The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
El stovey said:
Does anyone really read turbobloke’s links any more? Unfortunately most are from advocacy blogs or doctored by him to hide the source or misrepresentations of scientists or just irrelevant lists and click and paste spam. Whenever anyone bothers to check them, they often don’t even agree with his point.
Remember the scientist who he was quoting that came on and said he was misrepresenting his paper? Or the lists of institutions that agreed with him that when checked actually held opposing view points to him.
Is this a good unbiased article for once? That’s a first from the bloke that now quotes breitbart and wuwt and thinks the scientific community are in on some kind of lefty conspiracy.
That's a long way of saying "I haven't bothered to read the Reuters link but I'm going to spout off anyway" Remember the scientist who he was quoting that came on and said he was misrepresenting his paper? Or the lists of institutions that agreed with him that when checked actually held opposing view points to him.
Is this a good unbiased article for once? That’s a first from the bloke that now quotes breitbart and wuwt and thinks the scientific community are in on some kind of lefty conspiracy.
Reuters is pretty good at just reporting without presenting opinion as fact, one of the few news agencies I follow these days.
Interesting article on the challenges of changing the generation mix, especially in Germany where they have vast pumped hydro storage capacity compared to us.
Is it a reason to abandon less polluting generation methods and changes to our efficiency and usage that are planned over the next 30 years and start burning coal instead? Bit of artistic interpretation needed to draw that conclusion IMO
Interesting article on the challenges of changing the generation mix, especially in Germany where they have vast pumped hydro storage capacity compared to us.
Is it a reason to abandon less polluting generation methods and changes to our efficiency and usage that are planned over the next 30 years and start burning coal instead? Bit of artistic interpretation needed to draw that conclusion IMO
The Reuters article is very fair and balanced, and not many would be able to disagree with it. Its a good read.
The German economy is far more industrial than ours, and has historically relied on cheap electricity to power it. Now it faces losing that advantage and understandably some people are unhappy.
The German economy is far more industrial than ours, and has historically relied on cheap electricity to power it. Now it faces losing that advantage and understandably some people are unhappy.
Reuters said:
Katharina Reiche, chief executive of the VKU association of local utilities, many of which face falling profitability as plants close, said the government’s strategy was risky because it had not stress-tested all scenarios.
.....
“The early exit from coal-to-power generation fills us with great concern,” Philipp Schlueter, chairman of Trimet, operator of three aluminum plants in North Rhine-Westphalia state, told Reuters.
“Our aluminum plants need non-stop supply of power at competitive prices and a stable power grid at all times.”
.....
Fabian Joas, energy expert at Berlin think-tank Agora, said it would be a difficult road for most of Europe to meet its goal of abandoning conventional energy in coming decades.
“But we will be able in the long run to operate a power system based nearly fully on renewables,” he added. “Everyone who understands the matter agrees on that.”
EDIT - I take the view that if the Grid operator is comfortable, then so should we be. They have far more visibility of the system, and far more knowledge of what levers they can pull in different situations. They're also the ones who are going to have to answer difficult questions and face financial consequences if the network falls over. They are generally very risk adverse anyway; its not in any grid operators nature to regularly push the limits of what their systems can do. .....
“The early exit from coal-to-power generation fills us with great concern,” Philipp Schlueter, chairman of Trimet, operator of three aluminum plants in North Rhine-Westphalia state, told Reuters.
“Our aluminum plants need non-stop supply of power at competitive prices and a stable power grid at all times.”
.....
Fabian Joas, energy expert at Berlin think-tank Agora, said it would be a difficult road for most of Europe to meet its goal of abandoning conventional energy in coming decades.
“But we will be able in the long run to operate a power system based nearly fully on renewables,” he added. “Everyone who understands the matter agrees on that.”
Edited by Condi on Friday 19th July 19:15
Condi said:
The Reuters article is very fair and balanced, and not many would be able to disagree with it. Its a good read.
The German economy is far more industrial than ours, and has historically relied on cheap electricity to power it. Now it faces losing that advantage and understandably some people are unhappy.
But at what cost to the consumers? The UK lost its aluminium production some time ago due to increased cost of electricity, whats going to happen to German industry?The German economy is far more industrial than ours, and has historically relied on cheap electricity to power it. Now it faces losing that advantage and understandably some people are unhappy.
Reuters said:
Katharina Reiche, chief executive of the VKU association of local utilities, many of which face falling profitability as plants close, said the government’s strategy was risky because it had not stress-tested all scenarios.
.....
“The early exit from coal-to-power generation fills us with great concern,” Philipp Schlueter, chairman of Trimet, operator of three aluminum plants in North Rhine-Westphalia state, told Reuters.
“Our aluminum plants need non-stop supply of power at competitive prices and a stable power grid at all times.”
.....
Fabian Joas, energy expert at Berlin think-tank Agora, said it would be a difficult road for most of Europe to meet its goal of abandoning conventional energy in coming decades.
“But we will be able in the long run to operate a power system based nearly fully on renewables,” he added. “Everyone who understands the matter agrees on that.”
EDIT - I take the view that if the Grid operator is comfortable, then so should we be. They have far more visibility of the system, and far more knowledge of what levers they can pull in different situations. They're also the ones who are going to have to answer difficult questions and face financial consequences if the network falls over. They are generally very risk adverse anyway; its not in any grid operators nature to regularly push the limits of what their systems can do. .....
“The early exit from coal-to-power generation fills us with great concern,” Philipp Schlueter, chairman of Trimet, operator of three aluminum plants in North Rhine-Westphalia state, told Reuters.
“Our aluminum plants need non-stop supply of power at competitive prices and a stable power grid at all times.”
.....
Fabian Joas, energy expert at Berlin think-tank Agora, said it would be a difficult road for most of Europe to meet its goal of abandoning conventional energy in coming decades.
“But we will be able in the long run to operate a power system based nearly fully on renewables,” he added. “Everyone who understands the matter agrees on that.”
Edited by Condi on Friday 19th July 19:15
andymadmak said:
El stovey said:
Does anyone really read turbobloke’s links any more? Unfortunately most are from advocacy blogs or doctored by him to hide the source or misrepresentations of scientists or just irrelevant lists and click and paste spam. Whenever anyone bothers to check them, they often don’t even agree with his point.
Remember the scientist who he was quoting that came on and said he was misrepresenting his paper? Or the lists of institutions that agreed with him that when checked actually held opposing view points to him.
Is this a good unbiased article for once? That’s a first from the bloke that now quotes breitbart and wuwt and thinks the scientific community are in on some kind of lefty conspiracy.
That's a long way of saying "I haven't bothered to read the Reuters link but I'm going to spout off anyway" Remember the scientist who he was quoting that came on and said he was misrepresenting his paper? Or the lists of institutions that agreed with him that when checked actually held opposing view points to him.
Is this a good unbiased article for once? That’s a first from the bloke that now quotes breitbart and wuwt and thinks the scientific community are in on some kind of lefty conspiracy.
This (below) was posted by PHer zb in another thread, as an adaptation from Sartre.
Never believe that trolls are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since they believe in words. The trolls have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Hits the spot.
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
not realised yet? He doesn't have views on any of the climate threads. He doesn't give a toss.
You pop up whenever turbobloke’s honesty gets questioned. See ^ (italicised) ^
Back on topic: with questions being asked of the costly bureaucratic nightmare of a fail - aka German green energy transition - judgements from its auditors not bloggers, including renewables and transport, it's noteworthy that "Lufthansa boss sees no ‘Greta effect' as passenger numbers show rise" (PDF link to City AM see their p12).
https://www.cityam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/...
turbobloke said:
This (below) was posted by PHer zb in another thread, as an adaptation from Sartre.
Never believe that trolls are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since they believe in words. The trolls have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Hits the spot.
Are you just describing yourself as a wind up merchant then, who's sole intention is to spout 'absurd replies' and 'frivolous remarks', with 'ridiculous reasons'? Never believe that trolls are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since they believe in words. The trolls have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Hits the spot.
The rest of us have seen that for a while, but thanks for the acknowledgement from you, its very self-aware.
Condi said:
turbobloke said:
This (below) was posted by PHer zb in another thread, as an adaptation from Sartre.
Never believe that trolls are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusi nameeng themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since they believe in words. The trolls have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Hits the spot.
Are you just describing yourself as a wind up merchant . Never believe that trolls are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusi nameeng themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since they believe in words. The trolls have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Hits the spot.
Surely the on-topic damning official audit report of Germany's costly bureaucratic nightmare of a fail aka green energy transition
and the renewables / transport aspect was worthy of a more detailed on-topic response,( assuming you have one) rather than anything remotely personal?
Or were you offering some sort of circular reference to trolling - by example?
Not quite Sartre but 'the closer you get to the target the thicker the flak' so flak on
turbobloke said:
No.
Surely the on-topic damning official audit report of Germany's costly bureaucratic nightmare of a fail aka green energy transition
and the renewables / transport aspect was worthy of a more detailed on-topic response,( assuming you have one) rather than anything remotely personal?
Or were you offering some sort of circular reference to trolling - by example?
Not quite Sartre but 'the closer you get to the target the thicker the flak' so flak on
From the Reuters article? There was no official report mentioned, simply an opinion and a counter opinion. And its the first thing which you have linked to which is balanced. Surely the on-topic damning official audit report of Germany's costly bureaucratic nightmare of a fail aka green energy transition
and the renewables / transport aspect was worthy of a more detailed on-topic response,( assuming you have one) rather than anything remotely personal?
Or were you offering some sort of circular reference to trolling - by example?
Not quite Sartre but 'the closer you get to the target the thicker the flak' so flak on
Every time I give a detailed on topic response you ignore it anyway. There are only so many times it is worthwhile.
turbobloke said:
Stuff
I’ve pointed out your dishonesty many times on the climate politics thread, as you well know. -Changing parts of a quote to hide the source (usually the gpwf or wuwt)
-Misrepresenting scientists who even appeared on the thread and pointed it out.
-Posting lists of science institutions that when checked don’t even agree with you
-Posting links to papers that when checked don’t agree with you.
There are countless other examples pointed
Out frequently by others of misquotes and snippets of articles to make a point that when read in full actually make a different point.
These aren’t mistakes but simply dishonesty to make a political point.
turbobloke said:
Not quite Sartre but 'the closer you get to the target the thicker the flak' so flak on
You’re nowhere near the target. You’re making up stuff in a car forum and showboating to four followers whilst quoting breitbart and wuwt.Surely as a scientist, you must have some warning bells going off in your head that maybe you’re on the wrong side?
Do many scientists publish their findings in breitbart or other any of the other advocacy blogs that you endlessly quote?
Yet they’re gospel and reliable sources and NASA and the British Antarctic survey and every other single scientific institution of note on the planet are wrong and involved in a left conspiracy for wealth redistribution? Really?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 19th July 20:20
El stovey said:
You’re nowhere near the target. You’re making up stuff in a car forum and showboating to four followers whilst quoting breitbart and wuwt.
Surely as a scientist, you must have some warning bells going off in your head that maybe you’re on the wrong side?
Do many scientists publish their findings in breitbart or others advocacy blogs that you endlessly quote?
Yet they’re gospel and NASA and the British Antarctic survey and every other single scientific institution of note on the planet are wrong? Really?
He's not a scientist, hes an electronics engineer. Or something like that. Surely as a scientist, you must have some warning bells going off in your head that maybe you’re on the wrong side?
Do many scientists publish their findings in breitbart or others advocacy blogs that you endlessly quote?
Yet they’re gospel and NASA and the British Antarctic survey and every other single scientific institution of note on the planet are wrong? Really?
But not one who understands HV or transmission systems.
whilst waiting for a certain other member of the tag team.Key message in a recent paper from Stanford looking ahead to 2025 as published in the journal Joule this year said:
From an annual approach to energy and emissions accounting, 100% solar would lead to an emissions reduction of 119% based on carbon footprint. Looking at hourly emissions, the reduction shrinks to only 66% (that's according to the study). With a 100% wind strategy, the difference between annual and hourly bookkeeping becomes a 4 point increase starting from 131%.
This is similar to a previous message from the same authors regarding storage.Keep your eye on the
Turbobloke - Please top this persistent spamming of the thread and the cut paste cut paste posting.
It is bringing down the quality of informative contributions from those who have valued input. Yours is nonsense and has a detrimental effect on the PH forum threads on the whole.
We have other great threads on Pistonheads with industry experts, from the ‘Ask an .....’ type threads to Poppopbang and his Boss racing.
This thread has had the same but for the derision and argumentative and rude postings you provide in anything close to the matters of AGW drives the quality posts away.
You challenge authoritative PH members who patiently respond, highlighting the complete inaccuracies in your posts and look for your counter.
And you ignore and cut paste rubbish from another website.
These last three pages for example.
It is pure spam and trolling, zero contribution and an embarrassment to anyone reading this PH thread.
It is bringing down the quality of informative contributions from those who have valued input. Yours is nonsense and has a detrimental effect on the PH forum threads on the whole.
We have other great threads on Pistonheads with industry experts, from the ‘Ask an .....’ type threads to Poppopbang and his Boss racing.
This thread has had the same but for the derision and argumentative and rude postings you provide in anything close to the matters of AGW drives the quality posts away.
You challenge authoritative PH members who patiently respond, highlighting the complete inaccuracies in your posts and look for your counter.
And you ignore and cut paste rubbish from another website.
These last three pages for example.
It is pure spam and trolling, zero contribution and an embarrassment to anyone reading this PH thread.
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
not realised yet? He doesn't have views on any of the climate threads. He doesn't give a toss.
You pop up whenever turbobloke’s honesty gets questioned. What’s that all about? Do you have Stockholm syndrome or something? You’re very easily led. The3rdDukeofB said:
Turbobloke - Please top this persistent spamming of the thread and the cut paste cut paste posting.
It is bringing down the quality of informative contributions from those who have valued input. Yours is nonsense and has a detrimental effect on the PH forum threads on the whole.
We have other great threads on Pistonheads with industry experts, from the ‘Ask an .....’ type threads to Poppopbang and his Boss racing.
This thread has had the same but for the derision and argumentative and rude postings you provide in anything close to the matters of AGW drives the quality posts away.
You challenge authoritative PH members who patiently respond, highlighting the complete inaccuracies in your posts and look for your counter.
And you ignore and cut paste rubbish from another website.
These last three pages for example.
It is pure spam and trolling, zero contribution and an embarrassment to anyone reading this PH thread.
I've been saying this for ages. He must have compromising pictures of somebody at PH Towers to be able to continually spam and troll these threads.It is bringing down the quality of informative contributions from those who have valued input. Yours is nonsense and has a detrimental effect on the PH forum threads on the whole.
We have other great threads on Pistonheads with industry experts, from the ‘Ask an .....’ type threads to Poppopbang and his Boss racing.
This thread has had the same but for the derision and argumentative and rude postings you provide in anything close to the matters of AGW drives the quality posts away.
You challenge authoritative PH members who patiently respond, highlighting the complete inaccuracies in your posts and look for your counter.
And you ignore and cut paste rubbish from another website.
These last three pages for example.
It is pure spam and trolling, zero contribution and an embarrassment to anyone reading this PH thread.
IIRC LoonyTunes got banned for simply posting a list of institutions who disagree with the deniers each time one of TB's fake news sites was quoted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff