The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
irc said:
Talking of trees why is it that cutting down forests in the USA , turning them into woodchips, shipping them across the Atlantic, then burning them at Drax counted as carbon neutral electricity while farmers clearing forest in the Amazon by burning to create farmland is a climate disaster?
https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-fore...
Assume you are not being serious?https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-fore...
Art0ir said:
Ambrose Evans Pritchard has a write up about them in the telegraph today. Seems quite promising. If they can really scale it up hopefully it will make wind and solar more viable.
It's not that efficient, compared with the pumped storage which is 85%+ efficient on a round turn. We would be better investing in more large scale water than a complicated and relatively inefficient small scale unit. The3rdDukeofB said:
irc said:
Talking of trees why is it that cutting down forests in the USA , turning them into woodchips, shipping them across the Atlantic, then burning them at Drax counted as carbon neutral electricity while farmers clearing forest in the Amazon by burning to create farmland is a climate disaster?
https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-fore...
Assume you are not being serious?https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-fore...
markcoznottz said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
irc said:
Talking of trees why is it that cutting down forests in the USA , turning them into woodchips, shipping them across the Atlantic, then burning them at Drax counted as carbon neutral electricity while farmers clearing forest in the Amazon by burning to create farmland is a climate disaster?
https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-fore...
Assume you are not being serious?https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-fore...
Then look around - when deciding whether something is green or not, it all Deben ds on who's involved, just believe oh Yeo of little faith.
Moving on from our wise and selfless politicians to another side of going greenback with energy, the latest Michael Moore-backed documentary 'Planet of the Humans' takes on the false promises of green energy - that's quite a shift for Moore and demonstrates the impact on faithful people when reality dawns.
Moore appointed DocuDirector Gibbs said:
It turned out the wakeup call was about our own side. It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money. It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center. The film is going to be a tough pill to swallow. It was a difficult eye-opener for (us) as well.
This is what relying on faith does. The report RE<C has been around for years, even the IPCC gets it, but clearly the answer from the IPCC to failure was always going to be more failure, just like the answer to left-liberalism failure in general is more left-liberalism and the answer to the failures of the EU is more EU. Who knew. Still, subsidies, directorships, kerching, etc.turbojoke said:
Moving on from our wise and selfless politicians to another side of going greenback with energy, the latest Michael Moore-backed documentary 'Planet of the Humans' takes on the false promises of green energy - that's quite a shift for Moore and demonstrates the impact on faithful people when reality dawns.
How many times will you keep reposting this rubbish?Moore appointed DocuDirector Gibbs said:
It turned out the wakeup call was about our own side. It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money. It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center. The film is going to be a tough pill to swallow. It was a difficult eye-opener for (us) as well.
This is what relying on faith does. The report RE<C has been around for years, even the IPCC gets it, but clearly the answer from the IPCC to failure was always going to be more failure, just like the answer to left-liberalism failure in general is more left-liberalism and the answer to the failures of the EU is more EU. Who knew. Still, subsidies, directorships, kerching, etc.RE<C set itself doesn't dismiss current renewables, it acknowledges that those alone can't resolve the current carbon driven climate crisis. Google are still investing and researching.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/googl...
turbobloke said:
This is what relying on faith does. The report RE<C has been around for years, even the IPCC gets it, but clearly the answer from the IPCC to failure was always going to be more failure, just like the answer to left-liberalism failure in general is more left-liberalism and the answer to the failures of the EU is more EU. Who knew. Still, subsidies, directorships, kerching, etc.
Repost + Spam./ignore
Evanivitch said:
How many times will you keep reposting this rubbish?
RE<C set itself doesn't dismiss current renewables, it acknowledges that those alone can't resolve the current carbon driven climate crisis. Google are still [investing and researching.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/googl...
"As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions," wrote Koningstein and ForkRE<C set itself doesn't dismiss current renewables, it acknowledges that those alone can't resolve the current carbon driven climate crisis. Google are still [investing and researching.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/googl...
"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach," wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork.
"Incremental improvements to existing technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive to reverse climate change."
Erm what was your point?
Jinx said:
Evanivitch said:
How many times will you keep reposting this rubbish?
RE<C set itself doesn't dismiss current renewables, it acknowledges that those alone can't resolve the current carbon driven climate crisis. Google are still [investing and researching.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/googl...
"As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions," wrote Koningstein and ForkRE<C set itself doesn't dismiss current renewables, it acknowledges that those alone can't resolve the current carbon driven climate crisis. Google are still [investing and researching.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/googl...
"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach," wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork.
"Incremental improvements to existing technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive to reverse climate change."
Erm what was your point?
Couldn't have put it better myself - somebody (not you) needs these reminders about what RE<C said, obviously it's distasteful and sticks in the throat of renewables rampers.
Renewables simply won't work - see above. Renewables won't save the planet. Neither will going vegan but that's another story,
The green scientists and engineers who carried out the RE<C study and reported on it wanted renewables to work, but found that even with fantasy technology including self-erecting turbines in robotic windfarms, renreables won't cut the mustard; not so with the power supply.
green scientists and engineers said:
At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope. Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
That's what they said, It's exactly what they said, and claiming they didn't say it is a ridiculous response, however desperate times call for desperate measures.review of green scientists and engineers findings said:
solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy
We're only as ok as we are now and it's not exactly ok because the decarbonisation stupicide isn't fully upon us. We still have reliable energy supply sources in play.Another bottom line...thank goodness that catastrophic manmadeup climate change is a climageddon religion not evidenced reality. Meanwhile we still end up paying through the nose for white elephants while reading nonsense from those who for their own reasons still think it's a good idea. When the Moore-Gibbs documentary is seen more widely then hopefully more questions will be asked..
Cut and pasting says :
https://www.google.com/search?q=At+the+start+of+RE...
What a who's who of conspiracy nut jobs ..... all dated Five years ago.
Like your repeated reposts of spam
Time changes things... and economics change in 2 years to half the prices.
https://www.google.com/search?q=At+the+start+of+RE...
What a who's who of conspiracy nut jobs ..... all dated Five years ago.
Like your repeated reposts of spam
Time changes things... and economics change in 2 years to half the prices.
What has price got to do with cost when cost centres are ignored and subsidies remain, with unreliabilty, with insufficiency (simply won't work etc) or with not saving the planet?
How does any of that post content refute the findings of RE<C? None, no chance of that.It's not what I'm saying it's what green engineers and scientists found from a thorough study so shooting the messenger me or any other is both desperate and pointless.
Talking of spam in a post like that is deeply ironic. What should we all do = just believe, No thanks.
How does any of that post content refute the findings of RE<C? None, no chance of that.It's not what I'm saying it's what green engineers and scientists found from a thorough study so shooting the messenger me or any other is both desperate and pointless.
Talking of spam in a post like that is deeply ironic. What should we all do = just believe, No thanks.
turbobloke said:
Talking of spam in a post like that is deeply ironic. What should we all do = just believe, No thanks.
That’s exactly what you are doing.You just believe in a global conspiracy between most governments and scientists and scientific institutions to spread liberal politics for wealth redistribution and other socialist policies.
Your position is much, much, more faith based than those on the other side, the side of science.
That’s why you’re constantly spamming the thread with evidence from right wing blogs sponsored by the oil industry. You’re evidence is never from anyone reputable. You’re often even found to be misrepresenting evidence or altering it to hide its source.
You’re completely blinded by your political ideology.
The3rdDukeofB said:
The Google project RE<C was based on technology available then.
Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
Have you read the report, or all the way through any reputable review e.g. IEEE?Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
They didn't just look at current technology they looked at the implications of fantasy technology that doesn't exist, I mentioned the examples of self-erecting turbines in robotic windfarms. Still not enough!
Your use of insults doesn't make your case stronger, it can't do so as you don't have a case, if you think you do, tell the green scientists and engineers where they went wrong. Better still tell the rest of us what lies beyond fantasy technology that will come along and when it's due.
As to posting crap, irony strikes again.
The3rdDukeofB said:
Cut and pasting says :
https://www.google.com/search?q=At+the+start+of+RE...
What a who's who of conspiracy nut jobs ..... all dated Five years ago.
Like your repeated reposts of spam
Time changes things... and economics change in 2 years to half the prices.
The numbers are meaningless, if the wind doesn't blow we need to pay for a real power station to take over, this cost is on top of the cost of a real power station,that will be at a higher cost as they are shut down to allow wind to generate, time to start looking at the true cost to generate a given amount of electricity.https://www.google.com/search?q=At+the+start+of+RE...
What a who's who of conspiracy nut jobs ..... all dated Five years ago.
Like your repeated reposts of spam
Time changes things... and economics change in 2 years to half the prices.
Commentary on RE less than C said:
Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.
The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
We only need multiple turbine erections every day without fail for several decades - in order to fail, as above.The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
Absurd, unless you reeeally want to regress to a localised medieval lifestyle with the deaths that follow.
turbojoke said:
Jinx said:
Evanivitch said:
How many times will you keep reposting this rubbish?
RE<C set itself doesn't dismiss current renewables, it acknowledges that those alone can't resolve the current carbon driven climate crisis. Google are still [investing and researching.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/googl...
"As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions," wrote Koningstein and ForkRE<C set itself doesn't dismiss current renewables, it acknowledges that those alone can't resolve the current carbon driven climate crisis. Google are still [investing and researching.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/googl...
"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach," wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork.
"Incremental improvements to existing technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive to reverse climate change."
Erm what was your point?
Couldn't have put it better myself - somebody (not you) needs these reminders about what RE<C said, obviously it's distasteful and sticks in the throat of renewables rampers.
Renewables simply won't work - see above. Renewables won't save the planet. Neither will going vegan but that's another story,
The green scientists and engineers who carried out the RE<C study and reported on it wanted renewables to work, but found that even with fantasy technology including self-erecting turbines in robotic windfarms, renreables won't cut the mustard; not so with the power supply.
green scientists and engineers said:
At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope. Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
That's what they said, It's exactly what they said, and claiming they didn't say it is a ridiculous response, however desperate times call for desperate measures.review of green scientists and engineers findings said:
solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy
We're only as ok as we are now and it's not exactly ok because the decarbonisation stupicide isn't fully upon us. We still have reliable energy supply sources in play.Another bottom line...thank goodness that catastrophic manmadeup climate change is a climageddon religion not evidenced reality. Meanwhile we still end up paying through the nose for white elephants while reading nonsense from those who for their own reasons still think it's a good idea. When the Moore-Gibbs documentary is seen more widely then hopefully more questions will be asked..
I know that. You know that. Everyone in this thread knows that. So why do you keep reposting the same rubbish with no added value? Because you're a troll.
The reality, that everyone is aware of, is that renewables will require a large variety of storage options (including domestic and grid battery storage and/or cryogenic and/or ammonia or anything) and/or significant nuclear baseload and/or gas/biomass redundant power supplies.
The Google report specifically sort to address the carbon emissions with just the use of existing energy generation (not construction) technologies and an absence of storage options.
But you'll forget all this and repost like a goldfish in 7 days.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff