Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
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!!
The Nuclear fuel disposal problem is, as I understand it these days, a different proposition compared to the early days. The focus on obtaining a weapons system as a resulting output is not longer an objective and a lot of work has gone into developing approaches to re-use fuel "spent" in one system for re-use in the next.

The problem seems to be that most of the major developments that are progressing to real generation plants are in Russia and China or supplied by them and some promising developments in Korea, for example, have been a target for those who wish to stop all R&D development at any cost.

Whether that is a sensible response or not will not be clear for a another 2 or 3 generations but I can;t help but wonder whether at some point around the end of this century, assuming the estimates of population growth prove somewhat accurate, things are going to get messy and humanity may find some degree of "correction" will occur.

At the moment one might suggest that all policies, many of which seem to be in opposition to each other, are likely to lead to some sort of correction, planned or unplanned.

Decision makers seem to be likely unconcerned about such things as they are far into the future but are in fact influencing which form of negative impact future humans will come to experience.

If the current generation of newborns has any sense when it matures and takes not of the mantra "think of the children" they may decide that not having many (any?) would be wise. That assumes they will still have the option. If the same philosophical position is not a worldwide phenomenon by then such a decision might well be entirely meaningless.

On the other hand if the various fear groups are wrong and the human world continues to be a viable option with natural "controls" in place then presumably some sensible decisions will have been made in the course of the next 2 or 3 decades.

At some point it seems likely that people will fall back on the "saved" resources - like coal and oil may become - or move on to accepting nuclear as a viable option when others are not. The effects of covering large areas of the surface of the planet with solar panels or wind energy reducing turbines are, as yet, unmeasured and perhaps unmeasureable at this point in time. I find it difficult to believe there would be no effect but that seems to be the basis of the approach currently employed. If a small amount of change in trace gas can be so influential for both climate effects and plant fertility the chances of solar energy capturing field and air movement disrupting wind turbines having absolutely no influence over changing "natural" events seem to be questionable. Maybe also unpredictable based on current understanding, no matter hwo many models might be deployed to consider the questions.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
GnuBee said:
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
Ok.

No more criticisms of any kind about anything made in any way then?

This is a politics oriented thread not a one party state management committee. At least, it is for now.

You might not like the style of delivery but don't confuse that with the message.

As for ad-hominem - I don't think you can justify broadening the implied meaning to cover a policy or belief or strategy.

It relates to a Person. An individual, or perhaps a team of individuals acting together and as one, but nevertheless still individually.

To broaden the use is to diminish the intended meaning.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
GnuBee said:
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
yes
nono

Vested interests are what they are.

The quote I gave from Upton Sinclair is a superb reminder of the importance of recognising vested interests, particularly as it's from a chap who had socialist tendencies.

As an aside, not knowing the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and an accurate description is par for the course for white flag operations.

I seem to have touched more than one nerve with this matter-of -fact point. What a surprise it isn't that people with faith in renewables and nothing else are mounting yet another personal angle diversion to hide their lack of any credible counter-argument. More of the same would be good.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Pathetic. another abusive post stuffed with the usual irony and hypocrisy.

dickymint

24,097 posts

257 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
At least politicians have to formally register their 'financial interests' wink

As an aside and maybe a sign of my age and upbringing calling anybody a "liar" would have resulted in me not wanting to sit down for a while due to bottom warming!!

768

13,601 posts

95 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
My wife pointed out that the science doesn't seem to be settled on something as straightforwards and widely accepted as whether you should complete your fixed length course of antibiotics, or not.

http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418

At least causes of climatic changes are comparably straightforwards to measure, prove and convincingly demonstrate.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
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.
Maybe these guys can answer:

dickymint said:
Now guess who keeps plugging (and probably has a vested interest) in said Company?

rofl

Well Ding fking DONG
turbobloke said:
How anything resembling total cost forecasts from vested interets are supposed to be credible when various contributory costs aren't known by them is an intriguing thought.

Follow the vested interest gradient; I seem to recall mentioning this earlier in 'the carnage' smile
Bacardi said:
Trouble is, it isn't data, just modelled and adjusted bullst from people with no principles who have a vested interest in keeping this gravy train rolling for the sake of saving face, having no integrity and of course their pensions...
turbobloke said:
The only counterpoints read to date include gullible and self-interested politicians saying 'it aint so' and vested interests wishing it wasn't so and spinning for their careers...the personal angle is understandable though not in the overall national interest.
turbobloke said:
Neat if it's working for your vested interest, but total garbage.
turbobloke said:
Talking of stress, any vested interests north of the Wall (Hadrian, not Donald) might want to polish their cv. One in six greenblobjobs are at risk - that's around 3500 blobjobs.
dickymint said:
Vested interest.com rolleyes

dickymint

24,097 posts

257 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
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.
Maybe these guys can answer:

dickymint said:
Now guess who keeps plugging (and probably has a vested interest) in said Company?

rofl

Well Ding fking DONG
turbobloke said:
How anything resembling total cost forecasts from vested interets are supposed to be credible when various contributory costs aren't known by them is an intriguing thought.

Follow the vested interest gradient; I seem to recall mentioning this earlier in 'the carnage' smile
Bacardi said:
Trouble is, it isn't data, just modelled and adjusted bullst from people with no principles who have a vested interest in keeping this gravy train rolling for the sake of saving face, having no integrity and of course their pensions...
turbobloke said:
The only counterpoints read to date include gullible and self-interested politicians saying 'it aint so' and vested interests wishing it wasn't so and spinning for their careers...the personal angle is understandable though not in the overall national interest.
turbobloke said:
Neat if it's working for your vested interest, but total garbage.
turbobloke said:
Talking of stress, any vested interests north of the Wall (Hadrian, not Donald) might want to polish their cv. One in six greenblobjobs are at risk - that's around 3500 blobjobs.
dickymint said:
Vested interest.com rolleyes
And your problem with the term "vested interest " is?

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
Vested interest quotes.
I still fail to see the insult in the term except where it is being used as a euphemism. Again we all have vested interests.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all

vested interest
ˌvɛstɪd ˈɪntrɛst/
noun
noun: vested interest; plural noun: vested interests
1.
a personal reason for involvement in an undertaking or situation, especially an expectation of financial or other gain.



The presence of a vested interest in the use of public money requires the relevant governance to declare it. Not remotely an ad hom, it's something acutely relevant.

Listing people who use the term is silly and a waste of time, reflecting a basic lack of understanding.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
diversionsЯhappening because renewables are on the ropes.

DapperDanMan

2,622 posts

206 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Pathetic. another abusive post stuffed with the usual irony and hypocrisy.
It debunked your EROIE argument so how convenient of you to ignore it.

So here it is again.

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.

MikeyC

836 posts

226 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
768 said:
My wife pointed out that the science doesn't seem to be settled on something as straightforwards and widely accepted as whether you should complete your fixed length course of antibiotics, or not.

http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418

At least causes of climatic changes are comparably straightforwards to measure, prove and convincingly demonstrate.
I heard about this some months back regards anti-biotics
lets face it, the current accepted procedure doesn't appear to be working with most anti-biotics unable to defeat certain strains of bacteria so maybe we've been doing it wrong all this time ?

this kinda sums it up, science is evolving all the time, eg: Dark Matter/Energy, it's still all up in the air as to what's out there

IMO, any scientist who claims 'The Science is settled' isn't really a scientist ...

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
DapperDanMan said:
It debunked your EROIE argument so how convenient of you to ignore it.

So here it is again.

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.
Looks like the assumptions in the "3.2. Parameters affecting the EROI denominator (energy ‘invested’ in the PV system)" are the main difference - cherry picking values will give you the range of 0.82 to 10. So not much help there in determining a valid EROIE for solar PV (work also based in Switzerland so not really relevant to UK given the lower energy yields expected) .

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
MikeyC said:
IMO, any scientist who claims 'The Science is settled' isn't really a scientist ...
I think it's more that the 'settled science' bit refers to only a narrow part of what is going on - eg 'Man is producing CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas'. This much is true but is not the whole story as we know smile

dickymint

24,097 posts

257 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
So for the record Turbobloke - you've never, not even the once, used the terminology in any way other than you described above?

And will defend any quotation of yours to the same ?
In other words .....

TB have you stopped beating your wife rofl

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
DibblyDobbler said:
MikeyC said:
IMO, any scientist who claims 'The Science is settled' isn't really a scientist ...
I think it's more that the 'settled science' bit refers to only a narrow part of what is going on - eg 'Man is producing CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas'. This much is true but is not the whole story as we know smile
I think that's exactly right.

How anyone can make that claim and then stop the statement - as is so often the case - without adding for public consumption, rather than just privately for colleagues, "... but there is a lot of stuff that we just don't understand and perhaps even more that we don't even know about" and yet still claim to be a scientist is something that has long puzzled me.

Of course for a politician it would be normal to employ highly selective comments and fully managed historical recollections of previous events.

If one is troubled by data the obvious long term solution is either to make if fit your hypothesis or get to a stage where the "public" has absolutely no idea whether the data is meaningful or not but probably assumes it is not really useful. After that one can simply operate on the basis of opinion and appeals to one's apparently "good" authority from earlier times.

If you can cut off funding for older "science" - i.e. make it difficult or impossible for people to attempt to repeat some of your work - so much the better. It will be a long time after retirement before one's ideas are likely to be challenged in any scientifically managed way.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
diversions?happening because renewables are on the ropes.
You jogged on past the $30MWhr price I said was under way for the coastline wind energy elsewhere?
Based on responses so far you and the industry don't know the actual cost of wind energy, having avoided answering detailed questioning on this key aspect of pricing legitimacy.

It's pointless asking/discussing something that you don't know.

dickymint

24,097 posts

257 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
So for the record Turbobloke - you've never, not even the once, used the terminology in any way other than you described above?

And will defend any quotation of yours to the same ?
Oh and can you respond to this too pls ?
Yep cos Paddy has obviously got the joker up his sleeve - seems that he's not the only thread searcher today rofl

Shame that the same effort isn't spent on the search for that invisible signal .................

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Respoinding is ironic as far as PnM is concerned. I've been waiting for months for a response to a query relating to the full cost of wind power in this country.

After all it’s quite easy to offer a competitive price for goods or services if the producer isn’t required to meet the full cost of production.

We already know about grace period ROC subsidies 2017/18 and ongoing CFD subsidies for wind, but nothing about the cost of hidden subsidies.

It’s possible to look up turbine construction costs, installation likewise, grid connection also (and how costly it is too), but beyond that it gets opaque.

For UK windpower:
- is a location-specific capital cost per turbine being used to provide a necessary degree of detail and accuracy, or is an optimistic chicken soup average in place which also benefits from mean/median variance
- does any claimed total cost per turbine reflect lifecycle costs in full including maintenance, repair and decommissioning or just construction
- are social / health / environmental impacts realistically costed and included e.g. human health, property price impacts for onshore, extraction and processing clean-ups
- is the WTP cost per turbine of deaths of hundreds and thousands of birds of prey and bats included
- are back-up costs per turbine included e.g. a conventional-powered plant of up to 500MW that can be switched on when solar and wind prove to be useless
- are baseload cycling costs per turbine included
- is the cost per turbine associated with reduced reliability of the grid included
- are decommissioning costs included

All I've seen on my thread visits suggests I ought not to ask these inconvenient questions.

Where are the answers to these frequent questions? A link will do and save repeating - or a copy and paste against the above list should be easy. This would at least demonstrate relevant knowledge and allow an examination of hidden subsidies to help materially with reviews of pricing.

Did anyone e.g. PnM ever reply fully with a quantitative answer to my post mentioning the past (2013) price of UK windpower being x4 the cost in Brazil and what the current multiple is (and why)?

These queries hawe been outstanding for a long time but get ignored (or abuse) in the hope/expectation they'll go away.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED