Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Everything Else Forum - View Post
Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Original thread:
Post 140 made on Tuesday December 3, 2019 at 12:20
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,746
Not at all. If I say Greta said..... IF I add a link it does not make it any more valid. She might be a credible source on ditching school, but is she a climate expert? is she a socioeconomic expert...… The issue is you link to people making statements on climate, botany, electrical grid.... that are just not experts in any imagination of the word on the subjects they are discussing.

I have linked to numerous sources, including academic studies. If you have reservations about their integrity, please provide specifics.

You, on the other hand, even after repeated requests, have provided nothing in the way of substantive argument. In essence, you claim the existence of 'pixie dust', fail to provide any proof of its existence and then claim I'm ignoring its existence. This is illogical and intellectually bankrupt thinking not worthy of further comment.

*

It is supported by scientific facts; you just don't accept the conclusion.
You agree CO2 has increased, there is warming, there is flooding there is destruction. Where it becomes an opinion is the destruction enough to say "too high" like me or "who cares I think I am OK for now and I don't care about what it really means" like you and then not "too high" yet.


Again, you claim the existence of 'pixie dust' without providing proof, and then claim I refuse to accept the ramifications of its existence. More nonsensical thinking worthy of no further comment.

CO2 has increased – check.
The average global surface temperature has increased – check.
Flooding happens – check.

Now provide a causal link between the anthropogenic component (if any) of present atmospheric CO2 content and any specific incidence of flooding. As in Chaos Theory, one could just as easily claim it was the result of a butterfly in Japan flapping its wings too vigorously.

*

It is not that I am dismissive. It is that you are cherry-picking info that I see mostly as useless that supports your case. For example does "number of deaths" show the destruction from flooding that happened in Montreal? No as far as I know no one died, did it cost the province and the individual home owners a lot of money and heartache? Absolutely. It also dismisses reality, unrelated to the topic a 7.0 earthquake is a 7.0 earthquake, but if it happens in an area with a lot of up-to-date homes it will appear to be less destructive then if it happens in a third world country where the norms are less strict.

I repeat - I have linked to numerous sources, including academic studies. If you have reservations about their integrity, please provide specifics.

You, on the other hand, even after repeated requests, have provided nothing in the way of substantive argument. In essence, you claim the existence of 'pixie dust', fail to provide any proof of its existence and then claim I'm ignoring its existence. This is illogical and intellectually bankrupt thinking not worthy of further comment.

*

Population growth can play a role in $ and casualties. My friends home did not exist 100 years ago, his dads place in the neighbourhood did and it was a farmhouse surrounded by fields and now it is. But does it matter? The reality is his dad moved into that home 80 years ago and there was never flooding in the area until 2017 and 2019. The flooding did not happen because there are more people in the area and like it or not there will be population growth.

And the pragmatic would learn to live with the new reality and develop flood defences, rather than expect other countries to spend trillions decarbonising their economies in the blind hope it will stop the flooding. Such is not science; such is religion.

*

There is a big divide between the rich and the poor and I fill bad for the people in those countries that are practically reduced to slavery, but you do realize that the GDP of China is second only to the us and India is #5. I would not call the country poor.

And here one misses the point. My reference to China and India was nothing to do with their being poor. Read again.

*

I was not being facetious it is just that you tend to ask for proof of the obvious. A And to me they are obvious. If plants can do it, one day we might have artificial plants (i.e. find a none natural and cost effective way to break down CO2 and use their components. There might be solutions that are more than simple storage (why not pump a very small % of the CO2 into a new age green house and let the plants do their job and that could help feed a growing population...… also if the CO2 is stored in a retrievable manner, we can then use it if and when we find a better use for it.

As for the link I am glad you liked it there are many ways it can be used and be inert but it is the one that I personally find most interesting. A simple google search will show you others. There is also ways to use it where it is not inert or stored (like draft beer, soda fountains, dry ice....) and storage itself is a complicated subject (for the most part it tends to be used to push out other liquids and gases.


I have regularly asked for proof of your contentious assertions, but none has ever been provided. On the other hand, I have never asked for proof of the obvious, and you furnish a rudimentary explanation of photosynthesis. This is the very definition of facetiousness.

One's answer also further confirms one's complete lack of understanding of the scale of the necessary CCS operation.

*

No, it is just the last time I did that you said that I did not know anything about UK trash sites so I want to start with numbers you accept.

Meaningless comment. Do your own research.

*

Is there a cost of transformation. Absolutely, but that cost as well is a lot lower then the cost of transforming coal, natural gas..... into electricity.

So you continue to assert, but as repeatedly demonstrated, it is not.

*

Any change takes money I never disputed that fact. But what you don`t want to see is that investing intelligently ends up saving money.

As for here, like you point out the vast majority is hydro and because it has a cost of consumables of 0 we have cheap electricity. But that was not always (going to be) the case. Like I pointed out there was a time when HQ was on the road of seeing a very large chunk of its electricity being nuclear. There was plans to build over 30 plants across the country. But a change in power (government) put a stop at that. If my electricity came from expensive uranium instead of free water flow you would not be jealous of my rate today.

As for the % it does not matter if it is 3%, 4%, 5%, 25%, 30%, 50% or 100%, electricity needs load balancing in real time. The amount produced must always equal the amount consumed that is why we talk load balancing.

The point was simply, if we have more than enough electricity and we can export it at 4 cents to the US if wind did not make sense we would not have any wind in our mix?


Investing intelligently would be investing in baseload and despatchable generation – not destabilising intermittent generation. As I said previously, how would one load balance a 100% wind system when there is no wind.

The fact you continue to dismiss expert opinion on this issue without cause speaks volumes.

*

I never said they are not volatile. That is one of the reasons I was surprised my client had solar cells at his cottage. They have 8.5h of sunlight in the winter and then there is snow, cloudy days and heating to deal with.

And I get it, they need to make sure that if there is no wind they can still produce/buy enough electricity but when there is enough wind it beats the pants off the price of electricity made from combustibles.


Well bully for your client, but as previously stated, private installations and grid-level generation are two entirely different things.

*

First I never claimed I was overcharged.
Second I never joined or supported the class action.
Thirdly a judge ruled that all Quebercer's (myself included) were overcharged.

Personally I found it all useless and idiotic.
It was 1.4B over 8 years. The number looks big but that is ~350$ per customer, that is 12 cents a day. That is less than a penny a kWh difference in what HQ should have been allowed to bill us. It is a rounding error.

The same with you, you could not see the difference in the price unless they went deep in the fractions of a p. It is not opinion it is simple grade school math.


Again, in the context of grid-level wind generation, your trite and simplistic maths are meaningless.

I have previously provided a link to UK government income data which clearly shows their receipt of environmental levies added to energy bills. This is the additional charge added to energy bills to pay for subsidies provided to renewables operators. In 2018/19 alone this amounted to £9 billion, representing an average of £340 per year, per household.

In essence, I am paying as much in environmental levies, per kWh, as you do for your full charge. Environmental levies are not a rounding error.

*

Can you please stop with the ad hominem, they really don't make you look good?
You asked me if I thought the guy was an expert. If you are not prepared to listen to the answer don't ask the question.

That is the issue with calls to authority a person either is an authority (and nothing more needs to be said) or he is not and then it is useless because I can't question that person.

As for him doing "his research" there is no hint of it in his paper. In that way you are a lot better because I can immediately see if your conclusion is built on a house of cards nor not. Yes I might not add as many links but when you ask a question, like when I brought up storing CO2 you can ask and I can answer. Can I ask that guy what expert told him plants grow better when the field is drenched in the fall and you need to delay planting and in the summer growth is stunted because of lack of rain even if there is more

CO2. Because that guy must know something my friend who is a farmer does because he keeps on complaining about the harvest.


I have never asked your opinion of any of my references. It was you who decided to collectively refer to them as bozos simply (so it would seem) because their views and research do not accord to your simplistic, blinkered and misguided perspective. Without providing supporting specifics as to your reasoning I believe it entirely legitimate to call your opinion both crass and contemptible. It continues to be so.

As I said, Professor Kelly is only one of several references I have provided, all of which say the same or similar. You dismiss their reasoning, without cause, but have never offered any evidence in support of your claims. Who are you then to claim they are bozos?

*

You missed the reason I asked completely.

I asked because I agree "that his reasoning for buying into wind energy was neither altruistic or for the greater good" like you just said. It is to make money.


The tax credit reduces the carrying cost. In essence what he is saying the taxpayer is putting up capital while not benefiting from the profits. Which means he has a much better ROI and he gets his cost of capital back faster and so it is good for him.


And you completely missed the second paragraph.

Long it's been (dubiously) been claimed that wind can now compete with fossil-fuelled generation, but then cry foul when subsidies are removed. Again I suggest one do some actual research.

*

I believe I've tolerated your nonsense long enough.

  • You attach a religious-like zeal to your views on climate change which are entirely unsupported by fact or science.

  • You dismiss academic research as garbage without excuse.

  • You claim a wealth of evidence in support of your assertions, but other than quaint personal anecdotes you provide nothing in support of your claims.

  • You claim I 'cherry-pick' openly available data in support of my assertions, but once again offer no supporting evidence of such.

  • You dismiss expert opinion without excuse and inexcusably refer to those offering those opinions as bozos.

  • You then, laughably, take exception to my calling such childish intolerance crass and contemptible.

  • You consistently refuse to accept the blindingly undeniable fact that the destabilising effects of intermittent weather-dependent renewables make them more expensive than traditional sources of power generation; attempting to explain it all away with homilies and kindergarten maths, which bears no relation to reality of grid-level generation.

  • And in what can only be described as a textbook case of psychological projection, you claim that it is I refusing to accept evidence to the contrary - which would be extremely difficult as, even after repeated requests, you've never provided any evidence for me to ignore.

I have repeatedly urged you to carry out your own research (which you have patently failed to do) and proffered a comprehensive wealth of information detailing precisely the cost of and why wind and solar renewables can never be considered a front-line energy source. You have dismissed it all out of hand and in doing so have also disgracefully disparaged those presenting it. Well, here's another article for you to ignore, the conclusion of which goes thus:
"Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power. At the same time, Weather Dependent Renewables are both capital and maintenance expensive and inevitably unreliable.

"Weather Dependent Renewables are universally more expensive than the conventional alternatives of Gas-firing or Nuclear power. ~2-5 times for Nuclear power and in the UK ~16 times more expensive than Gas-firing.

"The late Prof David Mackay (former chief scientific advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change) in a final interview before his untimely death in 2016 said that the concept of powering a developed country such as the UK with Weather Dependent Renewable energy was:
"An appalling delusion".
At the time he also said:
"There’s so much delusion, it's so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions, that they are willing to not think carefully about the numbers, and the reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics."
"This costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay's back of the envelope calculations, in the UK, showing that Weather Dependent Renewables, (Offshore wind and Solar Power), are approximately ~16 times more expensive in both capital and lifetime costs when compared to the use of Gas-fired Generation technologies. At the same time, Onshore wind power is only ~6 times more costly than Gas-firing.

[Link: theguardian.com]

"The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet amount to some 77£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 300£billion.

"If the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly 'saving the planet' from the output of the UK's small amount, (~25% of 1.1%, much less than the annual growth in China and the Developing world), of Man-made CO2 produced by the UK for electricity generation, their actual costs, in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability, Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation.

"It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these government-mandated excess costs to the improvement of the environment and for the possibility of perhaps saving undetectable temperature increases a 100 years in the future, especially in a context where the developing world will be increasing its CO2 emissions to attain its further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades.

"Reducing the UK’s minor part of Man-made CO2 emissions as a means to control a 'warming' climate seems even less relevant as the long-term temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, towards the coming end of the current Holocene interglacial epoch."
[Link: edmhdotme.wordpress.com]

[Link: edmhdotme.wordpress.com]

*

Note: Professor David Mackay's credentials are impeccable and thus beyond reproach. Also, being an environmentalist and Green Party member he could never, in any shape or form, be considered a 'denier' (or even a bozo). He was a pragmatist and like Professor Dieter Helm, was fully aware of the cost and limitations of wind and solar renewables.

Surprisingly enough, neither, David Mackay or Dieter Helm believed/believes in unicorns or pixie dust.

Last edited by djy on December 6, 2019 15:24.


Hosting Services by ipHouse