The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Toltec]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Is that from your Ministry of Misinformation again ?

A two second search on Google suggest your usual selective posting of information

I used Gallup as a reasonable source. http://news.gallup.com/poll/207119/half-concerned-...

You think a poll of what people think that scientists believe presents some kind of proof?

From the same source-

http://news.gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-belie...



In what way do you think what Americans believe is in any way connected to reality?

[Toltec]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

it was with respect to TB being the minority in his believe that Climate Change Global Warming is of zero concerns

Clearly he is wrong about that, but clearly it is of less concern than being educated enough to understand what is of concern, living long enough for what you are concerned about to matter and earning enough money that you have time to be concerned about anything other than surviving.

[turbobloke]

Toltec said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

it was with respect to TB being the minority in his believe that Climate Change Global Warming is of zero concerns

Clearly he is wrong about that...

Whoa, where did I say anything about belief or anything about zero concerns? I did however point out PnM's use of hyperbole.

Very sloppy stuff (aka manure) from both of you, making it up as you go along (what's new).

You're both engaging in misrepresentation, transparently so.

Anyway...did somebody who went off topic suggest getting back on topic? Okeedokee.

UK wind power potential could fall by 10% by 2100 because of climate change

Hang on weren't windymills the cure? Hilarious



https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-wind-power-potentia...

"The arrival of weaker winds in the northern hemisphere as a result of global warming..."

Hmmm. Surely this can't be the same modelling that predicted our jet stream would weaken and move nearer to the pole due to climate change, when in fact it's intensified and moved away from the pole?

Aye

But wait!

"However, the study’s conclusions rely on models that have relatively low spatial resolution, other scientists tell Carbon Brief, which could affect the accuracy of the results."

So now we have more snow/less snow, more hurricanes/fewer hurricanes, and is it.... more wind/less wind?

Parp.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 7th February 17:35

[Toltec]

turbobloke said:

Whoa, where did I say anything about belief or anything about zero concerns? I did however point out PnM's use of hyperbole.

Sorry, I meant the irony to be strong with that one

I deliberately picked a yes/no question asked of the USA populace about something of which there is no proof (fair enough at least there is some effort going into CC) where your's was a comparison of relative concerns over a wide cohort. Statistics can be used to prove the point you want to make, mine being that most Americans should not be trusted to make rational decisions, which of course is my bias.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Is that from your Ministry of Misinformation again ?

A two second search on Google suggest your usual selective posting of information

I used Gallup as a reasonable source. http://news.gallup.com/poll/207119/half-concerned-...




"Record High Believe That Effects of Global Warming Are Evident

Sixty-two percent of Americans now believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen. That eclipses the previous high of 61% recorded in 2008 and is up from 49% in 2011."


etc etc....

"Americans' Increasingly Blame Human Activity

Sixty-eight percent of Americans -- the highest Gallup has recorded -- believe increases in Earth's temperatures over the last century are mainly due to the effects of pollution from human activities. Just 29% now attribute global warming to natural changes in the environment. These opinions were gathered prior to the Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, saying he is not persuaded that human activity is a primary factor in global warming."



Lets get back on track of Thread please...

c,mon paddy. doing the very same thing you accuse others of is not a good look. i think level of concern was the query and even your survey shows below 50% . a global survey vs an american survey that i suspect (but cannot prove) had a high response rate from hippy californians as there tends to be an organised response from various online groups to surveys of that type.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

And because I can't find a more recent article I have borrowed some of your Old Newspapers :


From 2014 :

"Gas company special payments dwarf constraint payments to windfarms"


National Grid makes figures public for first time as government considers cutting windfarm subsidies before election. National Grid made special payments of £300m over the last 12 months to big energy companies – sometimes for switching off their power stations in an attempt to "balance" the system.

The huge payout dwarfs the £37m paid to windfarms to remain offline over the same period to the end of February – a figure used by critics to question the advisability of supporting renewable energy.




So bizarrely - for you - an utter non fking story ?

Why does the grid become unbalanced? Could it be due to the use of unreliables?

Is your Google broken?
In the interim :

https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/about-grid/our-net...

PnM's article said:

Balancing the system to make sure that demand is met by supply is one of the most important things we do, and it is becoming more challenging as intermittent generation – such as wind power – becomes a bigger part of the overall energy mix.

Increased use of unreliables = increased issues with balancing the grid.

[LongQ]

Toltec said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

it was with respect to TB being the minority in his believe that Climate Change Global Warming is of zero concerns

Clearly he is wrong about that, but clearly it is of less concern than being educated enough to understand what is of concern, living long enough for what you are concerned about to matter and earning enough money that you have time to be concerned about anything other than surviving.

The graph seems to have orginated from a UN project with a reporting portal here.

http://data.myworld2015.org/?

Sadly the portal just presents some selection criteria, a list of countries and organisations that, one assumes, participated together with the number of responses (?) one guesses and a few other things.

The little "busy" spinning things pops up ..... and that's it. Sits there for ever.

I have tried a couple of browsers. Both the same. Maybe one needs a Apple device?

myworld2015 appears to have migrated to myworld2030 but that offers no data that I could find.

One would have thought that what looks like a reasonably well funded UN initiative could have kept the report portal running complete with information about whether it is working and if not why not.

Maybe they don't know it's not working?

Or maybe they are OK with it not working.

The reason for mentioning this here is that 11th on the list is "Reliable Power at Home" - which seems rather low down the list albeit in my assessment 6 of the 10 items above it would also be very reliant on reliable power availability.

One wonders why reliable power at home is so low down the list - are people either so used to ever present power that the majority take it for granted? Or might it be that many of the respondents don't expect reliable power now (or when they responded) and so don't have any expectations of it being part of their lives?

Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 7th February 20:48

[turbobloke]

Just to be clear (and repeat myself for the hard of thinking you know who you are) I am not "wrong about that" because a) I did not state a position based on my "belief" since as a rational individual and as LongQ has reiterated it's based on a dataset from a UN poll with a very large international sample size - which demonstrates my actual point, not one made up by others - and b) i did not claim and have never claimed there was "zero concern".

Hopefully we can get the discussion back above infant school level with the false arguments based on hyperbole and fake claims removed. With faith and fiction trumping data on the belief side, some hope.



Anyway, here's an on-topic opinion piece, no misquotes or made-up stuff needed

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/solar-and...

Snip from the link said:

The problem we have in Australia is when we talk renewable energy we are talking wind and solar only — low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy.
According to the Department of Industry and Science wind currently generates 4.1 per cent and solar 2 per cent of Australia’s electricity. But even this is highly misleading because it is such low value power. You could close it down tomorrow (which it regularly does by itself) and it would make no difference to supply.

Bring on peak renewables uk, hopefully here soon.

[RobDickinson]

Australia (government) for some reason is wedded to coal.

Even though they are perfect for solar.

Won't last as solar prices tumble coal won't be able to keep up.

The Australian public are well on board with solar

[V8 Fettler]

turbobloke said:

MYOB said:

LongQ said:

MYOB said:

Ali G said:

And governmental policy is determined by pressure groups lobbying - not the electorate

You really have no idea how government policy is formulated. This is ignorance and a fairly typical tabloid viewpoint.

I for one am more than interested to discover the secret if you can share it.

For example the then Bryony Worthington and the 2008 Climate Change Act. That seems like a good place to start.

So how was that chunk of policy formulated?

Can't answer that question, I wasn't involved in that policy area.

In which case somebody might ask about the basis for your 'tabloid viewpoint' smear when just about the most ludicrious piece of legislation formulated in living memory came about by a route you dismissed.

You confess you're unaware that the then Labour government invited Baroness Worthington, as she now is (Labour peer) - an English graduate and Fiends of the Earth pressure group climate activist - to be the lead author and chief architect of the pointless and nonsensical Climate Change Act.

She wasn't chosen by the random drawing of lots, though that method may well have resulted in somebody equally unsuitable.

Although she's not an Oxford graduate, they're the most dangerous.

[Ali G]

Perhaps there could and should have been some circumspection as to appointing a staunch member of FOE when energy policy comes with the entire advocacy package.

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/nuclea...

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I don't stand by the 'American' poll as the total picture on the subject but as per Toltec - it was least a relevant question to the subject in contrast to the guff question/poll posted by TB.


This diversion was caused by saying on the whole TB is in the minority to belief the views he does - he then (typically) pulled out a skewed find on the internet.
I simply Googled 'Poll of views of Climate Change' and posted the first tangible graph I saw.

Feel free to provide an alternate - the case is, TB is become the hideous incarnation of the boy who cried wolf.

the survey i had in mind was the united nations one already posted by tb. i wouldn't call a poll by the un a "skewed find".particularly one that goes against a postion driven by a group that is part of the organisation.

i would however label a google search on the subject definitely skewed. it is well documented that google promote pro cagw views in searches. could partly be due to there is more official pro cagw propaganda out there, but it is a fact nonetheless.

[MYOB]

V8 Fettler said:

Although she's not an Oxford graduate, they're the most dangerous.

Really? In what way are Oxford graduates the most dangerous?

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Didn’t read MYOBs posts then ?

Not many do!

[V8 Fettler]

MYOB said:

V8 Fettler said:

Although she's not an Oxford graduate, they're the most dangerous.

Really? In what way are Oxford graduates the most dangerous?

Oxford has a long history of producing dangerously incompetent politicians without STEM degrees who have led - and continue to lead - the UK on the path of general decline.

[AW111]

turbobloke said:

Windymills

turbobloke said:

Enviro - mentalists

turbobloke said:

Fiends of the Earth

turbobloke said:

Hopefully we can get the discussion back above infant school level

[Gary C]

And around the loop we go again.

Co2 is bad, wind turbines, solar, tidal, nukes of some sort

Co2 is worrying, wind turbines, solar, some nukes, some gas

Co2 is good, Crack n with coal and gas.

The future is power gen for the next 20 years is going to be politically lead, and that means low carbon.

Don't think there is any disagreement there.

It's co2 that's the argument as far as I can see.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

Anyway, here's an on-topic opinion piece, no misquotes or made-up stuff needed

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/solar-and...

Snip from the link said:

The problem we have in Australia is when we talk renewable energy we are talking wind and solar only — low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy.
According to the Department of Industry and Science wind currently generates 4.1 per cent and solar 2 per cent of Australia’s electricity. But even this is highly misleading because it is such low value power. You could close it down tomorrow (which it regularly does by itself) and it would make no difference to supply.

Bring on peak renewables uk, hopefully here soon.

Opinion piece from 2016 written by arts graduate (luckily not from Oxford) and former chair of MacArthur coal and various other oil fossil fuel companies Keith DeLacy.

Do I have to find a way around your paywalled link to know it'll be a touch biased and written with all the expertise of an Arts graduate

[turbobloke]

Wayoftheflower said:

turbobloke said:

Anyway, here's an on-topic opinion piece, no misquotes or made-up stuff needed

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/solar-and...

Snip from the link said:

The problem we have in Australia is when we talk renewable energy we are talking wind and solar only — low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy.
According to the Department of Industry and Science wind currently generates 4.1 per cent and solar 2 per cent of Australia’s electricity. But even this is highly misleading because it is such low value power. You could close it down tomorrow (which it regularly does by itself) and it would make no difference to supply.

Bring on peak renewables uk, hopefully here soon.

Opinion piece from 2016 written by arts graduate (luckily not from Oxford) and former chair of MacArthur coal and various other oil fossil fuel companies Keith DeLacy.

Do I have to find a way around your paywalled link to know it'll be a touch biased and written with all the expertise of an Arts graduate

No but I have to explain to you that an opinion piece by anyone, even you, is just an opinion, that the arts grad wasn't asked to set government policy into legislation and then given a gong, and that an opinion formed in 2016 is just that, an opinion. It has no sell-by date attached.

Nice work, you used just about every weak debating tactic available when surely you have something more positive to offer about windymills and unreliables generally.

You could mention how emissions can increase even when renewable energy use increases (see Germany) or how turbines fall to 11% plated capacity in middle age, or how much (a third of a £billion) has been paid to the people at the top of the UK green pyramid in order to NOT produce electricity, the amount of subsidy received by the green tops and still being paid by the UK taxpayer, or how adding storage other than hydro but including batteries to 'overcome' intermittency reduces EROEI to unworkably low levels, that the greenest of green scientists and engineers paid by Google to demonstrate RE<C failed even with fantasy technology including self-erecting turbines in robotic windfarms, that grid stability (see SA) and energy security remain real concerns, and that a government paying people the energy equivalent of digging holes then filling them in again will 'work' and the people being paid make money but it's hardly sensible when better and cheaper alternatives are available.

Then again you wouldn't do that because when objective evidence and data rather than politics and ideology get a look-in, renewables don't have a prayer, except maybe from the faithful to Gaia. Good luck .

[turbobloke]

PS

Oxford?