The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[jet_noise]

Gary C said:

And another risk is rising sea levels, etc etc.

Anyone with an engineering/science background can see tha basic science behind the potential of GW, and I get your points on the proof, but your put downs of anyone who supports the idea of GW is a wee bit childish.

I'm not certain how it's going to turn out, but I'm open minded enough to listen, and listen hard.

Oh no. Run for the hills. We're all going to drown.



Or not. That's the longest running Amercan tide gauge. (YMMV dependent on location, local conditions, change of land use etc)

Just one example of no change in rate of rise.
At all.

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

The occasional caustic comment has been posted, generally in response to the name calling and swearing by various delusionists, is that not permitted?

(More listening needed to avoid confusion between AGW and GW)

Maybe your right, and I agree, it's the piston heads way

There is something going on though, why can't it be CO2 influenced ?, problem is, we can't begin to fully model such a complex system.

Though I admit in some small measure, co2 reduction is good for my industry and that may tilt my opinion slightly, as it does others.

I have a friend who works for BAS and the changes to the ice shelf he has been working at since the 90's is scary for something that has been there so long.

Anyway, the planet will be fine, we will survive, London may get its feet wet and economies may change about a bit, let's face it, there are plenty of places humans lived that are deserts now, so we are if anything adaptable.

Still not giving up my flat 6 though.

[turbobloke]

Gary C said:

I have a friend who works for BAS and the changes to the ice shelf he has been working at since the 90's is scary for something that has been there so long.

There have been periods of millions of years when both poles had no ice. Scary? Maybe to some people but it's normal, natural.

Something is indeed going on, it's natural climate change that's been happening for billions of years.

Nothing happening now is unprecedented though that word is used (wrongly) in propaganda. If you or anyone has the time and interest to check it out (take nobody's word for it) try the following:

Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al
Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and try Andersson et al
Sea level changes – Gregory et al
Hurricanes - no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Wildfires - not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha
The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy

The above is not internet "grey lit" the articles are peer-reviewed papers...and just a sample from many more.

Whatever else may be said of renewables, their so-called basis is bunk. We don't need renewables to save us from something that isn't down to us in the first place. There's plenty more (along with abuse from the agw faithful) over in the climate politics thread, but it remains relevant here for obvious reasons.

[robinessex]

Gary C said:

Anyone with an engineering/science background can see tha basic science behind the potential of GW, and I get your points on the proof, but your put downs of anyone who supports the idea of GW is a wee bit childish.

Anyone with the above can see glaring holes in the whole argument.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Gary C said:

Anyone with an engineering/science background can see tha basic science behind the potential of GW, and I get your points on the proof, but your put downs of anyone who supports the idea of GW is a wee bit childish.

Anyone with the above can see glaring holes in the whole argument.

The problem is that the basic science is too basic. Sealed containers containing tax gas, jeez.

Then look at what the agw hypothesis predicts and what empirical data shows. I explained in the climate politics thread what the Break/No break refers to. However it makes no difference to the overall failure and rejection of the basic agw hypothesis. There are numerous scientists and other grads in both threads so it won't be just me appreciating the implication of p-values as shown below. I added the boxes to focus attention where it's needed.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

Gary C said:

Anyone with an engineering/science background can see tha basic science behind the potential of GW, and I get your points on the proof, but your put downs of anyone who supports the idea of GW is a wee bit childish.

Anyone with the above can see glaring holes in the whole argument.

The problem is that the basic science is too basic. Sealed containers containing tax gas, jeez.

Then look at what the agw hypothesis predicts and what empirical data shows. I explained in the climate politics thread what the Break/No break refers to. However it makes no difference to the overall failure and rejection of the basic agw hypothesis. There are numerous scientists and other grads in both threads so it won't be just me appreciating the implication of p-values as shown below. I added the boxes to focus attention where it's needed.

Can you two please keep your ‘climate science’ in the climate science or politics thread and not ruin another one with your politicised dogma and endless click and paste spam.

[rolando]

El stovey said:

Can you two please keep your ‘climate science’ in the climate science or politics thread and not ruin another one with your politicised dogma and endless click and paste spam.

And the same to you with brass knobs on !
I see nothing in your comment addressing "The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain".

[anonymous-user]

rolando said:

El stovey said:

Can you two please keep your ‘climate science’ in the climate science or politics thread and not ruin another one with your politicised dogma and endless click and paste spam.

And the same to you with brass knobs on !
I see nothing in your comment addressing "The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain".

Presumably that logic applies to you now too?

So in a post asking for people to not ruin the thread with spam, you have to include on topic stuff?

[Gary C]

turbobloke said:

The problem is that the basic science is too basic. Sealed containers containing tax gas, jeez.

Then look at what the agw hypothesis predicts and what empirical data shows. I explained in the climate politics thread what the Break/No break refers to. However it makes no difference to the overall failure and rejection of the basic agw hypothesis. There are numerous scientists and other grads in both threads so it won't be just me appreciating the implication of p-values as shown below. I added the boxes to focus attention where it's needed.

Too simple, I agree (as I actually noted before) but I'm not going to put down people (well, the not to)

For the future of generation, co2 is THE driver of its future, rightly or wrongly.

[DocJock]

El stovey said:

rolando said:

El stovey said:

Can you two please keep your ‘climate science’ in the climate science or politics thread and not ruin another one with your politicised dogma and endless click and paste spam.

And the same to you with brass knobs on !
I see nothing in your comment addressing "The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain".

Presumably that logic applies to you now too?

So in a post asking for people to not ruin the thread with spam, you have to include on topic stuff?

It's not often I agree with El stovey, but he's right, keep it for the CC threads please.

[robinessex]

robinessex said:

Gary C said:

Anyone with an engineering/science background can see tha basic science behind the potential of GW, and I get your points on the proof, but your put downs of anyone who supports the idea of GW is a wee bit childish.

Anyone with the above can see glaring holes in the whole argument.

Then don't publish the original post

[anonymous-user]

DocJock said:

It's not often I agree with El stovey, but he's right, keep it for the CC threads please.

That’s not fair. I’m sure we agree on loads.

[DocJock]

I'm sure you're correct, apologies.

[LongQ]

Gary C said:

turbobloke said:

The problem is that the basic science is too basic. Sealed containers containing tax gas, jeez.

Then look at what the agw hypothesis predicts and what empirical data shows. I explained in the climate politics thread what the Break/No break refers to. However it makes no difference to the overall failure and rejection of the basic agw hypothesis. There are numerous scientists and other grads in both threads so it won't be just me appreciating the implication of p-values as shown below. I added the boxes to focus attention where it's needed.

Too simple, I agree (as I actually noted before) but I'm not going to put down people (well, the not to)

For the future of generation, co2 is THE driver of its future, rightly or wrongly.

Surely that should be "THE driver of current policy".

Whether that turns out to be an influence for a short term or long term future will not be known for a while.

If, as a policy maker, you are looking at Nuclear investment it's a long game plan with an expectation, subject to political intervention a la Germany, of a 50 to 60 year period of productivity.

Wind and solar, on the other hand, are potentially replaceable on a much shorter cycle and somewhat unlikely to exceed 50% off the productive life of a nuclear or gas plant.

So you probably need to buy twice. The gamble is whether or not you can consistently provide the level of supply at a low enough cost over two development periods of 25 to 30 years each (hopefully perhaps) that is more cost effective over all for the (national) economy during that period.

I think it is extremely unlikely that anyone can get close to an answer that offers skill in prediction. But they might come up with something that can make either (or indeed any) approach work so long as they recognise that their reputation and pension will not be compromised when any inaccuracies may come to light so far into the future.

From the country's point of view (and that of the future voting population if future politics continues to follow current patterns) the main concerns will come from today's newborns and it will be 20 or so years - the renewables replacement cycle round 1.5 to 2 - before they will have any interest in such matters.

Who can guess where Great Britain will be in the general order of things by then, let alone 60 years from now? Or how that will affect the Power Generation requirements?

[alangla]

In other news, today's predicted to be the highest demand day of the winter so far - 46124MW at 17:00. It is, however, fairly windy (11.9GW in the grid plus all the embedded stuff) and air temps are in the 8-10C range at the moment so it'll be interesting to see what happens to both demand and the spot price this evening.
Next peaks are expected in weeks 2, 4 & 5, so mid Jan - early Feb.

[Matthen]

alangla said:

In other news, today's predicted to be the highest demand day of the winter so far - 46124MW at 17:00. It is, however, fairly windy (11.9GW in the grid plus all the embedded stuff) and air temps are in the 8-10C range at the moment so it'll be interesting to see what happens to both demand and the spot price this evening.
Next peaks are expected in weeks 2, 4 & 5, so mid Jan - early Feb.

What is causing the peak tonight, do we know? Its warm and mild here, I can't imagine that much will be going into heating.

[jet_noise]

From those ads. at the bottom of PH pages:



Do they really mean that?

[Condi]

It might be a demand peak, but with 12 gig of wind on the system there wont be a problem with supply.

[wc98]

Condi said:

It might be a demand peak, but with 12 gig of wind on the system there wont be a problem with supply.

that's a pertinent point.when the amo is in the cool phase storminess, hence wind, is supposed to increase. so apart from the odd still very cold period colder winters might not be as much of a problem as i first thought. the good thing is we will find out how much of a problem or not any potential limitations will be at some point.

[dxg]

Any thoughts on this?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish...

I knew there were subsidies involved. But I did not realise we were paying windfarms to STOP them making power. The whole thing's a subsidies (read: political) game...