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 12:48 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge
Given oil and gas is due to run out in pretty short order and how, for example, the strike price of offshore wind is half the price of new nuclear, I can't begin to fathom why there isn't more focus on these technologies, let alone new ones. Given the lack of any real industry in this country any more, you'd think we'd also take the opportunity of historic low interest rates and our geographical benefits to create some new green industries such as tidal power which we could then sell the technologies around the world, what with it being a global issue.
The economics of renewables are a problem if you care about money. That is a human problem, we should care more about people and the world we live on than we do money.
Oops, I'm letting my quasi Communist mask slip again, or is it a Socialist mask?
You're assuming I read all the posts in this thread. That's silly.
Those links you provided are a bit silly. Imagine energy providers needing to be maintained and decommissioned. That's hardly something unique to renewables. Proof of concepts are inherently more expensive than existing technologies until economies of scale, technological improvements make them otherwise. There was a time when offshore wind was more expensive than nuclear, now it's half. The strike price for Swansea Bay will be higher than some other existing technologies, but then the next scheme will be less, especially for bigger schemes.
Oil and gas will run out in 50 years based on existing use. Coal is longer, but why on earth we'd want to use it is beyond me, a very dirty fuel. Why on earth you'd want to use a source to extinction is beyond me anyway.
I always found it strange why people dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change and how urgent action needs to be taken, until it struck me how people generally don't like change, certainly the level of change that needs to be implemented to meet the challenges we face. A shame really. You can't just compare like with like on a short-term economic basis, it ignores the costs we're storing up for the future.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:15 - Dec 16 by Ebo
More random tinfoil hat Blogs.
Why do you continue to insult the Scientists and Engineers that run the blogs that you call "tin foil hat"? These guys have Phds and Masters Degrees. Euan Mearns has a Bsc in Geology and a Degree in Crustal Evolution in Western Norway. The guy is extremely intelligent and all you can do is abuse him. The other guy on that blog who died of cancer last year is Roger Andrews who had a Bsc in Geology and an Msc in Applied Geophysics and all you can do is abuse him as well.
It is about time you grew up and also smelt the coffee.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2019 14:34]
-1
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:33 - Dec 16 with 1806 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:28 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge
You're assuming I read all the posts in this thread. That's silly.
Those links you provided are a bit silly. Imagine energy providers needing to be maintained and decommissioned. That's hardly something unique to renewables. Proof of concepts are inherently more expensive than existing technologies until economies of scale, technological improvements make them otherwise. There was a time when offshore wind was more expensive than nuclear, now it's half. The strike price for Swansea Bay will be higher than some other existing technologies, but then the next scheme will be less, especially for bigger schemes.
Oil and gas will run out in 50 years based on existing use. Coal is longer, but why on earth we'd want to use it is beyond me, a very dirty fuel. Why on earth you'd want to use a source to extinction is beyond me anyway.
I always found it strange why people dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change and how urgent action needs to be taken, until it struck me how people generally don't like change, certainly the level of change that needs to be implemented to meet the challenges we face. A shame really. You can't just compare like with like on a short-term economic basis, it ignores the costs we're storing up for the future.
The 50 years of Oil is only the "proven reserves", not the total reserves. Gas reserves actually increased in 2108 "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 201931World proved gas reserves in 2018 increased by 0.7 Tcm to 196.9 Tcm", so the world continues to find new sources of fossil fuels. When those fuels start getting expensive to find and obtain Methane Hydrates will take over. You seem under the impression that I want to waste oil & gas, which is not correct. I want the Industrialised world to move to MSRs and SMRs for Electricity generation leaving Coal & Gas for the developing countries. I do not want them lumbered with unreliable intermittent Renewables. Why would you want to waste massive amounts of money on Renewables, especially Tidal which could be used to fight real pollution problems or finance the NHS or other infrasturcture? Let me remind you £1.3Billion to produce a maximum of 320Mw four times a day. Which will still need baseload backup for when it is not producing.
You also stated that Coal is dirty, I don't know whether you mean it is dirty to handle or dirty to burn. Nodern coal fired plants are in no way dirty, unless of course you think that steam and life giving CO2 id dirty.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:42 - Dec 16 with 1797 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:54 - Dec 16 by A_Fans_Dad
Why do you continue to insult the Scientists and Engineers that run the blogs that you call "tin foil hat"? These guys have Phds and Masters Degrees. Euan Mearns has a Bsc in Geology and a Degree in Crustal Evolution in Western Norway. The guy is extremely intelligent and all you can do is abuse him. The other guy on that blog who died of cancer last year is Roger Andrews who had a Bsc in Geology and an Msc in Applied Geophysics and all you can do is abuse him as well.
It is about time you grew up and also smelt the coffee.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2019 14:34]
Because half of these are absolute crackpots, random people on the web. You will believe anything on the internet.
You are a climate change denier, file in the same category as flat earthers and hard brexiteers.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:28 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge
You're assuming I read all the posts in this thread. That's silly.
Those links you provided are a bit silly. Imagine energy providers needing to be maintained and decommissioned. That's hardly something unique to renewables. Proof of concepts are inherently more expensive than existing technologies until economies of scale, technological improvements make them otherwise. There was a time when offshore wind was more expensive than nuclear, now it's half. The strike price for Swansea Bay will be higher than some other existing technologies, but then the next scheme will be less, especially for bigger schemes.
Oil and gas will run out in 50 years based on existing use. Coal is longer, but why on earth we'd want to use it is beyond me, a very dirty fuel. Why on earth you'd want to use a source to extinction is beyond me anyway.
I always found it strange why people dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change and how urgent action needs to be taken, until it struck me how people generally don't like change, certainly the level of change that needs to be implemented to meet the challenges we face. A shame really. You can't just compare like with like on a short-term economic basis, it ignores the costs we're storing up for the future.
"I always found it strange why people dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change and how urgent action needs to be taken"
The problem is that concensus is in itself unscientific, there have been many things in science and medicine which held a consensus for many years which were proved wrong.
Scepticism is the very basis of Science, CO2 climate science is not even a theory, only a hypothesis as it cannot in any way explain the beginning and ending of Ice Ages. Ice Core evidence says that CO2 increases follow Temperature increases, not the other way around.
So I put it back to you, I do not understand why people believe in the Climate concensus when there is so much evidence that it is wrong.
-1
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:54 - Dec 16 with 1789 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:54 - Dec 16 by A_Fans_Dad
Why do you continue to insult the Scientists and Engineers that run the blogs that you call "tin foil hat"? These guys have Phds and Masters Degrees. Euan Mearns has a Bsc in Geology and a Degree in Crustal Evolution in Western Norway. The guy is extremely intelligent and all you can do is abuse him. The other guy on that blog who died of cancer last year is Roger Andrews who had a Bsc in Geology and an Msc in Applied Geophysics and all you can do is abuse him as well.
It is about time you grew up and also smelt the coffee.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2019 14:34]
Plenty of emminent scientists have been wrong. It has also been known for scientists to act out of pure self interest, to ensure their funding continues for example.
If you're going to believe something somebody says purely because they have a PhD be prepared to be let down,
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:46 - Dec 16 by A_Fans_Dad
"I always found it strange why people dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change and how urgent action needs to be taken"
The problem is that concensus is in itself unscientific, there have been many things in science and medicine which held a consensus for many years which were proved wrong.
Scepticism is the very basis of Science, CO2 climate science is not even a theory, only a hypothesis as it cannot in any way explain the beginning and ending of Ice Ages. Ice Core evidence says that CO2 increases follow Temperature increases, not the other way around.
So I put it back to you, I do not understand why people believe in the Climate concensus when there is so much evidence that it is wrong.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:54 - Dec 16 by Catullus
Plenty of emminent scientists have been wrong. It has also been known for scientists to act out of pure self interest, to ensure their funding continues for example.
If you're going to believe something somebody says purely because they have a PhD be prepared to be let down,
I agree with you about not believing people just because they have a PhD. But I do believe them when the Data proves them right. Which is why I do not believe the Climate Scientists, because the data shows they are wrong. Especially when they lie and then change the data to suit their story.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2019 15:22]
-1
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 15:18 - Dec 16 with 1768 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:54 - Dec 16 by Catullus
Plenty of emminent scientists have been wrong. It has also been known for scientists to act out of pure self interest, to ensure their funding continues for example.
If you're going to believe something somebody says purely because they have a PhD be prepared to be let down,
Of course. Science is a method, no more, no less. As we develop understanding and improved techniques theories change. Just because people come up with theories to explain evidence, doesn't mean that the thing it 100% 'true' or 'proven'.
What science does do, if done correctly, is provide a framework that gives confidence in assessments of the evidence that is available.
Anyway, that's an aside as to why I popped on this thread again. This programme that's on tonight at 8 pm on Radio 4 may be of interest to some:
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:54 - Dec 16 by A_Fans_Dad
Why do you continue to insult the Scientists and Engineers that run the blogs that you call "tin foil hat"? These guys have Phds and Masters Degrees. Euan Mearns has a Bsc in Geology and a Degree in Crustal Evolution in Western Norway. The guy is extremely intelligent and all you can do is abuse him. The other guy on that blog who died of cancer last year is Roger Andrews who had a Bsc in Geology and an Msc in Applied Geophysics and all you can do is abuse him as well.
It is about time you grew up and also smelt the coffee.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2019 14:34]
I have no desire to get involved in this debate.
Especially with people who think having an MSc is highly qualified I've got two, Environment Management and Urban Planning. My BSc is in Geology.
You are treating as proven science something that someone no more qualified than a below average Planet Swans poster has put on the Internet.
1
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 17:05 - Dec 17 with 1641 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:51 - Dec 17 by Scotia
I have no desire to get involved in this debate.
Especially with people who think having an MSc is highly qualified I've got two, Environment Management and Urban Planning. My BSc is in Geology.
You are treating as proven science something that someone no more qualified than a below average Planet Swans poster has put on the Internet.
Wow, I had no idea that there were so many geniuses on here. There must be if a poster with 2 MScs and a BSc is "below average", or do you mean that you don't post very much?
"I have no desire to get involved in this debate. " and yet you have.
Sorry but the analysis of how how tidal energy works has nothing to do with "proven science" it is purely calculations, for which both of those gentlemen made a living from. If you have proof that their calculations are wrong then please provide it.
With a BSc in Geology I am surpried that you believe in the hype of CAGW as you know the history of the earth far better than most.
-1
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:02 - Dec 17 with 1617 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 17:05 - Dec 17 by A_Fans_Dad
Wow, I had no idea that there were so many geniuses on here. There must be if a poster with 2 MScs and a BSc is "below average", or do you mean that you don't post very much?
"I have no desire to get involved in this debate. " and yet you have.
Sorry but the analysis of how how tidal energy works has nothing to do with "proven science" it is purely calculations, for which both of those gentlemen made a living from. If you have proof that their calculations are wrong then please provide it.
With a BSc in Geology I am surpried that you believe in the hype of CAGW as you know the history of the earth far better than most.
I meant in terms of post numbers.
I have worked pretty extensively on tidal power, theoretically it could work, but it needs someone to find a way to harness it and not some nonsensical scheme like the lagoon.
I know enough about the earth's climatic history to understand that most warming events correspond to periods of increased Co2 and other gases. Although there are other reasons for climate changes throughout history too.
Human activity, especially from China, India and the States is chucking increasing amounts of Co2 in to the atmosphere. Without considering other warming gases such as methane.
I'm not about to jump on a boat with Greta or camp in Trafalgar Square but I think it would be a good idea to try and reduce emissions, what's the worst that could happen?
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:15 - Dec 17 with 1604 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 12:30 - Dec 16 by A_Fans_Dad
Are you 2 volounteering to lead the way? Do you actually think that every species of plant and animal life does not put themselves first. Do you think they say to themselves "oh we won't breed this year as it might encroach on something else's territory"? It has always been the survival of the fastest breeding, stongest, fittest, most devious, poisonous or intelligent. Every one of them would take over the world if they could, but we did for now.
Not doubting any of that but if the human race died out tomorrow the planet would fully repair itself in a few years.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:02 - Dec 17 by Scotia
I meant in terms of post numbers.
I have worked pretty extensively on tidal power, theoretically it could work, but it needs someone to find a way to harness it and not some nonsensical scheme like the lagoon.
I know enough about the earth's climatic history to understand that most warming events correspond to periods of increased Co2 and other gases. Although there are other reasons for climate changes throughout history too.
Human activity, especially from China, India and the States is chucking increasing amounts of Co2 in to the atmosphere. Without considering other warming gases such as methane.
I'm not about to jump on a boat with Greta or camp in Trafalgar Square but I think it would be a good idea to try and reduce emissions, what's the worst that could happen?
"what's the worst that could happen?"
Well after replacing the majority of baseload generation with intermittent renewables as suggested by most people, what would happen if we continue in to a Maunder Minimum and a small or full ice age. Solar Cycle 24 has just broken the space age era record for the lowest count of sunspots in a year, it has just hit 270 days without sunspots. Scientists are now predicting that Cycle 25 may go even lower. Solar TSI has dropped, the Solar wind has dropped, cosmic rays are increasing and the outer atmosphere has contracted. The world would be poorly prepared for the return of colder conditions with it's violent weather and shorter growing seasons.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 09:14 - Dec 18 with 1525 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 19:46 - Dec 17 by A_Fans_Dad
"what's the worst that could happen?"
Well after replacing the majority of baseload generation with intermittent renewables as suggested by most people, what would happen if we continue in to a Maunder Minimum and a small or full ice age. Solar Cycle 24 has just broken the space age era record for the lowest count of sunspots in a year, it has just hit 270 days without sunspots. Scientists are now predicting that Cycle 25 may go even lower. Solar TSI has dropped, the Solar wind has dropped, cosmic rays are increasing and the outer atmosphere has contracted. The world would be poorly prepared for the return of colder conditions with it's violent weather and shorter growing seasons.
I wouldn't worry about that too much there are a number of plans for quick fire peaking power plants to kick in when renewable sources drop out. Such as the one that'll be built in Llangyfelach. They are very efficient, clean and can be fired up in minutes.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:54 - Dec 18 with 1500 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 09:14 - Dec 18 by Scotia
I wouldn't worry about that too much there are a number of plans for quick fire peaking power plants to kick in when renewable sources drop out. Such as the one that'll be built in Llangyfelach. They are very efficient, clean and can be fired up in minutes.
But aren't we supposed to replace all the FF and rely on renewables? Have you read the plan for carbon neutrality
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 13:59 - Dec 18 with 1494 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 17:05 - Dec 14 by A_Fans_Dad
"A fans dad - does the rate of change mean anything to you" Let me think about that a minute. No. There are a few reasons why I am not concerned, first of all the current rate of change (roc) is approximately 1C over a Century, which is nothing new in the last 2000 years. The major increase in our current temperatures is in the overnight low and winter low temperatures, ie it is reducing the rocs. The diurnal roc is generally 5-10C in 12 hours, but can be 40C in dry deserts. The annual roc is generally also about 30-40C. So if animals can accomodate those sort of changes why would they be troubled by 1C over 100 years which they have already experienced in the last 2000 years? 1C change in temperature represents the difference between living in South Wales to living in Mid Wales ie about 25 miles south. Therefore if animals were living in an area the was at their extreme tolerance range they would only need to migrate 25 miles over 100 years. Next we come on to CO2 increases, assuming that CO2 works as advertised by the climate scientists it's "sensitivity" to doubling is Logorithmic and it is already in the logorithmic section that is heading towards a horizontal line, ie no increase from doubling. For most animals and especially humans warmer is better, there are 20 times more human deaths from cold than ther are from heat. For plants higher CO2 is better, optimum is at least 1200ppm.
We also have the fact that of the 1C increase over the last 100 years 0.5C of it is from Adjustments made to the historical data based on Time of Observation TOBs adjustments, which only leaves 0.5C. Some of that 0.5C must be natural warming. Last but not least we have the Urban Heat Island affect, where the temperature equipment is located in cities and at airports.
A 1 deg C rise in global temperature is not a 1 degree C rise to everywhere equally around the globe.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:24 - Dec 18 with 1479 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 14:19 - Dec 18 by Batterseajack
A 1 deg C rise in global temperature is not a 1 degree C rise to everywhere equally around the globe.
I know that, the Tropics temperature is controlled by the Oceans evaporation, so warms less than the northen hemisphere. But most of the warming is in the minimum temperatures, which means less swing overnight and from summer to winter.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
