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 144 made on Friday December 20, 2019 at 19:00
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,746
"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.

Use the full quote:

"Now provide a causal link between the anthropogenic component (if any) of present atmospheric CO2 content and any specific incidence of flooding".

Not for the first time you have cherry-picked a partial sentence to provide an answer to a question not asked and ignored the one that was.

I note that you have also failed to respond to my follow up comment:
"Neither have you provided any justification for the spending of trillions on atmospheric 'control', in the hope, it will stop the flooding, rather than the few billions in practical flood defences that will".
*

"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 activity, asteroids, volcanoes... can all affect climate. The issue is none of those are in contention now and 1520 is for the most part irrelevant.

Climate has changed naturally for millennia and though now the subject of intense study, its 'DNA' remains nothing like fully understood. Without said understanding, one cannot merely assert that past change is irrelevant. One's comments regarding solar activity are also incorrect.

[Link: perspectaweather.com]

*

"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.

Correlation does not imply causation. Sea level has been rising for thousands of years.



I have never claimed sea level rise cannot cause flooding. I have, however, previously mentioned that in some instances, land subsidence is more of a factor then rising water level (ref. post 109).

*

"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 the COP gravy train continues to rumble on…



*

"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.

Again mere assertion. Research says otherwise…

[Link: thegwpf.org]
[Link: thegwpf.org]

There's also this…

[Link: reuters.com]

*

"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 stockpile of one plant " went awry" and got released it will still be the CO2 of one plant. If it is the stockpile 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 forever) 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.


Weasel words. My answer was perfectly valid for the issue under discussion – your claim that "CO2 captured by CCS can be stored in inert form…" You have still not provided an answer.

Most of your other twaddle I answered in post 138 thus:
"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."
Further to the above:

i). To claim CO2 is a pollutant is to also claim water is. Both are essential to life on this planet.

ii). That 'waste product', as you so quaintly put it, is helping to re-green the planet and aid agricultural production.

iii). I have never claimed you said all CO2 captured by CCS will be inert. I merely asked you provide an example of a system capable of storing inert CO2 (in significant quantity).

iv). Oh, I think you very much do need to differentiate between natural and technological solutions, as the latter adds significant cost (ref. my comments about SaskPower in post 98). A possible natural solution, on the other hand, would be to continue as we are and allow the planet to develop, er, naturally.

[Link: thegwpf.org]

It is not I dismissing 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.

Once again, one's reply highlights one's total ignorance of the seriousness of the intermittency issue and the need for backup. One can forward plan fuel supplies, and in no small extent water, but one cannot plan for the wind to blow at a particular time or the extent to which it does blow when it condescends to do so.

*

"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.

My point. You may have a degree of understanding about your own grid, but in trying to apply that specific knowledge to beasts of a different colour (systems you clearly have no understanding of), you are going hopelessly astray.

Floundering in your efforts to justify your partisan view of wind power, you are making trite and nonsensical assumptions, adding 2+2, getting 25, and then wondering why I'm scornful and dismissive. Aptly, your next comment is a perfect example of this.

*

"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....


Two issues:

i). I find it amusing that someone who has predicted his whole argument on the basis of CO2 induced flooding, is now using the threat of drought as a (principle) concern of its primary electrical energy supplier.

ii). Your belief in the concept of wind power output ramping again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of its operating principles.

While drought remains a theoretical possibility, it appears HQ has introduced a significant degree of resilience by the sheer spread of its generating facilities. This spread no doubt also aids in water level control, flow control and output balancing. If running out of water posed anything of a threat I have no doubt HQ would have long ago diversified into other means of baseload/dispatchable generation. The risibly small amount of wind generation they presently utilise does not qualify in this regard.

Depending on prevailing conditions, the principle of wind generation is that one takes all one can get when one can get it. The only caveats to this are the wind blowing too slowly (no output), too fast (turbine stopped for safety reasons), or if the overall production is exceeding demand. As output can vary on a minute to minute basis, there is no such thing as ramping up and down: load balancing is undertaken by other dispatchable sources and short term peakers.

*

"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

My apologies for confusing you by missing out "here is Quebec".

*

"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.


To summarise:
  • You assert wind power is cheap.

  • My experience and evidence from further afield contradict this view.

  • You ignore what I say and the evidence I provide, even going so far as to claim it's not evidence (post 117).

  • I persevere.

  • You finally condescend to look at the OBR report.

  • Rather than accept my word, you feel it necessary to question the origin of the Environmental Levies.

  • Having provided an illustration of unit cost, via the Ofgem website, you now assert it presents a contradiction.

  • My mind boggles.

The basis of my claim:

As first mentioned in post 10, the Burbo Bank Extension wind farm is comprised of 32 x 8MW Vestas V164 turbines. Such an array has a theoretical output of 256MW capable of supplying 2,242,560MWh annually. However, it has a load factor of 38.6% (Orsted's own figure) suggesting an actual annual production of circa 865,628MWh. From this, we can estimate prospective annual generation income at wholesale price (£45.00 per MWh)* and at present strike price (£170.03 per MWh)**

Wholesale 45 x 865,628 = £38,953,260
Strike 170.03 x 865,628 = £147,416,448

*Wholesale price is variable; thus, the figure used is indicative only.
**The strike price is index-linked: continuously adjusted for inflation. (The original price agreed in 2012 was £150.00 per MWh.)

Capital costs for wind farms are difficult to come by. Some while ago I found a website claiming the BBE cost circa £800 million, but have since been unable to find it again. This website, using data from a Crown Estate study, estimates the cost of a comparable array at £2575 per kW; equating to £659.2 million. Whichever figure one employs though (even allowing for a generous life expectancy of 20 years and not accounting for age-related reduced efficiency) I believe it self-evident that the wholesale price would render the project totally impracticable. In contrast, one could argue the agreed strike price is too generous, but that's a wholly different argument.

To make wind projects viable, the Government have agreed to strike prices significantly above that of wholesale cost and introduced a surcharge on energy bills to recoup the difference. Not only has this increased bills directly but also indirectly through increased retail prices as suppliers raise them to recover the additional cost. Further costs are also incurred through increasing grid complexity and the need to pay generators to remain on standby to cover for the intermittency of the renewables. In short, renewables increase cost, not decrease them.

(Note: My unit cost is 18.4485p per kWh. Yes, I also have a standing charge of 16.233p per day.)

Turning our attention to your calculations, though I'm not sure why one felt the need. It appears as if you're endeavouring to justify your opinion of wind power by claiming certain costs of the UK grid are higher than they need be. Once again though you are basing your views on a comparison between the UK grid and that of Quebec which, customer wise, fuel diversity wise and complexity wise, is an apples to oranges comparison.

I’ve never claimed UK electricity is cheap, only that adding intermittent renewables is increasing costs, undermining grid stability and doing nothing to support the rationale behind its implementation: i.e. reducing global CO2 level. Ofgem is the Government's industry regulator; if there were any significant irregularities, they would be on top of it.

There are two further points also in need of mention.

i). I'm not sure of the point you're endeavouring to make in regards to the constraint payments: that is the payments made to wind power suppliers to turn off supply in the event of an overcapacity issue. As pointed out in post 118, they are presently but a small cog in the Environmental Levies big wheel. There is, however, a massive potential for growth, as once again we have seen an increase on last year: with a few days of the year left they presently stand in excess of £135 million.

ii). As mentioned above, the electricity wholesale price is variable, so there is nothing unusual in seeing differing figures being quoted. The graphic you've used, however, has nothing to do with wholesale price: it is a list of the wind power projects which 'won' the last round of CfD auctions.

Note. These projects are the subject of your link to an article in the Independent newspaper in post 117 and my reply in post 118. Further commentary and links to a more detailed analysis of the problems facing the wind industry can be found in post 138.

*

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.


Semantics. They are of no concern to me.

*

"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.

Presumably, you've not read post 34:
"Many years ago, my naive understanding of science was one of honourable professional people carrying out research and experimentation in the cause of furthering human knowledge. They would condense their thoughts, reasoning, methodologies and results in 'papers' and offer it to their peers for honest review and debate. Exemplifying this is a saying popularised by Carl Sagan, 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence'. Would one then not consider a claim overturning a swathe of previous peer-reviewed research extraordinary? Steve McIntyre certainly did."
This quote is, of course, in reference to Michael Mann’s bogus hockey stick graph.

Has one never speculated about where we would be today had the IPCC carried out its due diligence? Is it not extraordinary to claim that, out of multifarious factors involved in the planet’s climate control system, a minor atmospheric trace gas is considered its primary driver? And where, after the billions spent and continuing to be spent on research, is the extraordinary evidence in support of the claim?

*

"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.

And what reality would that be?
  • That regardless of some blatant malfeasance and collusion, the CO2 narrative being peddled by the IPCC is being thwarted by Mother Nature to such an extent that the land-based data sets, used to determine global average temperatures, are being homogenised to artificially create more 20th-century warming than actually occurred.

  • That the IPCC continues to use unvalidated numerical models to claim unwarranted apocalyptic future warming.

  • That since the turn of the century, there has barely been any additional warming, even though atmospheric CO2 content continues to climb.

  • That the claims of increased severe weather events and wildfires are not supported by recorded data.

  • That the hysterical claims of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice collapse have simply not materialised and are not likely to.

  • That sea-level rise is not accelerating and continues at a sedate rate, which is consistent with that of a naturally warming world.

  • That you have previously dismissed known scientific fact about CO2 as being nonsense.

  • That you have and continue to ignored or dismiss all evidence countering the CO2 narrative without explanation.

  • That you claim such evidence is mere garbage and those who present it, regardless of expertise, as bozos.

  • That your partisan view is based purely on your experiencing some bad weather resulting in the flooding of Montréal and, in a staggering show of wanton hypocrisy, a news article claiming you may have to pay more for your veggies.

No, I think my observation is perfectly valid. Furthermore:
  • You clearly have no interest in the science of climate change.

  • You are expressing opinions based on propaganda peddled by the MSM.

  • The exaggerations of the MSM are based on the alarmist rhetoric emanating from the IPCC.

  • And the alarmist rhetoric of the IPCC is a direct result of their disturbing lack of rigour in validating the 'science' being presented to them.

Montréal is not the only place to suffer flooding, and bad weather has been a factor of agricultural production since 'man' put down the spear and started tilling the land. As distressing as the former might be and as inconvenient the latter, neither justifies the spending of gazillions on a hope and a prayer plan that will impoverish and destabilise nations and thus be more dangerous and deadly than adapting to change.

Regardless of the billions already spent, the IPCC is no nearer confirming their claims about CO2 than they were some 30 years ago. Yet in displaying something akin to a collective cognitive dissonance they still believe they can terrify the populous into action by sensationalising its effects, while conveniently forgetting that all their past predictions have miserably failed to materialise. This has not been lost on more rational minds and even, perhaps, some of those tasked with formulating action plans, as yet another COP conference ends in disarray with the can once again being kicked a little further down the road. Indeed, it would seem that all the IPCC have genuinely managed to accomplish is a passing of the alarmist baton to extremist political groups more radical than they (not forgetting, of course, a gullible Swedish teenager with personality issues). These groups, like you, have no time for the niceties of science.

While the mechanisms of climate change remain far from fully understood, impressionable young minds, already poisoned by years of one-sided MSM propaganda, are now unwittingly being drawn into the theatre of extreme left-wing politics. Here, rational thought is to be discouraged, even vilified. Those guilty of wrong think to be sent to re-education camps, or worse. The young to be brainwashed into believing that if they don’t act, they will have no future. No doubt you'll think such a view far-fetched and yet this is precisely the threat posed by the likes of Extinction Rebellion. They are perfectly happy to lie and misrepresent science to achieve their fundamental aim of political change and, more worryingly, by using the cloak of environmental concern, are seemingly being encouraged to do so by parents and schoolteachers. The naivety of the young is being cynically exploited by those claiming to offer a brave new world but are, in fact, engineering a dystopian nightmare. I fear for them.





[Link: policyexchange.org.uk]

Last edited by djy on December 21, 2019 03:29.


Hosting Services by ipHouse