On December 3, 2019 at 12:20, djy said...
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.
let me fill in the blanks
your car, my car, the coal power plant..... all produce anthropogenic CO2CO2 has increased – check.
The average global surface temperature has increased – check.
increased temperature means melting glaciers, the water from such glaciers raises the sea levelFlooding happens – check.
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.
but aren't you the one that does not want to live with the new reality? You are the one bitching about your gouvernment building wind farms.
And here one misses the point. My reference to China and India was nothing to do with their being poor. Read again.
ok here is your previous quote
Tell that to the Chinese and Indians, and the other emerging nations to whom the proposals will condemn to perpetual poverty.
I thought maybe there is a language barrier, but according to the oxford dictionary
[Link: oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com] it means " the state of being poor"
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.
yes it was rudimentary, did you want more details on how it works?
Am I supposed to dismiss a process that takes in many billons of metric tons and renders it inert in the form of biomass just because you wanted to make an invalid point?
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.
1) to be clear, I never said it should be 100% wind. honestly that would be dumb a healthy grid needs different forms of production. Some that are faster (easier to ramp up and down) some that are cheaper where you use them for the grunt work.
2) I asked you which day (only need one) there was no wind in the UK. your point is useless because it does not take reality in consideration someone making a similar useless statement could say "how would one load balance a 100% hydro system when there is no water flow" or how would one load balance a 100% solar system when there is no sunny days" or even "how would one load balance a 100% coal system when there is no coal"...
3) I do listen to experts. It is just that I follow well defined and strict rules for experts while you think any bozo is an expert. I think HQ knows a lot about producing and distributing electricity and since (even with their gouging) our prices are low that means that they are experts on producing cheap electricity. When they say more wind is a way to do that I listen to them.
4) here is the breakdown of Ontario electricity sources
here is Quebec
here are Ontario costs
there is a small difference between the two for wind in % and TWh. The difference is that we are 95% (none consumable sourced) hydro and roughly 1% from consumable sources while they are 28% hydro and the vast majority is from expensive consumable sources (65%)
the issue is you want to blame
that small <20% slice of pie when the obvious culprit is those big slices of pies.
he smaller the slice the less of an effect it can have on the pie
Again, in the context of grid-level wind generation, your trite and simplistic maths are meaningless.
math and facts are always meaningless in your opinion.
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.
do you mean
[Link: cdn.obr.uk] 1) it does not say the source of environmental levies (I am guessing one of them is the climate change levy but it does not affect domestic electricity)
2) it says: Environmental levies include levy-funded spending policies such as the renewables obligation (RO), contracts for difference (CfD), feed-in tariffs, the capacity market scheme and the warm home discount. We also include receipts from the ‘CRC energy efficiency scheme’ until its abolition from the 2018-19 compliance year
I am guessing RO might be wind in whole or in part but warm home discount definitely does not sound like it.
I have repeatedly urged you to carry out your own research (which you have patently failed to do)
I have there in lies your issue with me. You hate that I see through the garbage you post
see I agree with
At the same time, Weather Dependent Renewables are both capital and maintenance expensive
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.
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.
Like I said many pages back capital costs are much higher(it does not matter if it is earth, wind,water or sun). The problem is none of those quotes give me anything else to work with or to put doubt in anything else I said from the beginning. Capital costs look scary but in the end they are not because with time they tend to move to 0 while cost of goods (or in this case consumables) and salaries don’t look scary but they add up over time (and just keep on growing with inflation), your coal plant can’t make electricity if you don’t keep on buying more coal but you don’t need to buy the land and re-build the wind farm every decade, year, month, day, it is a one time cost.
that is why there is the falacy of appeal to authority
[Link: iep.utm.edu]You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority's words.
that is why I don’t care about an individuals conclusions but I want their calculations (the facts behind the scene). I taught university students how to do these calculations for two years before I got poached in the corporate world. Plus if we are talking about how much electricity a wind farm can produce then the expert would be an engineer in that field, if we are talking about the economics of wind farms then the expert would be an economist, if we are talking about about how
Look at Quebec and Ontario back in the 70s we almost took the same path. we were going to go nuclear big time like them until HQ (premiere) went “nuts” and decided to spend 13B$ for phase one of the James bay project instead. But if you divide it by the 50 years since the start of the project or 40 years since it has been producing electricity it becomes 260/325 but those rerouted rivers, reservoirs and dames won’t disappear tomorrow.and if we use 100 years then it becomes 130M per year....
and I know in your mind wind and water are completely different and yes wind is a bit more temperamental, but the water levels in upstream and downstream affect how much electricity can be produced just like wind turbines depend on the wind. water also has the issue of water management ( can’t flood places upstream or downstream for the sake of electricity) and ice
look at the Netherlands for centuries they have been using wind power to pump out the water beyond the dikes some of those mills have been doing that job since the 1400’s ( 600 years sure takes a bite out of capital cost ;) )
