Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Care to address the other view from people that matter (local people as opposed to outsiders with a VESTED interest) that your link failed to mention?..........
http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Block-Island-...
"Ives and others also protest the speed with which the Block Island wind project received regulatory approval.
“It went so fast, through the federal process and the state process,” says Mary Jane Balser, the owner of Block Island Grocery.
“I can’t even get a mowing permit from Coastal faster than they got the permits to put that wind farm in,” she adds, referring to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Opponents of the project, who overall still support a move to clean energy sources, point to political connections between Rhode Island and Deepwater Wind’s Chief Executive Officer as one possible reason for what they call a “fast track”.
Doubt if you'll bother reading it but most on here will.
Do make your bloody minds up - TB skips with glee on using the phrase 'Insider' and I am fairly sure you are levelling myself as the 'Outsider' now.http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Block-Island-...
"Ives and others also protest the speed with which the Block Island wind project received regulatory approval.
“It went so fast, through the federal process and the state process,” says Mary Jane Balser, the owner of Block Island Grocery.
“I can’t even get a mowing permit from Coastal faster than they got the permits to put that wind farm in,” she adds, referring to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Opponents of the project, who overall still support a move to clean energy sources, point to political connections between Rhode Island and Deepwater Wind’s Chief Executive Officer as one possible reason for what they call a “fast track”.
Doubt if you'll bother reading it but most on here will.
As for caring for the view of the locals (pun not intended) - well that I suspect lies much like this thread - opinions are and will remain divided.
but looking at your specific points - the grumbles seem to be with bureaucracy working too fast - odd complaint.
The journalisms I guess lives in this thread as it would appear the biggest gripe is the envy of politics - as in the opposition delivered but not precisely as defined.
Have you another point / view on this article?
LongQ said:
Hmm.
From the article:
"The other issue is the high price of power generated.
Right now, National Grid pays Deepwater Wind 24 cents per kilowatt hour generated.
That price goes up annually, landing at nearly 48 cents per kilowatt hour in 20 years.
The average price of electricity right now in New England is 16 cents per kilowatt hour.
But project officials say comparing the future price of offshore wind to the current average is misleading, since it too will increase with time, especially as coal and nuclear plants are decommissioned."
Clearly the US is nowhere near as advanced in the development stakes as Europe and the way things operate over there it's the locals who tend to bear the costs.
The last Para is very much correct - the first part in particular and why I countered on here how the small experimental volume approach is not a good solution to bringing costs down, but mass deployment. (see the Hywind project in Scotland for another example I expect)From the article:
"The other issue is the high price of power generated.
Right now, National Grid pays Deepwater Wind 24 cents per kilowatt hour generated.
That price goes up annually, landing at nearly 48 cents per kilowatt hour in 20 years.
The average price of electricity right now in New England is 16 cents per kilowatt hour.
But project officials say comparing the future price of offshore wind to the current average is misleading, since it too will increase with time, especially as coal and nuclear plants are decommissioned."
Clearly the US is nowhere near as advanced in the development stakes as Europe and the way things operate over there it's the locals who tend to bear the costs.
Jeff is correct to say that it is part of the long journey.
I had the contract in my hand once for Cape Wind - if ever there was an excellent springboard to push Offshore Wind as a cheaper viable source of energy in to the USA - that was it. Ameniable site, good soils / ground, Infrastructure for O&M and the shore cable connector and Volume of a low price, easy to install product. Finger in the air the price of delivering that project in a modern day market would have been 65% of Block Island.
But Nimbys, $$$ and Politics f
ked that project in the ass..... (as they say over there)Poor survey?
(Off topic - when one of the quotes mentions the need to get a "mowing permit" I have to wonder what that implies. Do you have to pay to get the right to cut the grass around your "yard" in the USA?
Research required ....)
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Care to address the other view from people that matter (local people as opposed to outsiders with a VESTED interest) that your link failed to mention?..........
http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Block-Island-...
"Ives and others also protest the speed with which the Block Island wind project received regulatory approval.
“It went so fast, through the federal process and the state process,” says Mary Jane Balser, the owner of Block Island Grocery.
“I can’t even get a mowing permit from Coastal faster than they got the permits to put that wind farm in,” she adds, referring to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Opponents of the project, who overall still support a move to clean energy sources, point to political connections between Rhode Island and Deepwater Wind’s Chief Executive Officer as one possible reason for what they call a “fast track”.
Doubt if you'll bother reading it but most on here will.
Do make your bloody minds up - TB skips with glee on using the phrase 'Insider' and I am fairly sure you are levelling myself as the 'Outsider' now.http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Block-Island-...
"Ives and others also protest the speed with which the Block Island wind project received regulatory approval.
“It went so fast, through the federal process and the state process,” says Mary Jane Balser, the owner of Block Island Grocery.
“I can’t even get a mowing permit from Coastal faster than they got the permits to put that wind farm in,” she adds, referring to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Opponents of the project, who overall still support a move to clean energy sources, point to political connections between Rhode Island and Deepwater Wind’s Chief Executive Officer as one possible reason for what they call a “fast track”.
Doubt if you'll bother reading it but most on here will.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Nimbys
Not the same breed as Notiobys.Also, no skipping here. We have cars to get us around.
Trump has "The Jones act" clearly in his sights...............
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/washington/...
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/washington/...
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Care to address the other view from people that matter (local people as opposed to outsiders with a VESTED interest) that your link failed to mention?..........
http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Block-Island-...
"Ives and others also protest the speed with which the Block Island wind project received regulatory approval.
“It went so fast, through the federal process and the state process,” says Mary Jane Balser, the owner of Block Island Grocery.
“I can’t even get a mowing permit from Coastal faster than they got the permits to put that wind farm in,” she adds, referring to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Opponents of the project, who overall still support a move to clean energy sources, point to political connections between Rhode Island and Deepwater Wind’s Chief Executive Officer as one possible reason for what they call a “fast track”.
Doubt if you'll bother reading it but most on here will.
Do make your bloody minds up - TB skips with glee on using the phrase 'Insider' and I am fairly sure you are levelling myself as the 'Outsider' now.http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Block-Island-...
"Ives and others also protest the speed with which the Block Island wind project received regulatory approval.
“It went so fast, through the federal process and the state process,” says Mary Jane Balser, the owner of Block Island Grocery.
“I can’t even get a mowing permit from Coastal faster than they got the permits to put that wind farm in,” she adds, referring to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Opponents of the project, who overall still support a move to clean energy sources, point to political connections between Rhode Island and Deepwater Wind’s Chief Executive Officer as one possible reason for what they call a “fast track”.
Doubt if you'll bother reading it but most on here will.
As for caring for the view of the locals (pun not intended) - well that I suspect lies much like this thread - opinions are and will remain divided.
but looking at your specific points - the grumbles seem to be with bureaucracy working too fast - odd complaint.
The journalisms I guess lives in this thread as it would appear the biggest gripe is the envy of politics - as in the opposition delivered but not precisely as defined.
Have you another point / view on this article?
LongQ said:
Hmm.
From the article:
"The other issue is the high price of power generated.
Right now, National Grid pays Deepwater Wind 24 cents per kilowatt hour generated.
That price goes up annually, landing at nearly 48 cents per kilowatt hour in 20 years.
The average price of electricity right now in New England is 16 cents per kilowatt hour.
But project officials say comparing the future price of offshore wind to the current average is misleading, since it too will increase with time, especially as coal and nuclear plants are decommissioned."
Clearly the US is nowhere near as advanced in the development stakes as Europe and the way things operate over there it's the locals who tend to bear the costs.
The last Para is very much correct - the first part in particular and why I countered on here how the small experimental volume approach is not a good solution to bringing costs down, but mass deployment. (see the Hywind project in Scotland for another example I expect)From the article:
"The other issue is the high price of power generated.
Right now, National Grid pays Deepwater Wind 24 cents per kilowatt hour generated.
That price goes up annually, landing at nearly 48 cents per kilowatt hour in 20 years.
The average price of electricity right now in New England is 16 cents per kilowatt hour.
But project officials say comparing the future price of offshore wind to the current average is misleading, since it too will increase with time, especially as coal and nuclear plants are decommissioned."
Clearly the US is nowhere near as advanced in the development stakes as Europe and the way things operate over there it's the locals who tend to bear the costs.
Jeff is correct to say that it is part of the long journey.
I had the contract in my hand once for Cape Wind - if ever there was an excellent springboard to push Offshore Wind as a cheaper viable source of energy in to the USA - that was it. Ameniable site, good soils / ground, Infrastructure for O&M and the shore cable connector and Volume of a low price, easy to install product. Finger in the air the price of delivering that project in a modern day market would have been 65% of Block Island.
But Nimbys, $$$ and Politics f
ked that project in the ass..... (as they say over there)Poor survey?
(Off topic - when one of the quotes mentions the need to get a "mowing permit" I have to wonder what that implies. Do you have to pay to get the right to cut the grass around your "yard" in the USA?
Research required ....)
The Beebs CC puff story for today:-
Paris climate deal is 'lifeline' for world's poorest countries
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3995...
The world's poorest nations say the Paris climate agreement is their "lifeline" and must be strengthened.
The Climate Vulnerable Forum, (CVF) representing 48 countries, said the deal was crucial to their survival.
In a swipe at President Trump's oft-used phrase, they said that "no country would be great again" without swift action.
Thousands of delegates are meeting here in Bonn to develop the rule book for the Paris deal.
Around one billion people live in countries that are part of the CVF.
The group firmly supports the idea, enshrined in the Paris agreement, that countries would do all in their power to keep temperatures from increasing more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels....................continues, full of rubbish re the consequences of CC.
I interpret it more as a ‘give us the money’ request!!!
Paris climate deal is 'lifeline' for world's poorest countries
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3995...
The world's poorest nations say the Paris climate agreement is their "lifeline" and must be strengthened.
The Climate Vulnerable Forum, (CVF) representing 48 countries, said the deal was crucial to their survival.
In a swipe at President Trump's oft-used phrase, they said that "no country would be great again" without swift action.
Thousands of delegates are meeting here in Bonn to develop the rule book for the Paris deal.
Around one billion people live in countries that are part of the CVF.
The group firmly supports the idea, enshrined in the Paris agreement, that countries would do all in their power to keep temperatures from increasing more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels....................continues, full of rubbish re the consequences of CC.
I interpret it more as a ‘give us the money’ request!!!
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
robinessex said:
I interpret it more as a ‘give us the money’ request!!!
Yet perhaps you could interpret in a glass half full, not half empty manner - - Please invest.
- UK Plc can export skills and industry.
(curious to know why everything you link to is referred to as a 'puff' piece. Is it just a moniker for things you disagree with ? Or because it's meant to be funny ? Not funny the first time and now worthy of the "Cringe" thread)
Meanwhile - closer to our shores : UK cements its position as global leader in wind technology as increasing scale drives down costs
These will be countries where, in the main, only the "ruling class" have any wealth to speak of and they will have most of what the country has to offer.
They are unlikely to be looking for "investment" or imports. Gifts, on the other hand, as a payback for everything they will claim has been "stolen" from them as the industrialised West has gone through its development cycle is a much more likely scenario.
They imagine that they can pave their streets with gold supplied by others.
Now if we, as humanity, really want to believe in wealth redistribution we need to learn how to do that without simply screwing everything in a short period of ill-planned implementation of badly conceived plans thought up on the fly. This would not be about handing a few billions to some rather unpleasant dictators around the world - this would be significant movement of wealth from about a billion people who have stuff to level the "wealth" value somehow with at least a billion who don't. I doubt the proposed recipients at the lower economic levels of their societies, should they ever see any benefits, really understand what they would be letting themselves in for.
You would most likely find that you are indeed export skills and industry. Mostly a large proportion of the 100K jobs that are not in the service industries with no obvious return on the "investment". If there is a return that would be considered more akin to the effects of building an empire than wealth levelling.
Meanwhile, as has been pointed out, the major opportunity for off-shore wind (subject to energy policy decisions) would be the USA. Huge potential and they can afford to pay the bills. However operating offshore over there is a closed shop and whilst global companies could readily get around that by becoming American should they wish it's more difficult to see how the direct benefits, in terms of jobs and revenue could flow back home from the former colonies. Indeed anything that could be extracted would probably be re-directed to the poor countries seeking wealth levelling with the USA paying their share by insisting that profits made in the US by global companies primarily based outside the US should be the source of the disbursement.
You probably think all that is unlikely?
Well so far the European Colleagues have been singularly incapable of resolving the problem of Greece despite the fact that they continually claim the need for "more Europe".
If our wonderful leaders are incapable of helping out their own extended tribes when the need arises what hope what sort of mess will they make wealth sharing with other parts of the world that currently have nothing to lose (as far as the masses are concerned) and far greater "negotiation" skills at the emotive level when it comes to the country "leaders"?
In summary then, there is no glass that might or not be half full or empty. More a cracked wooden bowl the contain some rather brackish water that may of may not respond well to a water purifying tablet.
In respect of the deployment of technology - one has to have technology that is relevant to and practical for the countries concerned.
What do we have?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
(curious to know why everything you link to is referred to as a 'puff' piece. Is it just a moniker for things you disagree with ? Or because it's meant to be funny ? Not funny the first time and now worthy of the "Cringe" thread)[/url]
It's not "everything" He links to. It refers to garbage that the Biased Broadcasting Company dribble out on a daily basis. LongQ said:
Paddy,
These will be countries where, in the main, only the "ruling class" have any wealth to speak of and they will have most of what the country has to offer.
They are unlikely to be looking for "investment" or imports. Gifts, on the other hand, as a payback for everything they will claim has been "stolen" from them as the industrialised West has gone through its development cycle is a much more likely scenario.
This is as far as I got. These will be countries where, in the main, only the "ruling class" have any wealth to speak of and they will have most of what the country has to offer.
They are unlikely to be looking for "investment" or imports. Gifts, on the other hand, as a payback for everything they will claim has been "stolen" from them as the industrialised West has gone through its development cycle is a much more likely scenario.
What a load of patronising, outdated, racist crap.
LongQ said:
They imagine that they can pave their streets with gold supplied by others.
You mean the gold we took out of those countries in the first place?This is the post modern world chaps.
You need to see it with eyes for the future not eyes for the past.
I have no problem with wealth redistribution per se providing it achieves something. Something better than making a large number of rich despots and leaving the majority in, at best, the same position as they were.
How many of the leaders of the 1 billion people mentioned in relation to the Bonn meeting are thinking of their people rather than their like minded familaies and friends when they seek funding for the causes they seem to pursue?
Some, maybe. But not all and such situation are always prone to other influences in the longer term.
If you thing that the "Western" economy could support that and survive largely unchanged in terms of your future expectations or those of your children ... then you may have to think again.
Developement over extended periods are what they turn out to be. Creation of Empire, Empire, dissolution of Empire is a common occurrence throughout human history.
The short term ructions the first and last parts of the cycles produced were not great for many even in societies that were hardly global in reach and as interactive as they are today. Less populous too.
It takes much longer, usually, to build something than it does to demolish it.
But the real point I was making was about motive.
What are the motives of the leaders of the countries pushing for others to fund their development on the back of a "save the planet" meme?
This is, after all, the Politics discussion thread.
Oh, and for what it is worth 20 or 30 years back I would probably have been levelling the same criticism as you have done about my words. But time allows one to discover more about the reality of politics.
You need to see it with eyes for the future not eyes for the past.
I have no problem with wealth redistribution per se providing it achieves something. Something better than making a large number of rich despots and leaving the majority in, at best, the same position as they were.
How many of the leaders of the 1 billion people mentioned in relation to the Bonn meeting are thinking of their people rather than their like minded familaies and friends when they seek funding for the causes they seem to pursue?
Some, maybe. But not all and such situation are always prone to other influences in the longer term.
If you thing that the "Western" economy could support that and survive largely unchanged in terms of your future expectations or those of your children ... then you may have to think again.
Developement over extended periods are what they turn out to be. Creation of Empire, Empire, dissolution of Empire is a common occurrence throughout human history.
The short term ructions the first and last parts of the cycles produced were not great for many even in societies that were hardly global in reach and as interactive as they are today. Less populous too.
It takes much longer, usually, to build something than it does to demolish it.
But the real point I was making was about motive.
What are the motives of the leaders of the countries pushing for others to fund their development on the back of a "save the planet" meme?
This is, after all, the Politics discussion thread.
Oh, and for what it is worth 20 or 30 years back I would probably have been levelling the same criticism as you have done about my words. But time allows one to discover more about the reality of politics.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Meanwhile - closer to our shores : UK cements its position as global leader in wind technology as increasing scale drives down costs
That reads like it has been extracted largely verbatim from a DONG press release. A few comments have been added. Good PR job.That is exactly what a puff piece is. But surely you know that already?
Our national press seems to be following the lead of what is left of the local press in acting as a promotional conduit for the PR savvy rather than considering fully in vestigative journalism.
That and a route to influence the news about matters that preoccupy the paper's owners.
LongQ said:
What are the motives of the leaders of the countries pushing for others to fund their development on the back of a "save the planet" meme?
The same motives as western leaders pushing for action to deal with climate change, because the leaders of poor people are human beings, just like the leaders of rich people are.Some of them will be corrupt and greedy and some of them will be have honest intentions. Just like our politicians.
Paddy,
Out of interest, especially on the basis of your enthusiasm for the potential worldwide market for the UK industry's knowledge about offshore wind, do you have information about the practical options for installations based on seabed viability, wind strength and potential for connectivity?
If so, how close to the proposed target for electricity generation worldwide would these allow developers to get in, say, the next 30 years based on probably technology advances?
Nothing that "might happen if a miracle occurs".
Ignore the potential for other disruptive technologies appearing during that time.
I note that the 32 turbines mentioned in the DONG press release cover an area of 40 Square Kilometers according to a graphic in the article.
Is this typical?
Out of interest, especially on the basis of your enthusiasm for the potential worldwide market for the UK industry's knowledge about offshore wind, do you have information about the practical options for installations based on seabed viability, wind strength and potential for connectivity?
If so, how close to the proposed target for electricity generation worldwide would these allow developers to get in, say, the next 30 years based on probably technology advances?
Nothing that "might happen if a miracle occurs".
Ignore the potential for other disruptive technologies appearing during that time.
I note that the 32 turbines mentioned in the DONG press release cover an area of 40 Square Kilometers according to a graphic in the article.
Is this typical?
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 18th May 16:11
This is an interesting page w/r apparently live Offshore generation numbers.
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy-minerals-a...
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy-minerals-a...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
You need to see it with eyes for the future not eyes for the past.
Fairly sure I do, and my correction to you was that the USA is a bit piece in this, APAC is the current new frontier for Offshore wind.Still, I suppose, as with property prices in London and the ownership of a number of large companies, the perceived influx of capital will be welcomed for a while.
Usually it's best to sell something off just before it becomes obsolete or too expensive to support.
While the usual suspects continue to ramp uneliable / intermittent and energy bill inflating wind, there's news of M Macron's offer to US climate junkscientists.
Nobody is interested, it seems.
No takers yet on French President Macron’s plea for climate scientists to move to France
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/16/no...
Nobody is interested, it seems.
No takers yet on French President Macron’s plea for climate scientists to move to France
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/16/no...
"Green Party Manifesto To Return Britain To The Middle Ages"
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
A great mission statement for the green blob.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
A great mission statement for the green blob.
Paddy, Long Q etc.
Would you mind staring a new thread specifically about Wind energy. Whilst I know the thread is related and also that the windy part is interesting I think it would be better served with it's own discussion. There are a lot of members that don't venture into the CC threads but might look and comment on a Wind generation thread, so we might get a wider set of inputs.
What do you think?
Would you mind staring a new thread specifically about Wind energy. Whilst I know the thread is related and also that the windy part is interesting I think it would be better served with it's own discussion. There are a lot of members that don't venture into the CC threads but might look and comment on a Wind generation thread, so we might get a wider set of inputs.
What do you think?
Something from a Google company.
https://x.company/makani/solution/
This is a potential competitor technology for Wind Turbines - or so they say.
The key selling pitch is that they would have easier deployment and can operate at higher altitude with less ground level disturbance thus making generation possible in places where current turbine technology might struggle to make a good case.
For now let's assume they are having fun and may one day have a product with a worthwhile market.
The point for the link is that they offer a map of the world which provides a visual indication of where the greatest potential for wind use can be found. You need to scroll down to find it.
They offer this for 100mtrs above ground and 250 mtrs above ground based on currently known (or assumed) typical wind strength. (I assume averages over some period.)
The map indicates that there are some very large areas (and very populous areas in the case of Africa) where wind would seem to be a non-starter - especially around the equator as one would expect.
Presumably those areas (other than the Amazon forests in South America) would need to rely on Solar for "renewable" electricity. And batteries perhaps.
This is part of the world where prediction suggest quite a large proportion of the world's 4 billion population increase in the next 80 or so years will come from.
I suppose houses built of solar panels would help? Not sure what they would do for the 12 hours of darkness (other than fulfill the population increase expectations?
)
back to the map ....
Whilst the wind availability is supplied and onshore matter like heavy forestation seem to be allowed for I'm not clear about whether the offshore areas make allowance for the utility of the local seabed. Given that the Makani concept seems likely to be unaffected by such matters and could presumably work off a floating platform in the absence of adverse weather conditions, my guess is that they have not looked at the potential for seabed constraints. (Maybe cable deployment?)
https://x.company/makani/solution/
This is a potential competitor technology for Wind Turbines - or so they say.
The key selling pitch is that they would have easier deployment and can operate at higher altitude with less ground level disturbance thus making generation possible in places where current turbine technology might struggle to make a good case.
For now let's assume they are having fun and may one day have a product with a worthwhile market.
The point for the link is that they offer a map of the world which provides a visual indication of where the greatest potential for wind use can be found. You need to scroll down to find it.
They offer this for 100mtrs above ground and 250 mtrs above ground based on currently known (or assumed) typical wind strength. (I assume averages over some period.)
The map indicates that there are some very large areas (and very populous areas in the case of Africa) where wind would seem to be a non-starter - especially around the equator as one would expect.
Presumably those areas (other than the Amazon forests in South America) would need to rely on Solar for "renewable" electricity. And batteries perhaps.
This is part of the world where prediction suggest quite a large proportion of the world's 4 billion population increase in the next 80 or so years will come from.
I suppose houses built of solar panels would help? Not sure what they would do for the 12 hours of darkness (other than fulfill the population increase expectations?
)back to the map ....
Whilst the wind availability is supplied and onshore matter like heavy forestation seem to be allowed for I'm not clear about whether the offshore areas make allowance for the utility of the local seabed. Given that the Makani concept seems likely to be unaffected by such matters and could presumably work off a floating platform in the absence of adverse weather conditions, my guess is that they have not looked at the potential for seabed constraints. (Maybe cable deployment?)
From the Conservative manifesto, possibly mentioned already:
"...we do not believe that more large-scale onshore wind power is right for England, we will maintain our position as a global leader in offshore wind and support the development of wind projects in the remote islands of Scotland, where they will directly benefit local communities..."
At least they're half-way there. The saving grace is that fewer people will have to look at expensive new full-time eyesores offering part-time energy.
"...we do not believe that more large-scale onshore wind power is right for England, we will maintain our position as a global leader in offshore wind and support the development of wind projects in the remote islands of Scotland, where they will directly benefit local communities..."
At least they're half-way there. The saving grace is that fewer people will have to look at expensive new full-time eyesores offering part-time energy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff