Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

For the UK, renewables cannot work.

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Turbobloke - the fact remains that your statement is not true or correct.


Stop dismissing others pointing this out.

Instructions don't work on here unless they're from a mod - another of your delusions we see all too often.

The essence of my post was clear - that for a typical OECD economy, renewables simply cannot work.

This remains true for the UK and USA, for example, as well as another 31 of the 35 (iirc) OECD economies.

Oh so a statement that was a generalisation to suit your argument.

Gotcha.Whats a 12% error huh ?



Meanwhile Wind is as low as €30/MWh.
Ok not everywhere, but as a generalisation ......

12% ? Can you explain your maths?

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

dickymint said:

12% ? Can you explain your maths?

No

Iceland burns fossil fuels albeit typically less than 1% of their mix so we're looking at the 1 exception of ~35.

A non-renewables vested interest can do the maths.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 16th August 13:33

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

For the UK, renewables cannot work.

Again - in your opinion.

No, based on EROEI calculations that you have no answer to beyond vacant rhetoric.

[DapperDanMan]

turbobloke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

For the UK, renewables cannot work.

Again - in your opinion.

No, based on cherry picked and flawed EROEI calculations that you have no answer to beyond vacant rhetoric.

EFA

No one can be bothered to engage you on it though can they. Your mind is so closed on the subject that you will never accept any evidence to the contrary. Whatever you get shown you will have an answer for and if you don't have one you will go in a different direction on some rant or other to distract those hard of brain readers.

Of course the lack of engagement just makes you think that you are right and "winning the argument". It is a self reinforcing delusion.

Here is 1 study that finds that PV is less than 1

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

Here is another that refutes that study and returns between 7-10 depending on the boundaries chosen

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

I dare say there is a further paper refuting that one and I am sure you will find it or have a graph of it somewhere.

[jshell]

LongQ said:

On the other hand by selling the carbon assets to others they can take a political position on "moral" aspects of energy production whilst over-spending on their lifestyles thanks to a relatively large country income and a relatively small population.

Have you lived there? I have and agree with what you have said. They sell hydrocarbons and tax everything to buggery, so they can afford to go on those flights of fancy.

The Norwegian Govt are going to have to reign-in the subsidies for electric cars as they are costing the Govt a fortune there.

[jshell]

Oh, and has everyone heard the latest Gore-tastic fantasy: An Inconvenient Sequel - Truth to Power ?

Mixed reviews, to be honest...

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

dickymint said:

12% ? Can you explain your maths?

No

Iceland burns fossil fuels albeit typically less than 1% of their mix so we're looking at the 1 exception of ~35.

A non-renewables vested interest can do the maths.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 16th August 13:33

As I thought - no idea how to measure error

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

turbobloke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

dickymint said:

12% ? Can you explain your maths?

No

Iceland burns fossil fuels albeit typically less than 1% of their mix so we're looking at the 1 exception of ~35.

A non-renewables vested interest can do the maths.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 16th August 13:33

As I thought - no idea how to measure error

Being ultra precise keeps Norway in play, just about, but the message on renewables for 33 (keeping Iceland in) or 34 of the 35 OECD economies is very clear.

[LongQ]

jshell said:

LongQ said:

On the other hand by selling the carbon assets to others they can take a political position on "moral" aspects of energy production whilst over-spending on their lifestyles thanks to a relatively large country income and a relatively small population.

Have you lived there? I have and agree with what you have said. They sell hydrocarbons and tax everything to buggery, so they can afford to go on those flights of fancy.

The Norwegian Govt are going to have to reign-in the subsidies for electric cars as they are costing the Govt a fortune there.

No, but back a number of years ago I visited a number of times on business with a couple of clients. The expenses for the trips, even trying to keep them reasonable, were amongst the highest ever - and I spent a lot more time in that period in Stockholm (not cheap) and Helsinki (also not cheap).

Lovely people and a fascinating place but almost unreal in so many ways.

Highly recommended for those who can afford a short trip.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

For the UK, renewables cannot work.

Again - in your opinion.

No, based on EROEI calculations that you have no answer to beyond vacant rhetoric.

Other than to say they are not reflective of the future generations. However you are not open to discussions on this.

Paddy, would you mind awfully if I waited to see what happened in future generations before conceding to your point?

For as long as I can remember I have heard promises from all sorts of people telling me that things will be better, easier of cheaper at some future point and those promises have rarely delivered. A few almost made it.

Nothing can be allowed to become too cheap - there is no margin left for investors and nothing much of fiscal measure to be taxed.

And in any case, absent inflationary pricing debt burdens become unmanageable. (Or, rather, even more unmaneagable.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

[PRTVR]

LongQ said:

jshell said:

LongQ said:

On the other hand by selling the carbon assets to others they can take a political position on "moral" aspects of energy production whilst over-spending on their lifestyles thanks to a relatively large country income and a relatively small population.

Have you lived there? I have and agree with what you have said. They sell hydrocarbons and tax everything to buggery, so they can afford to go on those flights of fancy.

The Norwegian Govt are going to have to reign-in the subsidies for electric cars as they are costing the Govt a fortune there.

No, but back a number of years ago I visited a number of times on business with a couple of clients. The expenses for the trips, even trying to keep them reasonable, were amongst the highest ever - and I spent a lot more time in that period in Stockholm (not cheap) and Helsinki (also not cheap).

Lovely people and a fascinating place but almost unreal in so many ways.

Highly recommended for those who can afford a short trip.

The other option is to do a cruise, this limit's the exposure to the costs, I have just returned from one and as you say lovely people and wonderful scenery , so many waterfalls, it's no wonder they have so much hydro electricity, I met a young man and chatting to him he worked in steel production, he was saying that high electricity use industries are expanding massively due to cheep electricity,
I mentioned all the electric cars every car in the small car park was electric, the subsidies were massive, even down to free ferry use for them, but he did point out it was going to end soon due to the costs.

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

as you wish of course - but as alluded by others - TB stating : "based on EROEI calculations" tends to be cherry picked info to intentionally mislead, not withstanding my points that the EROEI calculations / info he has so far offered - are outdated , thus irrelevant to the argument.

Outdated is only irrelevant if superseded - as yet paddy none of us have seen any better EROEI calculations that paint solar/wind any better. Also given that EROEI rates all energy produced as the same quality this increases the viability of solar/wind when in fact the intermittent nature of solar/wind means it is lower quality energy. As such any EROEI should include the quality of energy produced as well as the totals. Some reading from December last year (specifically for solar though can be used for other intermittent sources - ps - new enough for you?)

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

So by those measure(s) above the EROEI is essentially irrelevant.
So why does one bang on about them ? Other than to simply try and paint a tarnished picture.

Ah - Politics.

Correct thread for it. We know you have a vested interest paddy and as such would expect you to "defend the wind" to the end but please try and defend with better weapons than - "all your information is outdated/irrelevant" and then fail to prove it. Without politics wind and solar power would be doing good in the off-grid areas they excel in. Instead they are forced into uses unsuitable for them and propped up by manipulation of the energy markets - this is why they get a bad rep (along with the dead birds) . Putting things to a use they are not designed for and inherently unsuitable for means you get poor results (much like using the historic temperature record of max and mins to show climate change - unsuitable data being used for something it wasn't designed for).

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

as you wish of course - but as alluded by others - TB stating : "based on EROEI calculations" tends to be cherry picked info to intentionally mislead, not withstanding my points that the EROEI calculations / info he has so far offered - are outdated , thus irrelevant to the argument.

Outdated is only irrelevant if superseded - as yet paddy none of us have seen any better EROEI calculations that paint solar/wind any better. Also given that EROEI rates all energy produced as the same quality this increases the viability of solar/wind when in fact the intermittent nature of solar/wind means it is lower quality energy. As such any EROEI should include the quality of energy produced as well as the totals. Some reading from December last year (specifically for solar though can be used for other intermittent sources - ps - new enough for you?)

Good points, but in response to PnM there was no cherry picking, and as you point out, the notion of an automatic sell-by date on research findings is risible. The EROEI calculations were challenged by several vested interest groups at the time of publication and easily withstood the superficial critiques. We're seeing the same thing here.

Thanks for the link, however in terms of the content, the idea of not treating wind and pv solar on a 'level playing field basis' would doubtless lead to accusations of bias.

Seeing that the already inadequate EROEI positions for wind and pv solar are even worse than the published paper and commentaries already posted in the thread will go down well with PnM.

I can imagine the headline responses to your post from vested interests: "it was not designed to handle the complexities of intermittent renewables" and "EROEI is misleading for wind" also "EROEI is a blunt tool" with no mention that what's being said makes things even worse rather than better (as you point out). And it's recent.

Somebody ought to review the laws of thermodynamics, it's a while since they were put forward. No, hang on, they already did in a climate thread and arrived at the new and whacky paradigm of thermos dynamics. I remember it well.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Your continual use of the phrase 'vested interest' is beyond tiresome.

No comment on whether it's accurate or not? Iinsider out?

Meanwhile congratulations on finding spoon-fed access (via Jinx's helpfulness) to a 2016 article demonstrating that renewables are worse than previously throught in terms of EROEI.

[turbobloke]

Lest we forget this general point well made.

Upton Sinclair said:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

[robinessex]

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

For the UK, renewables cannot work.

Again - in your opinion.

No, based on EROEI calculations that you have no answer to beyond vacant rhetoric.

Other than to say they are not reflective of the future generations. However you are not open to discussions on this.

Paddy, would you mind awfully if I waited to see what happened in future generations before conceding to your point?

For as long as I can remember I have heard promises from all sorts of people telling me that things will be better, easier of cheaper at some future point and those promises have rarely delivered. A few almost made it.

Nothing can be allowed to become too cheap - there is no margin left for investors and nothing much of fiscal measure to be taxed.

And in any case, absent inflationary pricing debt burdens become unmanageable. (Or, rather, even more unmaneagable.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

I'm old enough to remember the 'We've found gas in the North Sea, soon it will available to all for FREE" message years ago. And the wonderful, pollution free, energy for ever nuclear. Except someone forgot the bloody power stations wear out, and we've still not sorted out the problem, and horrendous cost, of getting rid of the left over radio active st!!

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Your continual use of the phrase 'vested interest' is beyond tiresome.

When did "vested interest" become an insult? We all have vested interests - I have a vested interest in how successful my bank is as my savings sit on their books. I have a vested interest in the success of UK plc - as a failing country will harm my prospects of success. Vested interest merely shows we have skin in the game and our arguments are not merely academic.
I suspect you equate "vested interest" with negative bias and connotations of corruption - that is not the case - having a vested interest means you have more to gain and more to lose, nothing more/nothing less.

[GnuBee]

Jinx said:

When did "vested interest" become an insult? We all have vested interests - I have a vested interest in how successful my bank is as my savings sit on their books. I have a vested interest in the success of UK plc - as a failing country will harm my prospects of success. Vested interest merely shows we have skin in the game and our arguments are not merely academic.
I suspect you equate "vested interest" with negative bias and connotations of corruption - that is not the case - having a vested interest means you have more to gain and more to lose, nothing more/nothing less.

Yes, but... we all know that's being obtuse. TB who, lest we forget, is very keen on dismissing arguments as "ad-hominem" is using it exactly in that way; as in implying bias, corruption yada yada.

It's the same with the endless use of the fool emoji, the Clarksonesque "Windymills" etc