And so it continues: pragmatism and common sense being replaced by mysticism and climate voodoo – let's not analyse and build practical flood defences, let's appease the climate Gods by tinkering with the atmosphere and praying that in doing so the flooding will stop. 2019, the year when the lights went out on scientific enlightenment; when rational discourse was cast aside for the wibblings of 16-year-old Swedish teenager with personality issues. At this rate I genuinely begin to wonder how long it will be before we return to using chicken entrails to determine health issues.

Once again, one's conceit, arrogance and utter disdain for facts which do not conform to one's increasingly wacky opinion are astonishing. You claim little understanding of climate change science (indeed, it appears you even take pride in your ignorance of the subject) and yet you happily continue to assert wild conjecture about CO₂ as it were fact. In return I offer fully documented argument highlighting the flaws in your claims, which you not only dismiss out of hand as being garbage, you now (in a clear case of psychological projection) risibly claim is my appealing to authority. Perhaps one is unaware of the distinct difference between referencing authoritative work and merely claiming its existence. Hint: It's the latter which is the logical fallacy, not the former.

In similar fashion to the science of climate change, you clearly have no understanding of grid-level power generation, energy density by source and the destabilising effect of intermittency. And yet, in the face authoritative evidence to the contrary, (and once again failing to providing anything in support of one’s own contentions) you continue to assert the cheapness and viability of wind and solar renewables; stubbornly believing, with your Lego type mentality, that if one doesn't have enough all one need do is add more. That statement alone demonstrates your ignorance of the issues – and yet you have the gall to question the credentials of Michael Kelly. Presumably one has not considered the simple logical extension to your naïve assertion: that if the issues were so simple China and India would be building bucket loads of wind turbines rather than hundreds of new coal-fired power stations?

*

You're the one making the call to authority.

As mentioned above, there is a distinct difference between referencing source material and merely asserting its existence. I also note that you have once again failed to provide any support for your previous claim of:

No, you just don't want to accept the overwhelming evidence…

What overwhelming evidence?

*

Wouldn't it be easier for me not to nitpick stupid stuff in your posts if you did not make exaggerated and stupid comments in the first place?

Exaggerated and stupid? I'm not so sure those who suffered the consequences of the well documented Lake Nyos disaster would entirely agree. Crass.

*

Like you see in blue my comment started with "In my opinion" so your whole comment does not make any sense. On the other hand, the evidence is everywhere in the rising water and the flooding and the deaths every year from even worst heat waves. For me the destruction I see now is more than I wish to see. It is that simple.

i). Of course, my comment makes sense. You opine a personal belief that atmospheric CO₂ content is too high, but personal opinion is meaningless if not supported by scientific fact. I merely ask you provide that evidence.

ii). The issues of sea-level rise, extreme weather, poplar ice and wildfires are fully covered in post 85. There is also graph detailing how climate-related deaths have plummeted in the years between 1920 and 2017 – though no doubt you will consider it garbage because it trashes your personal opinion.

iii). The (increased?) destruction you perceive is an artefact of population growth (more people, more stuff, more damage) and nothing to do with increased weather severity. ^[1]

*

Lol

I'm so pleased you find the positive benefits of CO2 funny.

*

Let's see if I understand you correctly. We can create so much artificial CO2 that it helps the preindustrial age CO2 drought. A drought that enabled cities like Venice to exist for centuries (well over a millennia) in a few short decades but with unchecked man made CO2 that is always increasing it can never reach the point where we end up with too much CO2?

Re. Venice:

Is one aware that the floodwaters were 7cm higher in 1966? That official records only go back to 1924? That unofficial records detail many instances of similar flooding? That the recent flooding was caused by a combination of a very high tide and storm surge; known locally as Acqua Alta? That Venice is also sinking?

The effect of increasing CO₂ has already been clearly explained. It is entirely your concern if you cannot understand or wish to continue denying universally recognised science.

*

I can understand the fact and I agree with you no country, no region (province, state...), no city, no person and even no continent (if we go larger) can do it alone. We must all work together.

Tell that to the Chinese and Indians, and the other emerging nations to whom the proposals will condemn to perpetual poverty.

*

See, you are contradicting yourself again.

i). There is no evidence to claim the present level of atmospheric level of CO₂ is dangerous.

ii). Without that alarmist claim, there is no argument for developing CCS technology.

iii). Political expediency/ideology, however, dictates the issue be investigated for viability.

iv). While some pilot plants have been built (as proof of concept), there is, as yet, no evidence to suggest a mass rollout of the technology is (or will ever be) efficient, effective and/or economical to run.

iv). If political expediency/ideology dictates the process be pursued (regardless of its overall effectiveness and cost) the sheer scale of the (UK) operation then becomes apparent.

v). All fossil fuel processes will require the implementation of the technology, including the 'cracking' of natural gas into its constituent parts to produce the hydrogen the CCC believes can act as a replacement for natural gas.

vi). Hydrogen, however, has only about one third the calorific value of natural gas, thus to maintain present levels of usage will require almost three times as much natural gas and the disposal of many millions of tons of CO₂ per year. Furthermore, the CCC has already estimated that a national switchover to hydrogen would cost £50-100 billion just for household conversions; a figure that does not include the extra cost of building new hydrogen-producing plants.

vii). There is no contradiction, only your lack of wit in appreciating the cost and scale of the wishful thinking.

*

Let’s start with the basics.

Have you ever seen a tree? Plants? They take in CO2 keep the C to build their structure and release O2 through a process called photosynthesis.

Have you ever heard of coal or petroleum? Those are natural by-products of captured CO2

If you want more techno stuff there are others but…

Being facetious merely highlights your childishness. Clearly my reply was aimed at your comment, 'CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form…', thus trees, coal and oil have nothing to do with the extraction of CO₂ from the likes of natural gas.

The link provided is interesting, and I admire the innovation. In reality, however, the process only offsets the CO₂ released in the manufacturing of the concrete and is not a solution to mass storage on the scale being envisioned by the CCC.

*

If that is true then can you tell me the exact value of the levy per kWh?

I care not one jot about how much you pay for fuel, and I've already provided plenty of information for you to determine the information you seek. That you are too idle to carry out your own research is no concern of mine.

As I went on to say, "My 'garbage' evidence shows exactly where this can be seen in Government finances, though it seems one would prefer to remain ignorant of it."

*

Have you been outside on a sunny day? How much did you have to pay the sun to be there? Have you been outside on a windy day? How much did you have to pay the wind to blow?

I can't understand how something so basic is so hard to grasp.

More childlike facetiousness. Drying clothes on a washing line is not converting your 'free' energy into electricity, which is the problem the grown-ups are concerning themselves with.

Note: Wind and sunshine may be renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the lands, habitats, wildlife, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, transmission lines, raw materials, mines and labourers required or impacted to harness this intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity are absolutely not.

*

So then it is simple build more capacity.

I've provided plenty of evidence to inform you why adding increasing levels intermittent energy is not a viable proposition. That you prefer to dismiss it and remain ignorant of the issue is, once again, not my concern.

*

Obviously none can help with that. But

1) that is why any sane grid will have different sources. For example here some is wind, some is hydro, some is biomass some is diesel...

2) If we are talking a small area (like a home) your might have a point. But the UK (even if it is smaller than Quebec) is a large country and wind farms tend to be built in windy areas. What is the likelihood that there is no wind on the whole of Great Britain for any measurable length of time?

I have previously supplied a wealth of information appertaining to the economics and performance of wind and solar. To anyone with a modicum of understanding, it is more than sufficient to determine their complete inadequacy as either baseload and/or despatchable sources and the scale of the investment required in attempting to go net zero. That you dismiss this information without regard and would prefer instead to believe in unicorns is again your problem, not mine.

Historically, the UK Grid has always had a mixed source of supply: primarily coal, gas, nuclear, but also oil, hydro, pumped hydro and various interconnectors. What one cannot do, however, is replace high-density baseload/despatchable sources with low-density intermittent sources without, that is, a huge (as in as far from cost-effective as one could possibly imagine) investment in load balancing mechanisms and/or storage systems. That you describe Quebec's grid as being mixed source is somewhat disingenuous when at least 95% is supplied via baseload/despatchable hydro. Within such a grid, the intermittency of wind's measly 4% contribution can easily be accommodated. ^[2]

The wind and solar graphs at GridWatch clearly illustrate their volatility.

*

Yes you have and I agree with you it is stupid on many levels but you are missing the point.

1) Is it the winds fault that it is blowing at night (I am guessing) and too much electricity can be produced in Scotland but no one was smart enough to build lines that can distribute it to the rest of GB and so those wind farms are paid for nothing while expensive none green electricity needs to be produced in the rest of the UK.

2) Is it the winds fault that the contract was negotiated in such a way, plus I hope the people that drew up that contract had enough sense to reduce maintenance from it

3) Like I said, it is sad but look at the numbers study the numbers, understand the numbers. These look big but when you compare it to how much electricity is really used these are rounding errors that would not have any real impact on price.

(i.e. if it is 0.179991 or 0.18 who cares both will round to the same price.

How quaint. Someone believing in unicorns claiming I'm the one missing the point.

i). Extremes in production are endemic in a system reliant on unregulated variable sources, regardless of the number of interconnectors employed by the system. Wind and solar have the well-documented propensity for producing too much output when not required and too little when it is. Once again, this behaviour can clearly be discerned from the GridWatch graphs.

ii). I’ve long argued about the ridiculousness of the original contracts, but as already advised they were predicated on the belief of peak oil being reached and its cost per barrel, thus continuing to grow. The fracking revolution in the USA trashed this notion.

iii). I find it amusing that someone believing a few extra molecules of atmospheric CO₂ can spell doom and disaster, and that he's been overcharged at a mere 6 cents (Canadian) per unit of electricity, can simply dismiss a few hundred million pounds per year, for quite literally nothing, as little more than a rounding error. Clearly, your understanding of the economics of climate change is as naïve as your understanding of its science.

*

Wouldn't a better question be what does an unemployed semiconductor engineer know of the practicalities and economics of wind and solar as well as meteorology?

And how crass is it for someone who refuses to carry out his own research should question the credentials of someone who has?

"On his return full-time to Cambridge, he was asked by his engineering colleagues to lead the teaching of final-year and graduate engineers on present and future energy systems, which he did until he retired in 2016. The introductory lecture of that course was on the scale of any energy future transition and is the forerunner to this lecture. This last point is to dismiss the cavilling critics who suggest that an electronic engineer should not be able to address these matters."

Professor Kelly is not only suitably qualified he is, as I alluded to, but one of many experts saying the same or similar.

As I said, contemptible.

*

I am not sure of your point.

Really? Having invoked Warren Buffett as some sort of renewables investment guru, I was merely pointing out (in his own words) that his reasoning for buying into wind energy was neither altruistic or for the greater good; it was simply because of the subsidies/tax breaks, being offered made it worthwhile. It was just business.

As I said, on a level playing field (if the operators were forced to pay for their intermittency) no one in their right mind would ever invest in wind or solar as a grid level generator. Your inability to appreciate this simple truism, even when directly referenced, speaks volumes about your blinkered reasoning.

*

Simple math but that is way beyond your understanding.

Sigh! Oh, there's no denying your simplistic approach, but in the context of wind power economics, your calculations (and trite analogies) are utterly meaningless. One may as well speculate about the price of fish.

The European wind industry is in a parlous state. One of the leading firms, Enercon (of Germany), has just announced 3000 redundancies, losses of $220m in 2018 (with worse to come in 2019) and that they can no longer afford to manufacture turbine blades in Germany. Senvion, another German manufacturer, entered into self-administered bankruptcy/liquidation in April. Their situation remains unclear, and in not having issued any financial reports since the beginning of the year Moody's has now withdrawn all its ratings from both Senvion S.A. and its subsidiary Senvion Holding GmbH.

Detailed analysis of the these and the many other issues affecting the wind industry, including reasoning behind those latest ridiculously low strike prices that were recently announced (likened to a high stakes poker game), can be found in reports and posts at the GWPF. ^{[3 - 8]} I commend one do some actual research for a change.


[1] [Link: tandfonline.com]
[2] [Link: cer-rec.gc.ca]
[3] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[4] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[5] [Link: thegwpf.com]
[6] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[7] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[8] [Link: thegwpf.com]