By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:06 - Dec 10 by A_Fans_Dad
You need to read up a bit about so called "Renewables", the wind, sun and tide may be renewable but the Production of the Generators is not. You cannot use renewables to make Cement, Steel or Turbine Blades. You also cannot rely on them for baseload generation because of their intermittency and please do not say we just need big batteries for storage. Why do you think the Chinese are building so many Coal fired power stations and not just in China.
If you want real "Carbon" free generation you need Nuclear, which is what the UK should be developing. SMRs and MSRs are the future.
This is a typical false equivalence right-wing argument. Over the lifetime of a wind farm or tidal energy scheme the environmental cost is far far smaller than from hydrocarbon sources. But you knew that already didn't you.
Also tidal energy is entirely predictable and can provide a lot of the base load.
You're also obviously unaware of the Duwaal scheme in the Netherlands, which is using wind turbines to generate hydrogen through electrolysis during low-demand periods, which will be piped onshore and used to power 100 trucks: https://hy-gro.net/en/duwaal
This is the sort of innovation that the UK could be leading the way in - given that we have just about the best wind and tidal energy resource in the world. Instead, we're obsessing over the cult that is Brexit.
3
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:41 - Dec 10 with 1985 views
Even if you accepted the arguments presented in that comment piece at face value (which I very much doubt) it's a bit moronic to look at one country over a limited period of time as a gauge of the global effects of climate change.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:28 - Dec 10 by BytholWyn
This is a typical false equivalence right-wing argument. Over the lifetime of a wind farm or tidal energy scheme the environmental cost is far far smaller than from hydrocarbon sources. But you knew that already didn't you.
Also tidal energy is entirely predictable and can provide a lot of the base load.
You're also obviously unaware of the Duwaal scheme in the Netherlands, which is using wind turbines to generate hydrogen through electrolysis during low-demand periods, which will be piped onshore and used to power 100 trucks: https://hy-gro.net/en/duwaal
This is the sort of innovation that the UK could be leading the way in - given that we have just about the best wind and tidal energy resource in the world. Instead, we're obsessing over the cult that is Brexit.
No the environmental cost is not less for a wind farm over it's lifetime, 250 tons of concrete per Turbine and the disposal of the Blades is already a major problem. I would suggest that you also look up how many trees have been cut down to build wind farms in Scotland and Germany. Then of course you have environmental disasters of producing the Rare Earth materials. Their are no large scale Tidal Energy schemes to compare to either. But of course like any renweables promoter you have avoided the point. You cannot power a modern society if you cannot produce Concrete & Steel. Although tidal is predictable it cannot provide baseload energy 24/7/365 as you well know. It can only provide it for a few hours twice a day. It also doesn't matter how many you have around the UK it just makes the Peaks and Troughs worse. I could point you to analysis but as it not from one of your so-called reliable sources I won't bother.
As to Hydrogen that is a real joke, let me just make 3 points Look up the Energy Density of Hydrogen. Look up the actual density of Hydrogen and how much it leaks. Look up the exposiveness of Hydrogen. The result of the last 2 is this https://qz.com/1641276/a-hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes-in-norways-baerum/
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 17:28 - Dec 10 with 1960 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 17:27 - Dec 10 by A_Fans_Dad
No the environmental cost is not less for a wind farm over it's lifetime, 250 tons of concrete per Turbine and the disposal of the Blades is already a major problem. I would suggest that you also look up how many trees have been cut down to build wind farms in Scotland and Germany. Then of course you have environmental disasters of producing the Rare Earth materials. Their are no large scale Tidal Energy schemes to compare to either. But of course like any renweables promoter you have avoided the point. You cannot power a modern society if you cannot produce Concrete & Steel. Although tidal is predictable it cannot provide baseload energy 24/7/365 as you well know. It can only provide it for a few hours twice a day. It also doesn't matter how many you have around the UK it just makes the Peaks and Troughs worse. I could point you to analysis but as it not from one of your so-called reliable sources I won't bother.
As to Hydrogen that is a real joke, let me just make 3 points Look up the Energy Density of Hydrogen. Look up the actual density of Hydrogen and how much it leaks. Look up the exposiveness of Hydrogen. The result of the last 2 is this https://qz.com/1641276/a-hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes-in-norways-baerum/
All forms of energy generation come with a cost, and have downsides, but only an ignorant or disingenous person would argue that wind or tidal power has a bigger impact that coal or gas.
As for hydrogen power, well you'd better get on the blower and inform those stupid Dutch people about the hitherto unknown explosive dangers of hydrogen. Whilst you're at it, send out an alert to all those idiots out in the UK using highly explosive natural gas as a source of heating and cooking.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 19:37 - Dec 10 with 1888 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:23 - Dec 10 by A_Fans_Dad
What have humans got to do with Coral and CO2 levels?
Back before humans existed there were massive forests to absorb the CO2, a lot of damage is done to coral by fishermen and by dredging, development causing sedimentation and pathogens,
All forms of energy generation come with a cost, and have downsides, but only an ignorant or disingenous person would argue that wind or tidal power has a bigger impact that coal or gas.
As for hydrogen power, well you'd better get on the blower and inform those stupid Dutch people about the hitherto unknown explosive dangers of hydrogen. Whilst you're at it, send out an alert to all those idiots out in the UK using highly explosive natural gas as a source of heating and cooking.
You really do need to up your game. Carbonbrief is a propoganda site for Renewables. The "carbon footprint" is not the Environmental damage as Carbon Dioxide is Plant food as shown by NASA, but even if you only considered their "carbon footprint" it does not include the carbon cost of Back-up. This week solar is producing less than 1Gw of power for about an hour per day, in fact it has been below 2Gw for about an hour a day for a whole month, while wind is doing really well this week at over 10Gw because it has been very windy. But only 2 weeks ago wind was below 5Gw for 2 days and 3 weeks ago it was below 2Gw for 2 days. So first of all of the 22Gw of installed wind we get a max of 13Gw and of the 14Gw of installed solar we get less than 2g of power for about an hour a day. What made up the difference from day to day, Gas & Coal, that is what. Which is because Wind and Solar are not despatchable energy. Then we get to Grid Synchronicity and Inertia which Wind & Solar can't provider and it has to be provided by FFs or Nuclear.
So as the Blackouts in Germany, Australia and our own recent one show you just cannot rely on Renewables.
But you carry on believing the BS put out by the renewables propoganda machine. Me I live in the real world.
Now le's talk about your stupid comments on Hydrogen, which you obviously know nothing about at all. The Article I quoted was an actual Fire at the Norwegian Hydrogen Vehicle filling station, not some idea I had. Cooking and Heating Gas is NOT Hydrogen it is basically Methane. Problems with Hydrogen - https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-compared-other-fuels
Hydrogen - 2.8 to 3.3 Wh/L Methane - 10.1 Wh/L Petrol - 9500.0 Wh/L Diesel - 10,722.2 Wh/L Coal - 7,222.2—13,611.1 Wh/L or 9,444.5—11,944.5 Wh/L depending on type To just replace Methane you need 3 times as much Hydrogen and to replace petrol 3000 times as much and you want to waste Electricity making it at an efficiency of only 80%.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 19:37 - Dec 10 by Catullus
Back before humans existed there were massive forests to absorb the CO2, a lot of damage is done to coral by fishermen and by dredging, development causing sedimentation and pathogens,
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 20:43 - Dec 10 by A_Fans_Dad
You really do need to up your game. Carbonbrief is a propoganda site for Renewables. The "carbon footprint" is not the Environmental damage as Carbon Dioxide is Plant food as shown by NASA, but even if you only considered their "carbon footprint" it does not include the carbon cost of Back-up. This week solar is producing less than 1Gw of power for about an hour per day, in fact it has been below 2Gw for about an hour a day for a whole month, while wind is doing really well this week at over 10Gw because it has been very windy. But only 2 weeks ago wind was below 5Gw for 2 days and 3 weeks ago it was below 2Gw for 2 days. So first of all of the 22Gw of installed wind we get a max of 13Gw and of the 14Gw of installed solar we get less than 2g of power for about an hour a day. What made up the difference from day to day, Gas & Coal, that is what. Which is because Wind and Solar are not despatchable energy. Then we get to Grid Synchronicity and Inertia which Wind & Solar can't provider and it has to be provided by FFs or Nuclear.
So as the Blackouts in Germany, Australia and our own recent one show you just cannot rely on Renewables.
But you carry on believing the BS put out by the renewables propoganda machine. Me I live in the real world.
Now le's talk about your stupid comments on Hydrogen, which you obviously know nothing about at all. The Article I quoted was an actual Fire at the Norwegian Hydrogen Vehicle filling station, not some idea I had. Cooking and Heating Gas is NOT Hydrogen it is basically Methane. Problems with Hydrogen - https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-compared-other-fuels
Hydrogen - 2.8 to 3.3 Wh/L Methane - 10.1 Wh/L Petrol - 9500.0 Wh/L Diesel - 10,722.2 Wh/L Coal - 7,222.2—13,611.1 Wh/L or 9,444.5—11,944.5 Wh/L depending on type To just replace Methane you need 3 times as much Hydrogen and to replace petrol 3000 times as much and you want to waste Electricity making it at an efficiency of only 80%.
The trouble with you right-wingers you lack any sense of proportionality or rational perspective whatsover. So, whilst it's true that we need back-up from fossil fuels for renewables at this point in time (although coal has almost vanished completely from the mix) this dependency is only going to diminish with time with the developments in battery technology and de facto batteries in the form of pumped storage schemes, such as Dinorwig, amongst other things. The greater the mix of renewables (including tidal and wave) the better. These are technological challenges to be faced and overcome. Only a few years ago we had all sort of scare stories in the Tory tabloid press about how we would have to cover the entire country in wind turbines to meet our energy needs, with huge subsidies to boot. Those predictions aren't exactly turning out well are they?
You talk about the undoubted dangers posed by hydrogen in predictably dramatic terms as if engineers are unaware of the challenges, and the necessary safety safeguards. And yet you advocate nuclear energy at the same time - as if that technology carries no risks and it's a doddle to prevent Fukushima-style radiation leaks let alone Chernobyl-style meltdowns. A complete lack of proportionality and oh so typical of the rabid right.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:10 - Dec 10 with 1832 views
I'm trying to understand your views on this thread you started. Are you stating that global warming is a phallacy? or, do you agree that global warming is actually occurring,not due to man, but to a naturally occurring process?
1
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:17 - Dec 10 with 1823 views
I'm trying to understand your views on this thread you started. Are you stating that global warming is a phallacy? or, do you agree that global warming is actually occurring,not due to man, but to a naturally occurring process?
He believes the UN, which is actually a communist organisation, invented climate change as a way of hurting America and destroying capitalism. And all the scientists who promote it are in in on the con and are lying to ensure they receive grants.
I'm not making that up.
3
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:22 - Dec 10 with 1814 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:17 - Dec 10 by Humpty
He believes the UN, which is actually a communist organisation, invented climate change as a way of hurting America and destroying capitalism. And all the scientists who promote it are in in on the con and are lying to ensure they receive grants.
I'm not making that up.
I don’t know why anyone reads a word he writes, let alone responds to it.
Hope AFD does not live too close to the sea. Our house is 40m above sea level so I'm quite smug, but the way Greenland and Antarctica is melting a lot of land is going to get flooded, bringing with it immigration on a completely different level.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:22 - Dec 10 by exiledclaseboy
I don’t know why anyone reads a word he writes, let alone responds to it.
The sad thing is the amount of effort he puts into "researching" and disseminating this bilge.
Imagine the good he could do if he used it for something worthwhile instead. Unfortunately someone a lot brighter than him told him that climate change was "lefty" science and that was all that was needed. Shame really.
2
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:54 - Dec 10 with 1768 views
I'm trying to understand your views on this thread you started. Are you stating that global warming is a phallacy? or, do you agree that global warming is actually occurring,not due to man, but to a naturally occurring process?
Of course Global Warming is occurring, we are still coming out of the last Ice Age and Mini Ice Age, we would be in dire trouble if it wasn't. How many cars, boats, planes and Industry was around to melt Ice a Mile high in the Northern Hemisphere? Or all the previous times Ice Ages ended?
I know the NOAA link and it is not Technically Acidification, because the Oceans are not becoming more Acid they are becoming less Alkaline, but that doesn't sound very scary. Check out the Chemical scale of Acidity/Alkilinity and where Ocean levels are on it if you don't believe me. Note this little Gem " Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could have acidity levels nearly 150 percent higher, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years." So this is not new and as I pointed out Corals have been around for nearly 500Million years so they wnet through that 150% higher acidity with no problems as they are still here.
My views on this thread were simple. The Mass Media (MSM) is absolutley full of apocalyptical stories of Climate Change being caused by Man Made CO2 and predictions of Extinction. The UN COP 25 meeting is designed to use those stories to push for a one world government and the destruction of Capitalism, they actually said that was their aim themselves at previous COPs. In the opening statement by the Secratary General of the UN he lied to the world numerous times. I wanted to bring this to the attention of those who believe without reservation what the UN is telling them.
But they are not prepared to accept this even though the proof comes from the IPCC itself, Peer Reviewed Scientific papers and simple common sense.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:57 - Dec 10 with 1764 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:34 - Dec 10 by Humpty
The sad thing is the amount of effort he puts into "researching" and disseminating this bilge.
Imagine the good he could do if he used it for something worthwhile instead. Unfortunately someone a lot brighter than him told him that climate change was "lefty" science and that was all that was needed. Shame really.
Can’t get past the random capital letters all over the place either to be honest. I may be better disposed to reading the gibberish if it wasn’t for them. Or maybe not.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:17 - Dec 10 by Humpty
He believes the UN, which is actually a communist organisation, invented climate change as a way of hurting America and destroying capitalism. And all the scientists who promote it are in in on the con and are lying to ensure they receive grants.
I'm not making that up.
Funny you should say that, because that is exactly what they say about themselves. I have provided their quotes before on these Forums, but you still don't get it. All you know how to do is insult.
Want to see their own quotes again? I bet not.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 22:07 - Dec 10 with 1747 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:41 - Dec 10 by BytholWyn
Article dated 2013...
Even if you accepted the arguments presented in that comment piece at face value (which I very much doubt) it's a bit moronic to look at one country over a limited period of time as a gauge of the global effects of climate change.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:09 - Dec 10 by BytholWyn
The trouble with you right-wingers you lack any sense of proportionality or rational perspective whatsover. So, whilst it's true that we need back-up from fossil fuels for renewables at this point in time (although coal has almost vanished completely from the mix) this dependency is only going to diminish with time with the developments in battery technology and de facto batteries in the form of pumped storage schemes, such as Dinorwig, amongst other things. The greater the mix of renewables (including tidal and wave) the better. These are technological challenges to be faced and overcome. Only a few years ago we had all sort of scare stories in the Tory tabloid press about how we would have to cover the entire country in wind turbines to meet our energy needs, with huge subsidies to boot. Those predictions aren't exactly turning out well are they?
You talk about the undoubted dangers posed by hydrogen in predictably dramatic terms as if engineers are unaware of the challenges, and the necessary safety safeguards. And yet you advocate nuclear energy at the same time - as if that technology carries no risks and it's a doddle to prevent Fukushima-style radiation leaks let alone Chernobyl-style meltdowns. A complete lack of proportionality and oh so typical of the rabid right.
So when was the last time the UK had a magnitude 7 Earthquake and 100 foot high Tsunami exactly.
As usual you speak from complete ignorance, MSRs cannot melt down, they are "Fail Safe", they cannot "blow up" because they are not pressurised. Add to that they use all the old spent fuel rods as their enrgy source, thus making the world a safer place. They also cannot be used to make Atom Bomb level Plutonium.
So which Welsh or Scottish Valleys are you going to submerge to make your Dinorwigs and how much will they cost? As to Batteries you have absolutely no idea how many and how large and expensive they would have to be.
You seem to have missed the fact that we are no longer covering our country with wind Turbines we are covering the coastal seas with them instead. You can have ten times as many as we have now and when the wind doesn't blow you still don't get any Electricity. If the sun doesn't shine you don't get any solar Electricity either.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 22:16 - Dec 10 with 1744 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:34 - Dec 10 by Humpty
The sad thing is the amount of effort he puts into "researching" and disseminating this bilge.
Imagine the good he could do if he used it for something worthwhile instead. Unfortunately someone a lot brighter than him told him that climate change was "lefty" science and that was all that was needed. Shame really.
The concern is he's not the only one.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 22:48 - Dec 10 with 1729 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:27 - Dec 10 by BrynCartwright
Hope AFD does not live too close to the sea. Our house is 40m above sea level so I'm quite smug, but the way Greenland and Antarctica is melting a lot of land is going to get flooded, bringing with it immigration on a completely different level.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
