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 151 made on Sunday January 19, 2020 at 16:23
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,867
On December 31, 2019 at 16:45, djy said...
More obfuscation, equivocation, procrastination, vacillation and, of course, good old general flimflam.

You sure love saying a lot of nothing of any value

Note: Estimates to retrofit Britain's housing stock alone are around the £2 trillion mark, and AOC's Green New Deal in the US has been costed at anything between $51 - $93 trillion. It appears the only thing 'insanely stupid' around here is your comment.

Why are you being ridiculous, did I have an issue with you saying it would cost trillions? The problem is that any such analysis like you are doing above is completely asinine because that money will need to be spent anyways. For example I said earlier that I recently went from a bienergy furnace (uses oil for heat when colder than -12 and electricity the rest of the time) to electric (which here is green). Did I do that to be green? My furnace stopped working the guy gave me a high estimate to try and repair it (with no guarantee) and so I needed to buy a new one no matter what. Now if I had NG at my home that would have been the cheapest option but since I don’t it would have been ridiculously more expensive. Oil and electric would have been around the same but oil only I would have lost my AC. Bi like I had would have actually been more expensive. What you need to do is look at the differential in costs (and if you are smart factor in ongoing costs and not just capital costs) and not total cost.
1). As previously mentioned, injecting CO2 into concrete to improve the product cannot be considered a mass storage solution, as it only offsets the CO2 produced in its production.

a)Concrete is critical to today’s society and it’s use keeps increasing
b)Traditional cement is a huge producer of CO2 ( roughly 1kg of CO2 for 1 kg of cement (and it accounts for around 10% of anthropogenic CO2) so even reducing that is a real good thing
c) Research is at the point where we can have carbon negative concrete and it can be produced in very small quantities now. The issue is you need the readily available CO2 if you are carbon negative and the money to build new facilities for example read up on Carbicrete
| the Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine 'microgrid' project is a perfectly reasonable undertaking and likely sensible regardless of climate issues.

Glad we agree
2). Another worst-case scenario is an extinction-level meteor strike à la Deep Impact or a pandemic à la 12 Monkeys. Metres high sea-level rise from presumed CO2 induced warming is, however, pure alarmist hyperbole, not even worthy of a low budget Hollywood film.

You are missing the point and physics.
a)If we assume we don’t care about GHG and temperature rising then we must assume all glaciers melt or at some point we say “enough is enough” and we spend that money fighting GHGs and global warming so you saved nothing
b) Water takes up cubic volume, if you limit it on area (i.e. stop flooding) then the other area will raise higher (i.e. the same amount of water in a bowl will be lower than in a glass
c) If you build a wall and on the sea side the water is higher than land side and a wave comes that is higher than the wall you will have a real issue land side. Imagine a tsunami, it comes, it hits land, a few seconds later the water recedes and if it caused damage that damage can be repaired fast. Now imagine there is a wall and the wave is higher than your wall. The flood comes and floods the land but now the wall is blocking it from receding back into the deap ocean.

3). Pragmatic planning outweighs wing and a prayer hope. Only the institutionally gullible would believe otherwise, which is perhaps the reason for your wild speculation and unsupported claims.

Agree, that is why I am into spending smart money that helps with so much stuff including reducing CO2 instead of denying the obvious and praying and hoping that the changes won’t be as bad as credible people predict.
*Note: The Dutch are doing precisely this with the ongoing renovation works being carried out on the Afsluitdijk: the primary sea wall protecting their polder regions.

Yes, but how much would it cost to rebuild freom scratch, how much is it costing in renovations and how much would it cost to do that around every land mass?
Climate change lore tells us The Maldives should no longer exist

Who said that?

I would have thought the increased complexity of two random variables interacting a simple concept for a mathematician to understand. It seems I was mistaken.

The issue is you are neither a mathematician nor someone that knows or understands electricity. There are not two “variables”, I can turn or off my bathroom light, that is one variable, I can dim up or down the light in my dining room so that is another variable, my fridge is a third variable and it decides when and how much power to draw from the grid and my cell/mobile is also a variable because sometimes it needs to be connected, there are millions and possibly billions and trillions of them and probability tells us they are unlikely to all change in the same way at the same time which is why the electric grid works. It is also why a big power failure in one area (and why during a black out they tell you to turn everything out) when a lot of those “variables” act like one “variable” there can be cascading black outs.
But then, when it comes to climate, what's new? Inconsistencies from the institutionally gullible are commonplace:
  • It's too warm - it must be climate change.

  • It's too cold - it must be climate change.

  • It's too dry – it must be climate change.

  • It's too wet – it must be climate change.

  • Climate change. A solution to (almost) any problem, providing one doesn’t trouble oneself to think too much.

It is not about being gullible but using one’s brain and knowing a bit of physics. Can a planet have different climates like deserts and oceans and rain forests and glaciers? Can a single place have seasons ? Why is the UK building wind turbines near the coast? Water cools and heats up faster than earth, that makes a temperature differential between off shore and on shore during the day and night, the colder air (more dense) will push itself into the hotter air (less dense) and that creates wind and the bigger the difference the more wind there will be as things try and equalize. But that is reality everywhere, the north pole in the winter is extremely cold because it is not heated by the sun, the equater is very warm, that north pole air is then dragged down more south in the winter which means those areas with that arctic chill will get colder.

Once again then, since your memory retention appears to be similar to that of a goldfish, UK renewable energy is prioritised: solar first, followed by wind (then other sources depending upon availability). In such circumstances, it makes no financial sense to regulate supply by turning turbines on or off to meet demand. One caveat to this, as I mentioned, is their being turned off in the event of overcapacity, though in such a circumstance, the affected operators are then compensated via the constraints payment mechanism; i.e. they are paid to produce nothing. However, over and above the financial considerations, there is also no practical sense in attempting to regulate a stable supply with a volatile source as the latter's output (sometimes even on a minute to minute basis), cannot be guaranteed.

It is not a memory problem on my part but consistency and making sense issue on your part.
When I pointed out wind can be ramp up and down fast you had a hissy fit and I did not know what I was talking about now because you want constraint payments to be winds fault everything else is “base load” and can’t be ramped up or down but only wind turbines can. If you look at grid watch you will see on the daily graph they show 10 minutes “average” because the grid demand needs to be more precise than 10 minutes. It is also not my fault a few posts back
On October 26, 2019 at 18:06, djy said...
£115 million of which going to Scottish wind farms due to a lack of transmission capacity to England where the demand was. |

More smoke and mirrors. Oh, I'm sure that financing a multimillion-pound business venture is a complicated affair, but if there were a need to understand asset accounting and depreciation I'd ask the wife. There isn't.

I get it; knowledge can interfere with an insane rant ;)

Nothing you've mentioned above counters the fundamental principle of investing to make money. If the product being sold does not provide enough to recover the initial investment, let alone provide enough to make a profit, then the proposition is simply not viable, and all you've mentioned above becomes moot.

it is viable, if you do the math CORRECTLY. Now ioif ypou use Bozo math then it does not work. Further more if it was not viable you would not have all those companies investing in wind farms and you would not have savvy investors.


Oh, for goodness sake!
From my last post....

I did not ask you to repeat yourself nor to try and explain the opinion of the bozos that you referenced previously. I asked you a simple question what is the column of that column and what does it mean.

Why when the strike price is ridiculous you get that it is a negotiated fixed price where the utility is obliged to buy it at that elevated price no matter market price but you can't grasp that when it is lower then market price the farm is obliged to accept that negotiated price? If you (or other bozos ) think those prices are unrealistic is irrelevant. Obviously the people building those farms don’t which is why they bid those prices.

In support of his argument, he cites the contrast between two wind farms off the coast of Scotland: Moray East and Beatrice.
"Moray East, currently under construction in northern Scotland, and Beatrice, which came on stream just a few months ago, use very similar turbines and are situated just next door to each other. There is nothing about Beatrice to suggest that costs or performance are out of the ordinary, yet it has a strike price nearly three times that of Moray East.

Simple answer.
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen>

the strike price depends on the power off the negotiating parties, Obviously the farm would rather have it as high as possible (more money in their pockets)

.
...


Hosting Services by ipHouse