The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Condi said:
n.
[
-WTP cost from large-scale deaths among protected species including birds of prey and bats
The data about this is very limited, but even if we do give the data some credit, then how does that compare with the alternative large scale deaths from man made climate change? More species are going extinct at the present time than at any time in the past, with a lot of that due to a changing climate. Thermal power generation is responsible for a large proportion of emissions which are widely recognised as influencing the climate.
[
]
What is the evidence that man made climate change has caused these extinctions? As the climate has barely changed in two decades (or longer) I am sceptical that man made climate change is the cause of any extinctions. I am more prone to believe some extinctions are man made, but it cant be from man made climate change.[
-WTP cost from large-scale deaths among protected species including birds of prey and bats
The data about this is very limited, but even if we do give the data some credit, then how does that compare with the alternative large scale deaths from man made climate change? More species are going extinct at the present time than at any time in the past, with a lot of that due to a changing climate. Thermal power generation is responsible for a large proportion of emissions which are widely recognised as influencing the climate.
[
]
s2art said:
What is the evidence that man made climate change has caused these extinctions? As the climate has barely changed in two decades (or longer) I am sceptical that man made climate change is the cause of any extinctions. I am more prone to believe some extinctions are man made, but it cant be from man made climate change.
Fair point, but the general weight of scientific evidence suggests that man is responsible in different ways. If you want to dispute man made climate change then I suggest going to the science forum. I dont profess to be an expert, but will defer to those scientists who have made researching such things their life's work, and their consensus is that man made climate change is affecting species faster than they can react. jet_noise said:
Per MWhr of power generated nothing like renewables. (Assertion. I'd like to see data either way)
And even if it was the same then fossil fuels' energy density and dispatch-ability always trumps renewables.
What you've actually said there is that you don't know the answer (and evidently don't have any data either way yourself), but even if the data doesn't support your view it is unimportant because energy density (not sure why that matters for power production?) and dispachability will always be more important anyway. And even if it was the same then fossil fuels' energy density and dispatch-ability always trumps renewables.
So even if someone could categorically prove you are wrong, in your mind it doesn't matter because you've already made your mind up and are not open to changing it. Why would someone bother?
The water in a hydro scheme is high density, and fully flexible. More so than thermal. Is this 'bad' renewable power or 'good' renewable power? If not, which bits of renewable power are you against and why? Consider before answering that nobody has ever said that renewable generation will ever do 100% baseload. Ironically, hydro can do baseload with 0 environmental impact, but still comes under you blanket definition of 'renewables'.
Condi said:
jet_noise said:
Per MWhr of power generated nothing like renewables. (Assertion. I'd like to see data either way)
And even if it was the same then fossil fuels' energy density and dispatch-ability always trumps renewables.
What you've actually said there is that you don't know the answer (and evidently don't have any data either way yourself), but even if the data doesn't support your view it is unimportant because energy density (not sure why that matters for power production?) and dispachability will always be more important anyway. And even if it was the same then fossil fuels' energy density and dispatch-ability always trumps renewables.
So even if someone could categorically prove you are wrong, in your mind it doesn't matter because you've already made your mind up and are not open to changing it. Why would someone bother?
The water in a hydro scheme is high density, and fully flexible. More so than thermal. Is this 'bad' renewable power or 'good' renewable power? If not, which bits of renewable power are you against and why? Consider before answering that nobody has ever said that renewable generation will ever do 100% baseload. Ironically, hydro can do baseload with 0 environmental impact, but still comes under you blanket definition of 'renewables'.
Why do you think energy density does not matter for power production?
My mind (as is yours I think) on whether fossil fuels' energy density and dispatch-ability are better than renewables is indeed made up on present information. There therefore has to be a very good reason to move away. Show me those reasons and I'll change my mind as to whether overall, on balance of advantages and disadvantages, costs and benefits it is beneficial to go renewable.
The particular detail here is environmental damage. If the two methods did have the same amount then how do you argue that it is a reason to change?
I agree hydro is good and should be classed as renewable although when it goes wrong it can go very wrong - think dam breaching.
However suitable locations are limited so it can never become significant (globally although some countries are lucky to have geography which is amenable).
Further have I got it right that hydro is for some reason usually excluded from the renewable category?
jet_noise said:
Indeed I don't know. By making such a statement I hoped to stimulate discussion and to know more. So shoot me
Ok, well it was the way you asserted it as fact. jet_noise said:
Why do you think energy density does not matter for power production?
While we transport electricity I dont think it does matter. Power generation is from large, fixed, structures which are scaleable in either output or number, and so if the energy density of the 'fuel' is low you can simply builder larger or more units. For transport where the 'fuel' has to be carried around then obviously energy density is of much more importance. jet_noise said:
My mind (as is yours I think) on whether fossil fuels' energy density and dispatch-ability are better than renewables is indeed made up on present information. There therefore has to be a very good reason to move away. Show me those reasons and I'll change my mind as to whether overall, on balance of advantages and disadvantages, costs and benefits it is beneficial to go renewable.
The particular detail here is environmental damage. If the two methods did have the same amount then how do you argue that it is a reason to change?
The scientists and governments (domestic and international) have decided that carbon emissions are damaging the plant. I am no scientist and are not in a position to argue with that. Carbon emissions now have a cost which has to be taken into account when burning fossil fuels. From a simple economic perspective (ignoring subsidies), there are forms of renewable generation which are cost competitive with existing fuel sources, even without any support. The particular detail here is environmental damage. If the two methods did have the same amount then how do you argue that it is a reason to change?
If existing fuel sources had no negative external impacts then we wouldn't change. However, existing fuel sources do have considerable negative effects, and as we learn more and advance as a society it is our duty to recognise that there are better alternatives. The country will never run off 100% carbon free baseload power (at least, unlikely in our lifetimes), but we can use cleaner sources of energy when and where they exist to reduce the negative externalises from carbon based fuel sources.
Now, you can disagree with the science if you like, and there are places on here to do so, but this thread is about power generation, and the businesses involved in the system, from National Grid down to the man at home consuming power, will only do what makes financial sense, and work within the rules set down by the government.
What I'm trying to do more often than not on here is simply provide some perspective and insight from my own experience. A lot of the claims from various people on here make massive assumptions or are simply incorrect, and they say things without any knowledge of how things work in practice, day to day. Other people with relevant experience have simply given up, at a great loss to the general discussion.
jet_noise said:
I agree hydro is good and should be classed as renewable although when it goes wrong it can go very wrong - think dam breaching.
However suitable locations are limited so it can never become significant (globally although some countries are lucky to have geography which is amenable).
Further have I got it right that hydro is for some reason usually excluded from the renewable category?
Pumped storage is not necessarily renewable, true hydro is all renewable. However suitable locations are limited so it can never become significant (globally although some countries are lucky to have geography which is amenable).
Further have I got it right that hydro is for some reason usually excluded from the renewable category?
jet_noise said:
Show me those reasons and I'll change my mind as to whether overall, on balance of advantages and disadvantages, costs and benefits it is beneficial to go renewable.
Well a few extra reasons.Oil is incredibly useful in industry, lubricants, plastics, inumerable chemical precursors used for millions of products, a far better purpose than burning it.
Politically, oil has handed vast amounts of power to regimes who have done some pretty questionable things. Even if that's not enough, the requirement for only needing access ti sun, wind, oceans or rivers for your power needs vastly democratises the generation industry, I think that's a good thing.
Nerdherder said:
The Norwegians should invade Schotland and apply their hydro knowledge.
Cheap(er) alcohol for the Norwegians, clean energy for Great Britain. Everyone happy.
Scotland is rather less hilly than Norway. Cheap(er) alcohol for the Norwegians, clean energy for Great Britain. Everyone happy.
But in a year or 2 we will have an interconnector from the UK to Norway, which is nearly as good. Not sure if it's paid for in whisky though.
The3rdDukeofB said:
jet_noise said:
Gadgetmac said:
jet_noise said:
Drive a V8. Feed a tree
That about sums up the anti renewables stance.It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
Gadgetmac said:
Hmmm 
People actually in the industry or people who's sole knowledge is reading advocacy blogs.
Tough call.
Vested interest or independent thinking - tough call? Clearly it depends on the PHer and it's easy to set e.g. informed technical content apart from opinion/advocacy/propaganda/wishful thinking.People actually in the industry or people who's sole knowledge is reading advocacy blogs.
Tough call.
Hop over to the climate politics thread, a pro-agw pro-renewiables PHer (based on evidence in posts) is recommending an advocacy blog. Yes sirree.
Oh the irony.
As to 'people whose sole knowledge is...' there are PHers with a different perspective to yours who have access to the research literature and use it. What's the nature of your access?
jet_noise said:
Drive a V8. Feed a tree
Gadgetmac said:
Do you actually think it is either clever, true or funny posting that ‘drive a V8’ crap?
It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
The anti-renewables stance is about the inadequacy of renewables. The case is made by these 'unreliables' without assistance from V8s which assist photosynthesising trees, plants and crops.It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
The comment from jet_noise is in keeping with the data i.e. reality not faith or ideology. See the paper from Munier et al (2018 iirc) which uses observations and data not gigo to show that 78% of planet Earth's "greening" (still underway) is due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
turbobloke said:
jet_noise said:
Drive a V8. Feed a tree
Gadgetmac said:
Do you actually think it is either clever, true or funny posting that ‘drive a V8’ crap?
It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
The anti-renewables stance is about the inadequacy of renewables. The case is made by these 'unreliables' without assistance from V8s which assist photosynthesising trees, plants and crops.It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
The comment from jet_noise is in keeping with the data i.e. reality not faith or ideology. See the paper from Munier et al (2018 iirc) which uses observations and data not gigo to show that 78% of planet Earth's "greening" (still underway) is due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Thanks.
turbobloke said:
Vested interest or independent thinking - tough call? Clearly it depends on the PHer and it's easy to set e.g. informed technical content apart from opinion/advocacy/propaganda/wishful thinking.
Hop over to the climate politics thread, a pro-agw pro-renewiables PHer (based on evidence in posts) is recommending an advocacy blog. Yes sirree.
Oh the irony.
As to 'people whose sole knowledge is...' there are PHers with a different perspective to yours who have access to the research literature and use it. What's the nature of your access?
I'm a geologist working for an oil and gas company (with growing renewables base these days) and renewables will put me out of a job when("if") they take over. Unless I retrain at some point. My opinion is a lot of the stuff you post is nonsense, and just widely bad science. Either funded by massively biased groups, or just picking a random tiny example of something in the news, and seeming to think it applies to the whole industry as a massive problem. Other stuff is correct, but so twisted then it becomes false/ ignores the counter argument completely. Plus ignoring and not responding to anything that you can't win.Hop over to the climate politics thread, a pro-agw pro-renewiables PHer (based on evidence in posts) is recommending an advocacy blog. Yes sirree.
Oh the irony.
As to 'people whose sole knowledge is...' there are PHers with a different perspective to yours who have access to the research literature and use it. What's the nature of your access?
I have no vested interest, as the company I work has a wide portfolio of generation, both thermal and renewable. Given the optionality inherent in thermal generation my job is probably more secure (and certainly more profitable) with a higher percentage of thermal dispatch. Wind and solar offer very few trading opportunities.
The3rdDukeofB said:
Do you actually think it is either clever, true or funny posting that ‘drive a V8’ crap?
It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
yep, it's funny and true, going by the greening of the planet from the increase in atmospheric co2 from around 280ppm to just over 400ppm. do you have a problem with that ?It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
wc98 said:
yep, it's funny and true, going by the greening of the planet from the increase in atmospheric co2 from around 280ppm to just over 400ppm. do you have a problem with that ?
Didn’t you understand?Immaturity.
So purile and juvenile.
If that’s your thing in what is meant to be in a grown-ups conversation- well then you too are part of the problem
with this thread.
turbobloke said:
The anti-renewables stance is about the inadequacy of renewables. The case is made by these 'unreliables' without assistance from V8s which assist photosynthesising trees, plants and crops.
Been explained before but the direction set for UK power generation is to reduce carbon so other than building twenty more nukes then renewables are going to play a bigger part. Even if the IPCC were to turn around and change stance on carbon then we'd still be heading for more renewables as fossil fuels are limited supply and often coming from places we don't want to be reliant on. Plus they belch plenty of other crap into the environment.
It's a shame this thread has to get derailed every other page with this same argument, the answers are still the same.
Edited by wombleh on Tuesday 16th July 06:40
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff