with such conviction then sloping off when challenged.
Remember some donkey on here had crystal clear connection that Farmers (Landowners) were getting rich and the cause of dying pensioners, until we established it was due to the price hike of Gas that year.

I will have an educated, and informed discussion, pass on papers by independent studies and univerities on the macroeconomics if I felt that it would help educate.


But because it won't, I don't.


Phud - £60 says you are wrong on all points of your post or GTFO

Do you include the marine habitat disruption?

[Phud]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I will take a bet the equivelant 1MWh valued at todays market rate bet with you that you are utterly wrong.
(don't panic, that numbers coming down, so you'll not loose as much as you would have in 2016.)


Up for that? Say the word

Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Monday 8th May 17:53

Paddy,

Two things, firstly please point out the horsest you think is in my response

secondly produce a defined bet. Tired of your alterations on the last effort.

[Phud]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

you tell me.
You said it was from DONG, so you know - right?






Your question, btw, does not make sense to the content of where you waded in both feet first.

Yes I do know.

Shame you don't know as much as you think

[Phud]

So you are upset a different company rather than the one you want has a cost reduction, ah bless. I really don't care who you quoted, I gave the company I quoted.



Strange that such a good industry does not after taking subsidies charge the production rates but uses strike rates agreed:

http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1421825/o...

Edited by Phud on Monday 8th May 18:49

[Phud]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Well done - good sleuthing.
Poor show at being less than honourable about it however.


Regards to the strike price, that is the incentive to invest in the industry which has driven the technology that has driven the cost reduction. Get it ?

ah honour, that has a good shoe in on a political thread.

Now lets see, how many of the renewable industries are proceeding with honour not fiscal benefit. When it comes down to the $, renewable industries will be as dirty as they shout about fossil fuel.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Honour does tends to start with the individual

that is funny considering your posting style since you began posting on this thread. long q was being polite in his last post. i get the impression he is a polite individual and genuinely interested in discussing the facts with you, if he could only prise those facts out in the first place.
i can't help but read your posts in a condescending nasally whining tone of a mummy's boy that has never been told no. you should have a read back of your posts to see just how much of a prick you sound.it may help you moderate them in the future, though i highly doubt it.

you appear to have a significant amount of knowledge on the subject . this gives you a prime opportunity to convince the naysayers in both the peanut gallery (me) and those more knowledgeable that the renewable energy industry is actually heading somewhere positive and has not been a complete waste of tax payer funds (for the average taxpayer)while blighting the landscape up and down the country.

the ever changing terms when attempting to strike a bet with other posters earlier in the thread suggests you may not quite have the confidence in the industry you suggest.