Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
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
(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
your bets are pointless, you are a" welcher" as proved .... FACT and well documented
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
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.
Because you don't understand? or because you fail to learn ? It's not a role that you seem very suited to.
I think I'm doing ok by the definition:
Particularly on the last point.
If you were you would not be creating to many agitated and vitriolic rants.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
because of punctuation, or lack of, I asked : 'What".
I do not understand your post.
Perhaps returning to the thread subject rather than being personal would be best course of action at this point.
You asked for confirmation about :I do not understand your post.
Perhaps returning to the thread subject rather than being personal would be best course of action at this point.
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Monday 8th May 21:00
"I think I'm doing ok by the definition:
<Screen grab failed to copy>
Particularly on the last point."
I replied to that.
You say you don't understand.
You then responded:
"Perhaps returning to the thread subject rather than being personal would be best course of action at this point."
Well, you asked a personal question about yourself and your claimed expertise (perhaps intended to be rhetorical?) and so I answered, quite logically, that if you were failing to educate people in this forum, as you yourself identified in a post earlier, you could hardly claim to be a successful educator.
For a start you keep ignoring any questions posed on other people's terms and refuse to offer an links to information because no one will listen and so it's pointless.
Education is a tough task isn't it? If nothing else it requires persistence with those who do not understand what you are trying to tell them and acceptance that you may not succeed. That's no reason give up civility.
It would be great to stick to this sub-topic within the thread. On behalf of everyone here please take your own advice and feel free to do so.
While you are it is you might like to cut out the personal comments too. If you feel sensitive about receiving them consider that others may not be exactly delighted to be on the end of your personalised outbursts and that just possibly you are reading nothing more than people replying in kind to the style of your own posts.
If you disagree with that, carry on as you are but be prepared to take as good as you give. This is PH, after all, and some history indicates that opinions are often strongly held - as your own clearly are.
Todays Beeb CC puff story
Climate talks cool on idea of accommodating the US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3983...
Participants in UN climate talks have expressed reservations about making changes to the Paris climate agreement just to keep the US in the treaty.
Speculation has increased that President Trump may withdraw the America over fears it could hamper his oil and gas reforms.
There have been suggestions that the US might stay in, if it was allowed to lower its carbon targets.
But delegates here say countries should raise not cut their commitments.
There were just seven negotiators from the US as over 2,000 gathered here for the first day of UN climate talks.
Diplomats are concerned that the small American team bodes ill for their future participation in the Paris climate agreement.
Last year, the US sent about 40 delegates to the Bonn May meeting, roughly the same number as China.
This year's team of seven is three fewer than the delegation from Belize, a smaller and much poorer nation than the US.
The US State department told news agencies that the reason for the small team was because the US was still working out its climate priorities
Obviously we want the US to stay in the Paris Agreement, for its own good as well as for the rest of the world. But this can't be at any cost," said Mohamed Adow from Christian Aid.
"Having the world's efforts to tackle climate change dictated by a small group of ideological climate deniers, in the world's richest country, is clearly a recipe for disaster." ......continues
Climate talks cool on idea of accommodating the US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3983...
Participants in UN climate talks have expressed reservations about making changes to the Paris climate agreement just to keep the US in the treaty.
Speculation has increased that President Trump may withdraw the America over fears it could hamper his oil and gas reforms.
There have been suggestions that the US might stay in, if it was allowed to lower its carbon targets.
But delegates here say countries should raise not cut their commitments.
There were just seven negotiators from the US as over 2,000 gathered here for the first day of UN climate talks.
Diplomats are concerned that the small American team bodes ill for their future participation in the Paris climate agreement.
Last year, the US sent about 40 delegates to the Bonn May meeting, roughly the same number as China.
This year's team of seven is three fewer than the delegation from Belize, a smaller and much poorer nation than the US.
The US State department told news agencies that the reason for the small team was because the US was still working out its climate priorities
Obviously we want the US to stay in the Paris Agreement, for its own good as well as for the rest of the world. But this can't be at any cost," said Mohamed Adow from Christian Aid.
"Having the world's efforts to tackle climate change dictated by a small group of ideological climate deniers, in the world's richest country, is clearly a recipe for disaster." ......continues
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Trump is in a pickle.
He promised the Coal workers, and the O&G industry he would be their man.
In reality the Coal workers don't actually want to go back down the pits, and the price that American coal is compared to imported coal does not make it viable as a power source.
Not withstanding the finite resources issue of course.
He also has the issue that the seaboard states are wanting more power and can't build more power stations nearby or effectively connect those regions
He then has the likes of Statoil, Innogy, Iberdrola all throwing money to buy lease sites off the coast to build those Wind Turbines (at a state level), and factories for GE & Siemens et al, offering employment locally at a state level.
But he promised the blue collar workers....... on a federal level.
Trump isn't in a pickle, he's in a white house.He promised the Coal workers, and the O&G industry he would be their man.
In reality the Coal workers don't actually want to go back down the pits, and the price that American coal is compared to imported coal does not make it viable as a power source.
Not withstanding the finite resources issue of course.
He also has the issue that the seaboard states are wanting more power and can't build more power stations nearby or effectively connect those regions
He then has the likes of Statoil, Innogy, Iberdrola all throwing money to buy lease sites off the coast to build those Wind Turbines (at a state level), and factories for GE & Siemens et al, offering employment locally at a state level.
But he promised the blue collar workers....... on a federal level.
That said, it will be an interesting one to follow, for sure.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3201639/president-tr...
Link dated 28 March said:
Trump has signed an executive order which aims to boost the flagging US coal industry and rolls back Barack Obama’s plans to tackle climate change. The firebrand Republican declared “the start of a new era” in energy production and said the order would revive coal mining and create jobs.
Various sources point out that coal industry bigwigs such as Robert Murray have told Trump (and others) that he won't be able to bring back too many coal jobs with all the will in the world, though Trump's removal of "fraudulent" greenblobbism is welcome. Sample soundbite: America’s biggest coal boss is hopeful that his industry will soon be freed of “fraudulent” green legislation that has hampered his industry, but warned Donald Trump to “temper” expectations about a boom in mining jobs.
This looks like one of those occasions where onlookers will do well to avoid premature adjudication.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Trump isn't in a pickle, he's in a white house.
Actually he's more often playing golf at one of his own properties at massive taxpayer expense. You're clearly very concerned about how taxes are spent so how does that sit with you?In general, Trump is President 24/7/365 and is paid / protected 24/7/365 but needs to relax - so I don't have a problem with golf per se as a form of relaxation.
On the matter of being paid...Trump has stated that he would refuse his $400,000 annual salary as President. However, he is constitutionally required to accept POTUS pay. As a result he amended his statement saying via a spokeswoman that he would receive the salary as requited but keep $1 and either give the rest back to the U.S. Treasury or donate it to charity. At a guess, Greenpeas and Fiends of the Eartth won't get a penny. Yeeehaw!!
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Trump isn't in a pickle, he's in a white house.
Actually he's more often playing golf at one of his own properties at massive taxpayer expense. You're clearly very concerned about how taxes are spent so how does that sit with you?In general, Trump is President 24/7/365 and is paid / protected 24/7/365 but needs to relax - so I don't have a problem with golf per se as a form of relaxation.
On the matter of being paid...Trump has stated that he would refuse his $400,000 annual salary as President. However, he is constitutionally required to accept POTUS pay. As a result he amended his statement saying via a spokeswoman that he would receive the salary as requited but keep $1 and either give the rest back to the U.S. Treasury or donate it to charity. At a guess, Greenpeas and Fiends of the Eartth won't get a penny. Yeeehaw!!
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Trump isn't in a pickle, he's in a white house.
Actually he's more often playing golf at one of his own properties at massive taxpayer expense. You're clearly very concerned about how taxes are spent so how does that sit with you?In general, Trump is President 24/7/365 and is paid / protected 24/7/365 but needs to relax - so I don't have a problem with golf per se as a form of relaxation.
On the matter of being paid...Trump has stated that he would refuse his $400,000 annual salary as President. However, he is constitutionally required to accept POTUS pay. As a result he amended his statement saying via a spokeswoman that he would receive the salary as requited but keep $1 and either give the rest back to the U.S. Treasury or donate it to charity. At a guess, Greenpeas and Fiends of the Eartth won't get a penny. Yeeehaw!!
robinessex said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Trump isn't in a pickle, he's in a white house.
Actually he's more often playing golf at one of his own properties at massive taxpayer expense. You're clearly very concerned about how taxes are spent so how does that sit with you?In general, Trump is President 24/7/365 and is paid / protected 24/7/365 but needs to relax - so I don't have a problem with golf per se as a form of relaxation.
On the matter of being paid...Trump has stated that he would refuse his $400,000 annual salary as President. However, he is constitutionally required to accept POTUS pay. As a result he amended his statement saying via a spokeswoman that he would receive the salary as requited but keep $1 and either give the rest back to the U.S. Treasury or donate it to charity. At a guess, Greenpeas and Fiends of the Eartth won't get a penny. Yeeehaw!!
If I was, then yes. However durbster is keeping up his average by being wrong, again.
I said: "I don't have a problem with golf per se as a form of relaxation" for potus.
That's the core of my answer and it's an answer.
As it happens... somewhat hypocritically, durbster didn't answer my question - namely, is any presidential 'business' transacted during golf sessions. Avoiding the question: same old tactic and same old hypocrisy
turbobloke said:
If I was, then yes. However durbster is keeping up his average by being wrong, again.
I said: "I don't have a problem with golf per se as a form of relaxation" for potus.
That's the core of my answer and it's an answer.
As it happens... somewhat hypocritically, durbster didn't answer my question - namely, is any presidential 'business' transacted during golf sessions. Avoiding the question: same old tactic and same old hypocrisy
It doesn't take a genius to see that your silly golf question is a feeble attempt to deflect from answering. It's one of your most predictable tactics.
Trump chooses to use his presidency to promote his resorts at taxpayers expense. The golf is not the issue, the location is. You're constantly complaining about taxpayers money being spent poorly, but you won't say whether you have a problem with this. That is hypocrisy.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
If I was, then yes. However durbster is keeping up his average by being wrong, again.
I said: "I don't have a problem with golf per se as a form of relaxation" for potus.
That's the core of my answer and it's an answer.
As it happens... somewhat hypocritically, durbster didn't answer my question - namely, is any presidential 'business' transacted during golf sessions. Avoiding the question: same old tactic and same old hypocrisy
No answer you wish to recognise, just like the question "is there a visible causal human signal in any global climate data" answer "no". The waffle from you around that single point would win medals in the waffle olympics.
Keep the faith.
turbobloke said:
No answer you wish to recognise, just like the question "is there a visible causal human signal in any global climate data" answer "no". The waffle from you around that single point would win medals in the waffle olympics.
Keep the faith.
You are a dedicated disciple to your cause but I suppose if you're being paid to post this guff, why rock the boat.
That incredibly cunning trick question./rhetorical device /booby trap / waste of pixels sure did the business 
Now you're attrition looping on waffle. Cool! It should take your mind off the lack of any visible causal human signal in global climate data...until I remind you,
Go solo on the looping, you know you'll enjoy it.
Now you're attrition looping on waffle. Cool! It should take your mind off the lack of any visible causal human signal in global climate data...until I remind you,
Go solo on the looping, you know you'll enjoy it.
Good to see Bishop back....
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2017/5/9/spirit-of...
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2017/5/9/spirit-of...
Edited by dickymint on Tuesday 9th May 17:52
The Greens have thrown their potty out of the nursery because none of the other unelectable Parties will play with them.
Lucas is stamping her ickle feet.
It's only right that her whining appears in an appropriate shade of unelectable green.
The phrase "these alliances" refers to thoughts of "progressive" Parties conspiring to defeat the will of the people by being defeated at the General Election marginally less disastrously. In this context "progressive" means going nowhere.
Lucas is stamping her ickle feet.
It's only right that her whining appears in an appropriate shade of unelectable green.
Lucas said: “Labour and the Lib Dems defied their
own members on the ground - and the time has now
come for the Greens to focus entirely on winning votes
up and down the country.”
She said Labour refused to even meet with the Greens
to discuss these alliances, while the Lib Dems were
only willing to engage at arm’s length.
The phrase "these alliances" refers to thoughts of "progressive" Parties conspiring to defeat the will of the people by being defeated at the General Election marginally less disastrously. In this context "progressive" means going nowhere.
Well, looking for Paddy's magical fast falling numbers has taken a bit of digging and my initial spade work, looking for sources that might reflect "official" numbers turned up this link:
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/beis-dramatically-cu...
Utility Week is an industry magazine but in this article seems to be communicating official Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) numbers announced in late 2016. About as recent as one will get from official sources that seem to review and publish every 2 years or so at best.
Here we see a suggestion that BEIS has "dramatically cut its projections for the cost of new renewable generation."
The article suggests;
"For onshore wind projects with a capacity of more than 5MW it declined from £85/MWh to £63/MWh in 2020 and from £82/MWh to £60/MWh in 2030. For offshore wind the figures plummeted from £136/MWh to £106/MWh in 2020 and from £120/MWh to £96/MWh in 2030."
I think Paddy was referring specifically to Offshore wind when he indicated current LCOE working figures as:
"I would offer that a 32% reduction in the UK market from 2010/11 (£142MWh) to 2015/16 (£97MWh) to be sufficient to say its ongoing, beyond the onset and contributions of the 6MW+ turbine existence. To say that it if four years ahead of the industry target would also suggest that many folks round these ways will have egg on their face."
So Paddy is suggesting that the CURRENT working LCOE in 2015/16 - i.e. the time of the BEIS report creation and release - is down to around £97MWh when BEIS sees that number as likely in 2030 (£96MWh in the report but lets count it as the same value as it's a speculative estimate for 13/14 years out at the time the report was prepared).
So not just 4 years ahead of the Industry target but 13 years ahead of political expectations. Very eggy.
A couple of other references with the right number seem to be too old (2012) and partial (a sample ebook being one) to count here.
This paper from the OECD from 2010 might be interesting form an historical perspective in order to see what their estimates were for LCOE today but it's 200 pages and will take some going through.
A couple of other authoritative looking reports are fundamentally just reporting the BEIS numbers already linked.
Then there was this item from Offshorewind.biz
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/01/24/uk-offshore...
Quote:
"The cost of energy from offshore wind has fallen by 32% since 2012 and is now below the joint UK government and industry target of GBP 100 per megawatt hour (MWh) four years ahead of schedule, according to a report delivered by the Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult on behalf of the Offshore Wind Programme Board (OWPB)."
That looked hopeful, as did ...
"Offshore wind costs have fallen sharply through the adoption of larger turbines, increased competition and lower cost of
capital. Projects are reaching a Final Investment Decision (FID) in 2015/16 with an average Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) of GBP 97/MWh, compared to GBP 142/MWh in 2010/11."
Maybe this is the source?
The link in the first paragraph takes us here:
http://crmfreport.com/
where various pages can be read and expanded and in there is a link to a file related to the Evidence log of the surveys undertaken to obtain the information on which the report is based. 640 PDF pages so as you may imagine I have not yet worked through it. However, looking through parts of it it seems to be a very typical question and answer type survey with a combination of certifiable facts and some opinion seeking about the future.
There is not much one can consider saying about the information or the interpretation of surveys like this. They are what they are and probably the only way that any information can be obtained for reports of this nature.
The notable thing is, perhaps, that we have a source document or two that reports the same numbers as Paddy put forward.
So, Paddy, is this CRMF report a suitable place to start to find the sort of numbers we could discuss?
https://ore.catapult.org.uk/our-knowledge-areas/kn...
And the evidence for the report here.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/media.ore.catap...
Unless the numbers here have been borrowed from elsewhere - which seems very unlikely - this would seem to be the source of Paddy's information. Hopefully Paddy will confirm this.
It would have saved me a lot of time had the links been posted earlier but, hey, digging in the internet is fun right?
Since these are documents in the public domain I see no harm in posting the links here. No doubt the authors of the report and the organisation they work for would be happy with the publicity.
Looking at the information and working out what the marketplace is responding to, if it can be done (doubtful?), may take some time. And probably some other sources for comparison.
One thing that is of interest is to see how close to the lower and of any new cost base the numbers have moved.
In passing through the reported numbers in some of the links it seems that many of the more developed options - onshore wind for example, are at or very close to the best LCOE likely to be achieved, numbers having flattened out in the past few years.
For investors the need to know whether costs are at or near the bottom of the development cycle, so far as anyone can tell, is likely to be a critical question, as Paddy points out in what was the post above this as I started to prepare it.
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/beis-dramatically-cu...
Utility Week is an industry magazine but in this article seems to be communicating official Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) numbers announced in late 2016. About as recent as one will get from official sources that seem to review and publish every 2 years or so at best.
Here we see a suggestion that BEIS has "dramatically cut its projections for the cost of new renewable generation."
The article suggests;
"For onshore wind projects with a capacity of more than 5MW it declined from £85/MWh to £63/MWh in 2020 and from £82/MWh to £60/MWh in 2030. For offshore wind the figures plummeted from £136/MWh to £106/MWh in 2020 and from £120/MWh to £96/MWh in 2030."
I think Paddy was referring specifically to Offshore wind when he indicated current LCOE working figures as:
"I would offer that a 32% reduction in the UK market from 2010/11 (£142MWh) to 2015/16 (£97MWh) to be sufficient to say its ongoing, beyond the onset and contributions of the 6MW+ turbine existence. To say that it if four years ahead of the industry target would also suggest that many folks round these ways will have egg on their face."
So Paddy is suggesting that the CURRENT working LCOE in 2015/16 - i.e. the time of the BEIS report creation and release - is down to around £97MWh when BEIS sees that number as likely in 2030 (£96MWh in the report but lets count it as the same value as it's a speculative estimate for 13/14 years out at the time the report was prepared).
So not just 4 years ahead of the Industry target but 13 years ahead of political expectations. Very eggy.
A couple of other references with the right number seem to be too old (2012) and partial (a sample ebook being one) to count here.
This paper from the OECD from 2010 might be interesting form an historical perspective in order to see what their estimates were for LCOE today but it's 200 pages and will take some going through.
A couple of other authoritative looking reports are fundamentally just reporting the BEIS numbers already linked.
Then there was this item from Offshorewind.biz
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/01/24/uk-offshore...
Quote:
"The cost of energy from offshore wind has fallen by 32% since 2012 and is now below the joint UK government and industry target of GBP 100 per megawatt hour (MWh) four years ahead of schedule, according to a report delivered by the Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult on behalf of the Offshore Wind Programme Board (OWPB)."
That looked hopeful, as did ...
"Offshore wind costs have fallen sharply through the adoption of larger turbines, increased competition and lower cost of
capital. Projects are reaching a Final Investment Decision (FID) in 2015/16 with an average Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) of GBP 97/MWh, compared to GBP 142/MWh in 2010/11."
Maybe this is the source?
The link in the first paragraph takes us here:
http://crmfreport.com/
where various pages can be read and expanded and in there is a link to a file related to the Evidence log of the surveys undertaken to obtain the information on which the report is based. 640 PDF pages so as you may imagine I have not yet worked through it. However, looking through parts of it it seems to be a very typical question and answer type survey with a combination of certifiable facts and some opinion seeking about the future.
There is not much one can consider saying about the information or the interpretation of surveys like this. They are what they are and probably the only way that any information can be obtained for reports of this nature.
The notable thing is, perhaps, that we have a source document or two that reports the same numbers as Paddy put forward.
So, Paddy, is this CRMF report a suitable place to start to find the sort of numbers we could discuss?
https://ore.catapult.org.uk/our-knowledge-areas/kn...
And the evidence for the report here.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/media.ore.catap...
Unless the numbers here have been borrowed from elsewhere - which seems very unlikely - this would seem to be the source of Paddy's information. Hopefully Paddy will confirm this.
It would have saved me a lot of time had the links been posted earlier but, hey, digging in the internet is fun right?
Since these are documents in the public domain I see no harm in posting the links here. No doubt the authors of the report and the organisation they work for would be happy with the publicity.
Looking at the information and working out what the marketplace is responding to, if it can be done (doubtful?), may take some time. And probably some other sources for comparison.
One thing that is of interest is to see how close to the lower and of any new cost base the numbers have moved.
In passing through the reported numbers in some of the links it seems that many of the more developed options - onshore wind for example, are at or very close to the best LCOE likely to be achieved, numbers having flattened out in the past few years.
For investors the need to know whether costs are at or near the bottom of the development cycle, so far as anyone can tell, is likely to be a critical question, as Paddy points out in what was the post above this as I started to prepare it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff