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 143 made on Sunday December 15, 2019 at 17:08
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,867
On December 12, 2019 at 16:59, djy said...
I think by now most everyone is fully aware of what creates CO2, but that's not what I asked. One has not proven a causal link: that the CO2 emitted by my wife’s car caused the flooding in Montreal.

you said
"Now provide a causal link between the anthropogenic component (if any) of present atmospheric CO2 content"
that was all I was doing.
Glacier melt and retreat is nothing new. For several hundred years the Vikings farmed land in Greenland and Iceland was once covered in forest.

agree, solar aqctivity, asteroids, volcanoes... can all affect climate. The issue is none of those are in contention now and 1520 is for the most part irrelevent

Sea level rise has been constant for the past 150 years, which is consistent with a naturally warming world. If it were reacting to increasing atmospheric CO2 content, there would, by now, have been a discernible acceleration. There hasn't been.

funny how the time frame coincides with the growth of human produced CO2 but somehow that sea level rise can't cause flooding.

Childish pedanticism. Any plans to combat atmospheric CO2 level are meaningless unless China and India come on board.

perfectly agree, it takes EVERY place, China, India, UK, Canada, Quebec...

|And denying emerging nation’s access to cheap and affordable electricity is condemning them to perpetual poverty.
you said it before and it was never true. If it was true China would not be the second richest nation now and soon the richest. India would not have climbed to 5th and moving up in leaps and bounds.


I asked for a citation on how CO2 captured by CCS can be stored inertly – which was your claim. You provided a link to a small scale concrete improvement process and a rudimentary description of photosynthesis. Neither answers the request and the childish nature of your reply to the latter was facetious.

No, I said

1) CO2 captured by CCS can be useful (but not in the amounts we are producing it right now, but in the future who knows)

2) CO2 captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form so "went awry" sounds a bit odd if it is saved that way

3) the math does not work in your favour. If the stock pile of one plant " went awry" and got released it will still be the CO2 of one plant. If it is the stock pile of one country that " went awry" and got released it will still be the CO2 of one country. Unless all the CO2 of all the world are stored together the reality is any such scenario will become a "small" local issue. Possibly a real tragedy for the area like Chernobyl but it can't become an extinction level event.


capturing polluting CO2 (i.e. CCS) is something relatively new. Most of that CO2 (at least for now if not for ever) is a waste product and will need to be stored, that is what #3 dealt with. #1 said some of it is useful. Some of those uses will h store it inertly. I never said all of it will be inert and I don't feel a need to differentiate between natural processes and technological ones.

But like always you try to dismiss reality

There is a vast difference between regulating a known constant input and a randomly variable one. Concentrating on an all or nothing scenario for hydro, coal, gas etc. is total nonsense, but not so in the case of renewables.

none are all or nothing scenarios or the grid would never work.

HQ is not a special case as any half-competent power company could produce low-cost electricity

I agree never said they are special, They are just easier to use as an example because I know a lot about the situation here.

No doubt HQ see a sound business opportunity, but adding a few more MW of wind power to a grid so dominated by hydro is by no means comparable to its being promoted as a primary source.

agree, for the most part (and simple $) hydro is a bit cheaper, but with any source you need variety, if there is a drought it will affect how much hydro you can produce, a dam is not only about creating electricity but it also needs to manage the water level(s) upstream, downstream and (for lack of a proper term) middlestream (i.e. when you have more then one damn on the same river you are in full control of water levels between those two damns).

on the other hand wind is easier to ramp up and down, if tehre is an issue with one turbine it can be taken off line withourt issues....


*

Here is the breakdown of Ontario electricity sources.

I'm fully appreciative Quebec's generation mix (post 138 ref.2), but it has no bearing on the issue of UK renewables generation.

you do realise you quoted me saying ONTARIO

I have done you the courtesy of believing what you have to say about Quebec's generation and costs. I would have hoped one would be gracious enough to reciprocate, but clearly not.

[Link: ofgem.gov.uk]

I am not god so don't "believe" me, I don't have an issue with that. I am human and sometimes I make mistakes, so if I do please correct me and don't take what I say as gospel.

I do put my faith in a lot of stuff that you write, but I can't turn a blind eye when your link contradicts your interpretation

according to this latest link

Wholesale costs=32.32% so that would mean it is around 5.8176 p.
you attached earlier


this has wind at around 4p wholesale because some of your other sources are more than 6p (50% more expensive) it averages out to 5.8p

IMHO those other >6p are part of thye problem of your high cost and even though they probably can't be eliminated totally reducing them is not a bad idea

network costs it is 23.15% that puts it at over 4p, just your network costs (something that should be super low) is roughly the same as my total cost (which includes generating, network, gouging and other costs- like Indian land rights...).

Operating costs17.34%=3.1212 p
Supplier pre-tax margin 0.73%=0.1314p
Other direct costs 1.25%=0.225p
I am not sure what these are, if they are related to transmission/distribution then they just make network costs look more ridiculously high compared to those of HQ

(i.e. let's say network cost = putting up a pole or a cable, operations could be, the person reading the meter (if you don't have a smart one) creating invoices, sending them, cashing in the payment, CEOs big salary....)

Now in all fairness I don't know how it works in the UK, here my bill has a 40.64 cents a day System access charge i.e. if someone did not use any electricity in Nov they would have had to pay12.19$+tax and in Oct it would have been 12.60+tax

VAT4.76%=0.8568 what can you do, there is no choice there, on the other hand I am guessing it is a % so it would depend on the rest (plus if it makes you feel better GST+QST which are charged here after the total add up to around 15%)

the last bit
Environmental and social obligation costs20.44%=3.6792

that looks like it might be related to what you posted last time

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 have nothing to say to that.


Now, there is what you posted earlier
Last year these constraint payments cost consumers £124 million But that is Millions while the revenue should be in the tens of billions,that means that to your 18p it can't be responsible for pences, or tenths of pences or even hundredths it will most likely be in the thousandths.
is the issue 18p or 17.991p or 17.99p

That is why there is the fallacy 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."
As I said, referencing authoritative work is perfectly valid. If you have issues to that which I refer, provide specifics.

what you bolded is absolutely true, do I take it for granted when you say you pay 18p absolutely, did I question the numbers from ofgem not at all, with uk gov I am assuming they know what they re talking about. Imagine if every time you wanted to calculate the hypotenuse you needed to build the triangle and measure all three sides and stuff. Now do I trust Pythagoras knew what he was talking about? there have been enough people that proved he was right, do I need a reference link to him saying it? not at all. imagine this

Aristarchus of Samos: the earth and the other planets revolves around the sun
other guy: Plato, Aristotle all say the earth is in the center of the universe here is a tablet from them.

is Aristarchus wrong because Plato and Aristotle are accepted as smart guys or were Plato and Aristotle bozos giving their opinion on something thety did not really understand.



From those who seek to challenge the orthodoxy you demand numbers, calculations, "the facts behind the scene".

not just those that challenge the orthodoxy but everyone. But technically the more outrageous the conclusion the more evidence should be required.

Yet it's clear, from what you've written here, that you place no such strictures on the claims made of CO2 by the IPCC.

no, the truth is, thanks to you and this thread, I have read a lot more from dissenters then accepters. It is just that reality does not help your cause. I don't need t the IPCC to tell me that there were flooding, I saw that with my own eyes. I don't need them to explain how weather currents work I learnt that when I was taking piloting lessons. I don't need the IPCC to tell me my food will be more expensive and there will most likely be a potatoe shortage due to weather here.

[Link: cbc.ca]
...


Hosting Services by ipHouse