| Solar panels 10:32 - Jul 2 with 10740 views | AguycalledJack |
I posted on the new site, but as that appears to be currently down, does anybody have them? Pros and cons? [Post edited 2 Jul 2020 10:33]
|  | | |  |
| Solar panels on 17:33 - Jul 4 with 1611 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 11:46 - Jul 4 by felixstowe_jack |
The taxation on oli used to generate electricity is 5% . In fact VAT is 5% on all electricity irrespective of how it is generated.
Off shore wind power and solar farm power no longer need any subsidies as they generate electricity at below average wholesale electricity costs. They only subsidies they get these days are when they are asked to stop generating electricity when it is too windy as it is cheaper than shutting down gas fired power stations and nuclear power stations for short periods of over supply. |
You do not appear to realise that Wind & Solar have preference unless they de-stabalise the grid.
Are you aware that due to the Carbon Tax of £18/Mwh Gas & Coal are deliberately made more expensive.
Which we all have to pay on our electricity bills on top of all the subsidies, which take offshore wind power up to £140-£150/Mwh for years to come.
Can you see much Oil generated Electricity on this chart?
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel
How much Solar is produced after 4pm in the winter when it is most needed and every night of the year? What do you think has to replace it? | | | |
| Solar panels on 17:37 - Jul 4 with 1609 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 16:10 - Jul 4 by Professor |
Worldwide -stop being so palpably dim
Anyway your learned organisations:
FEE- Right Wing libertarian think tank.
MISES.- right wing libertarian think tank. Funded by Ron Paul. Described as neo-confederate and a ‘voice for the south’.
Austrian School- an economic school of thought, not like LSE a school of economics. Holds a view of individualism is economics- libertarian and small state. Largely discredited as does not model or use mathematical-based analyses.
Load of right wing libertarian think tanks is not any sort of
Independent or balanced view is it? |
That is your defence for rejecting everything you don't like, it comes from the "wrong source" regardless of the topic.
OK. | | | |
| Solar panels on 17:48 - Jul 4 with 1597 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 17:17 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
How can I demonstrate that the concensus is not correct unless I quote non consensus sites even when they use official data.
You are asking for an impossibility like all warmers who only believe what they have been fed.
So there is no point in my answering any of your questions is there? |
It's only impossible because you can't find anything to suit your argument. You can't find it because it doesn't exist.
The non consensus sites put their own incorrect spin on the science as you have done in this thread or only use parts of the science to suit their argument. They don't mention other greenhouse gases because they are only interested in Co2, which is another reason why you can't find anything
For instance you quoted a paper in the last thread by a Russian scientist who also said something like "the greenhouse effect is indisputable" you are now saying he is wrong about that part.
I understand that you want to believe climate change is not anthropogenic, i would love that to be the case. Unfortunately it isn't.
Open your mind, look at ALL of the science and stop gullibly lapping up the nonsense spouted by the deniers. | | | |
| Solar panels on 19:33 - Jul 4 with 1565 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 17:37 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
That is your defence for rejecting everything you don't like, it comes from the "wrong source" regardless of the topic.
OK. |
No. You don’t get it. I would equally rubbish a ‘green’ think tank whose sources are not gathered with sufficient rigour. You cite opinion-based not evidence-based science. If you go into science trying to show something , you can find it if you ignore the rest. Sorting poor from rigorous science is a key part of research science. I’ve been doing it for nearly 30 years. Reviews, editorial work, grant panels, external examining. I can put anything on the internet. It may be true, but may equally be not. | | | |
| Solar panels on 11:22 - Jul 5 with 1488 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 21:59 - Jul 4 by Scotia |
It us blatantly obvious you haven't studied all the sources of the relevant science.
Ended up where you are? Where you are I'm surprised they let you have Internet access.
So the non-consensus sites don't have anything on any of the other greenhouse gases then? As I've said there is nothing to prove regarding co2 as far as the relevant science is concerned so let's park that for now.
Demonstrate that neither Methane, nitrous oxide nor ozone have any impact whatsoever on global warming and you could be on to something. |
In other words you are totally clueless about both the Science and problems with it.
If I hadn't studied the science at my level of understanding, I can't do Quantum Mechanics, but I understand enough of the physics principles to explain what the science is, which is blatantly obvious that neither you or Prof understand.
Because if did you would have used the Science to disprove my little alternative theory on what a greenhouse gas is the other day.
But all you can do is repeat that certain gases are GHGs, without even knowing how they work and what they are supposed to do, fall back appeals to authority and the consensus.
Well let me tell you a bit of what I know that you are probably totally oblivious to.
What the first law of Thermodynamic Physics is.
What a black body is.
What Absorptivity and Emmissivity are.
What Solar Radiation consists of, it's relative Energy Values, how they are derived and what they do in the atmosphere and the Oceans.
What the Planck Constant is, where it came from and how to use it.
What the mean free path of a LWIR photon is and it's implications.
Understand what the Adiabatic Lapse Rate is, but struggle with some of the molecular Maths.
Thermodynamic Radiation Transfer, it's Rules and it's equations and how to use them and have actually worked through them.
Conducted simple heat transfer experiments.
Examined Old hand written Temperature records and compared them to the current version of those records.
Examined old temperature Graphs and compared them to the current versions.
Examined the Peer reviewed (by other climate scientists) Menne paper on adjusting historic temperature values and it's outomes.
Examined the laughable peer reviewed paper adjusting the ARGO bouy dataset.
Examined the Swensmark paper on the theory of Cosmic radiation affecting Cloud formation, confirmed by CERN experiments.
Examined the way that the Global Temperature is "Estimated" or calculated, using anomalies, Krigging and spatial spreading.
Why would anyone combine the Surface Temperature of the Oceans with the Surface Temperature of the land I have no idea, as they are 2 completely different regimes.
Gone through many "predictions" made by so called Climate Scientists which have been completely wrong and clueless. One thing that a Scientific Theory is supposed to be able to do is make accurate predictions.
Examined Seal Level data.
Examined how Satellites measure Atmospheric Temperatures and sea levels.
Understand the Climate models and their differences and problems.
Read the hyped up IPCC Summaries and many of the actual reports, by the way they do not match, which is why some lead authors no longer submit their information.
Read peer reviewed papers that conflict with the CO2 is the control knob mantra, but no where near all of them.
Now you tell me what you have studied and understand about Climate change.
ps ask yourself this, if the Climate Change Theory is so rock solid why do it's proponents feel the need to adjust past land surface temperatures down, adjust Sea temperatures, Satellite temperatures, Sea level data, Ice mass. Declare every high temperature as showing the coming armegeddon but never mention all the many broken cold temperatures, the onset of late spring and the Increases in snow and frosts. | | | |
| Solar panels on 12:40 - Jul 5 with 1469 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 11:22 - Jul 5 by A_Fans_Dad |
In other words you are totally clueless about both the Science and problems with it.
If I hadn't studied the science at my level of understanding, I can't do Quantum Mechanics, but I understand enough of the physics principles to explain what the science is, which is blatantly obvious that neither you or Prof understand.
Because if did you would have used the Science to disprove my little alternative theory on what a greenhouse gas is the other day.
But all you can do is repeat that certain gases are GHGs, without even knowing how they work and what they are supposed to do, fall back appeals to authority and the consensus.
Well let me tell you a bit of what I know that you are probably totally oblivious to.
What the first law of Thermodynamic Physics is.
What a black body is.
What Absorptivity and Emmissivity are.
What Solar Radiation consists of, it's relative Energy Values, how they are derived and what they do in the atmosphere and the Oceans.
What the Planck Constant is, where it came from and how to use it.
What the mean free path of a LWIR photon is and it's implications.
Understand what the Adiabatic Lapse Rate is, but struggle with some of the molecular Maths.
Thermodynamic Radiation Transfer, it's Rules and it's equations and how to use them and have actually worked through them.
Conducted simple heat transfer experiments.
Examined Old hand written Temperature records and compared them to the current version of those records.
Examined old temperature Graphs and compared them to the current versions.
Examined the Peer reviewed (by other climate scientists) Menne paper on adjusting historic temperature values and it's outomes.
Examined the laughable peer reviewed paper adjusting the ARGO bouy dataset.
Examined the Swensmark paper on the theory of Cosmic radiation affecting Cloud formation, confirmed by CERN experiments.
Examined the way that the Global Temperature is "Estimated" or calculated, using anomalies, Krigging and spatial spreading.
Why would anyone combine the Surface Temperature of the Oceans with the Surface Temperature of the land I have no idea, as they are 2 completely different regimes.
Gone through many "predictions" made by so called Climate Scientists which have been completely wrong and clueless. One thing that a Scientific Theory is supposed to be able to do is make accurate predictions.
Examined Seal Level data.
Examined how Satellites measure Atmospheric Temperatures and sea levels.
Understand the Climate models and their differences and problems.
Read the hyped up IPCC Summaries and many of the actual reports, by the way they do not match, which is why some lead authors no longer submit their information.
Read peer reviewed papers that conflict with the CO2 is the control knob mantra, but no where near all of them.
Now you tell me what you have studied and understand about Climate change.
ps ask yourself this, if the Climate Change Theory is so rock solid why do it's proponents feel the need to adjust past land surface temperatures down, adjust Sea temperatures, Satellite temperatures, Sea level data, Ice mass. Declare every high temperature as showing the coming armegeddon but never mention all the many broken cold temperatures, the onset of late spring and the Increases in snow and frosts. |
So you can't demonstrate what I asked then?
And I'm going to hazard a guess that your level of scientific study extends to the Internet. I bet you don't have a single scientific qualification. You want to believe and can't see the wood for the trees.
Also just to add this link:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302594541_Refocusing_on_the_dynamics_of
Quote from the conclusion "we do not question the existence of the greenhouse effect"
Guess where I got this from? [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 13:28]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Solar panels on 14:06 - Jul 5 with 1444 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 12:40 - Jul 5 by Scotia |
So you can't demonstrate what I asked then?
And I'm going to hazard a guess that your level of scientific study extends to the Internet. I bet you don't have a single scientific qualification. You want to believe and can't see the wood for the trees.
Also just to add this link:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302594541_Refocusing_on_the_dynamics_of
Quote from the conclusion "we do not question the existence of the greenhouse effect"
Guess where I got this from? [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 13:28]
|
You have no answers to any questions at all.
Bye. | | | |
| Solar panels on 10:00 - Jul 6 with 1379 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Solar panels on 17:33 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
You do not appear to realise that Wind & Solar have preference unless they de-stabalise the grid.
Are you aware that due to the Carbon Tax of £18/Mwh Gas & Coal are deliberately made more expensive.
Which we all have to pay on our electricity bills on top of all the subsidies, which take offshore wind power up to £140-£150/Mwh for years to come.
Can you see much Oil generated Electricity on this chart?
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel
How much Solar is produced after 4pm in the winter when it is most needed and every night of the year? What do you think has to replace it? |
The night load is easily taken care of by nuclear. During the day surplus power is used to pump water into the pump storage hydro electric power stations. There are several in the UK mainly in Scotland and Wales. This water is then released during periods of high demand.
That is why we have gone large periods of the year without any coal power stations online. | |
| |
| Solar panels on 12:31 - Jul 6 with 1358 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 10:00 - Jul 6 by felixstowe_jack |
The night load is easily taken care of by nuclear. During the day surplus power is used to pump water into the pump storage hydro electric power stations. There are several in the UK mainly in Scotland and Wales. This water is then released during periods of high demand.
That is why we have gone large periods of the year without any coal power stations online. |
So, you are not interested in how muchextra it is costing us.
Instead you focus on the problems with Night time and you think it can be covered by Nuclear, which it can't because the night time load is 20GW and Nuclear's 5GW is used for Baseload.
You also think that in the winter when there is virtually no Solar and there can be a week without wind Pumped storage can cover it.
Sorry mate, the 2.8GW of pumped storage can supply generation for about half a day, it's actual design use was to top up in Peak periods, not cover for lack of generation.
There is about 21GW of Wind power in the UK, but on average it only produces about 30% of that, at the moment it is producing just under 10GW. But for quite long periods, particularly when there is a stationary high over the UK we can go days with almost no wind generation at all,
In fact in still conditions Wind Turbines draw power from the Grid to keep them rotating to prevent damage (brinelling) to their bearings.
If you want to see how well Wind & Solar are performing at any time you can use Gridwatch here
http://gridwatch.org.uk/
As well as showing current, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly Demand and Supply data, you can also download the historical data in 5 minute periods from the site for analysis.
I last downloaded it in March.
But you can easily see for yourself that in June between the 14th and 18th there was virtually zero wind generation, you can also how variable it is, this week it has gone from 12GW down to 2 GW and back up to 10GW.
You will also see that the maximum Nuclear generation is 8GW but has been 5GW for many months, which is Baseload Electricity.
You can also see how variable Solar is peaking on average at 4GW daily, which again has to be followed by Gas generators.
What you have to remember is that as well as the very high Customer costs of Wind & Solar when they are working well the other producers cannot just switch off their generators, they have to be ready to supply any shortfall at a moments notice. Which means that they have to keep everyone working and their equipment spinning to supply "Spinning Reserves", which adds a lot of costs to them unless they have been given a spinning reserve contract. Those costs are on top of the £18/MW Carbon Tax.
It also makes their generators less efficient and "ramping" up and down causes more wear.
Are you getting an idea that maybe you are being fed a load of bullshit about the green dream yet? | | | |
| Solar panels on 13:23 - Jul 6 with 1345 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Solar panels on 12:31 - Jul 6 by A_Fans_Dad |
So, you are not interested in how muchextra it is costing us.
Instead you focus on the problems with Night time and you think it can be covered by Nuclear, which it can't because the night time load is 20GW and Nuclear's 5GW is used for Baseload.
You also think that in the winter when there is virtually no Solar and there can be a week without wind Pumped storage can cover it.
Sorry mate, the 2.8GW of pumped storage can supply generation for about half a day, it's actual design use was to top up in Peak periods, not cover for lack of generation.
There is about 21GW of Wind power in the UK, but on average it only produces about 30% of that, at the moment it is producing just under 10GW. But for quite long periods, particularly when there is a stationary high over the UK we can go days with almost no wind generation at all,
In fact in still conditions Wind Turbines draw power from the Grid to keep them rotating to prevent damage (brinelling) to their bearings.
If you want to see how well Wind & Solar are performing at any time you can use Gridwatch here
http://gridwatch.org.uk/
As well as showing current, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly Demand and Supply data, you can also download the historical data in 5 minute periods from the site for analysis.
I last downloaded it in March.
But you can easily see for yourself that in June between the 14th and 18th there was virtually zero wind generation, you can also how variable it is, this week it has gone from 12GW down to 2 GW and back up to 10GW.
You will also see that the maximum Nuclear generation is 8GW but has been 5GW for many months, which is Baseload Electricity.
You can also see how variable Solar is peaking on average at 4GW daily, which again has to be followed by Gas generators.
What you have to remember is that as well as the very high Customer costs of Wind & Solar when they are working well the other producers cannot just switch off their generators, they have to be ready to supply any shortfall at a moments notice. Which means that they have to keep everyone working and their equipment spinning to supply "Spinning Reserves", which adds a lot of costs to them unless they have been given a spinning reserve contract. Those costs are on top of the £18/MW Carbon Tax.
It also makes their generators less efficient and "ramping" up and down causes more wear.
Are you getting an idea that maybe you are being fed a load of bullshit about the green dream yet? |
Only 5% of the UK power comes from coal we can easily do without it with better storage of surplus renewable power (batteries) . Our wind and solar generating are continuing to increase particularly off shore and the wind never completely stops especially at sea. | |
| |
| Solar panels on 14:13 - Jul 6 with 1338 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 13:23 - Jul 6 by felixstowe_jack |
Only 5% of the UK power comes from coal we can easily do without it with better storage of surplus renewable power (batteries) . Our wind and solar generating are continuing to increase particularly off shore and the wind never completely stops especially at sea. |
I've given up FJ. He knows all. | | | |
| Solar panels on 14:22 - Jul 6 with 1329 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 13:23 - Jul 6 by felixstowe_jack |
Only 5% of the UK power comes from coal we can easily do without it with better storage of surplus renewable power (batteries) . Our wind and solar generating are continuing to increase particularly off shore and the wind never completely stops especially at sea. |
This is one of the current projects by team are working on (not for) :-
https://simplyblueenergy.com/erebus/
And this is one I've had previous involvement with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49761074
Basically the technologies complement each other - the power station fires up when renewables don't generate enough for demand.
All technology is more expensive and less efficient when it is an early stage of development - renewables, storage and peaking plants have made huge advances over the last 10 years. | | | |
| Solar panels on 17:24 - Jul 6 with 1315 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Solar panels on 14:22 - Jul 6 by Scotia |
This is one of the current projects by team are working on (not for) :-
https://simplyblueenergy.com/erebus/
And this is one I've had previous involvement with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49761074
Basically the technologies complement each other - the power station fires up when renewables don't generate enough for demand.
All technology is more expensive and less efficient when it is an early stage of development - renewables, storage and peaking plants have made huge advances over the last 10 years. |
Incinerating ourvaste instead of dumping in it landfill to slowly decompose and give off harmful gas, would also be better and cleaner than burning coal. | |
| |
| Solar panels on 18:23 - Jul 6 with 1307 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 13:23 - Jul 6 by felixstowe_jack |
Only 5% of the UK power comes from coal we can easily do without it with better storage of surplus renewable power (batteries) . Our wind and solar generating are continuing to increase particularly off shore and the wind never completely stops especially at sea. |
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I can tell that you are brainwashed, but when presented with facts & reality I expected you to at least acknowledge the data even if you don't believe it.
I will try one more time.
The UK has 23.3GW of name plate capacity wind power costing 35 billion pounds.
13.4GW of Onshore and 9.7GW of offshore.
This month 2 consecutive days were below 1.5GW, that is around 4% of nameplate, the maximum amount the Grid used was on 9th of March and was 12.9GW just over 50% of nameplate.
The average production for this year to date is 5.5GW, 25% of nameplate.
So this month for 48 hours we had a 4GW shortage from "average" wind power.
When you talk about (batteries) I assume that you mean something like the Tesla "Big Battery" Battery Farm sold to the Australians for $200M or about £140M.
It can store 100MW hours of electricity (enough for 140,000 houses fo 8 hours).
A 2 day shortfall is 48 hours at 4GW is 192GW hours = 192,000MW hours = 1920 Batteries.
Batteries would never cope with the variability of wind.
That is just to cover the shortfall from average and does not include the other possible 7GW of wind orSolar.
So we would need twice as many batteries for the 4 days in June I mentioned before.
Of course once they are depleted they need recharging and it is very unlikely that there will be any spare wind or solar capacity to do so during a high pressure period.
Good news for you though, the cheapest source of energy whose generators have paid for themselves many times over, as coal is no longer used, it will be replaced by wind power at about 3 times the cost. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 18:32]
| | | |
| Solar panels on 18:44 - Jul 6 with 1296 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 17:24 - Jul 6 by felixstowe_jack |
Incinerating ourvaste instead of dumping in it landfill to slowly decompose and give off harmful gas, would also be better and cleaner than burning coal. |
Something that we agree on, assuming you mean our waste, with the correct controls.
But even better is turn Plastic back to oil, a self sustaining process once given the energy to start.
Even burning it with the correct controls would be better than allowing it to be dumped.
But apart from the devil molecule CO2, modern coal fired power stations are very clean.
Japan will be building 22 new ones over the next 5 years, to replace the old less efficient ones they are closing. | | | |
| Solar panels on 08:35 - Jul 7 with 1262 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Solar panels on 18:44 - Jul 6 by A_Fans_Dad |
Something that we agree on, assuming you mean our waste, with the correct controls.
But even better is turn Plastic back to oil, a self sustaining process once given the energy to start.
Even burning it with the correct controls would be better than allowing it to be dumped.
But apart from the devil molecule CO2, modern coal fired power stations are very clean.
Japan will be building 22 new ones over the next 5 years, to replace the old less efficient ones they are closing. |
Good to see the Royal Mail is trialling EV in urban areas. | |
| |
| Solar panels on 11:16 - Jul 8 with 1201 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 14:22 - Jul 6 by Scotia |
This is one of the current projects by team are working on (not for) :-
https://simplyblueenergy.com/erebus/
And this is one I've had previous involvement with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49761074
Basically the technologies complement each other - the power station fires up when renewables don't generate enough for demand.
All technology is more expensive and less efficient when it is an early stage of development - renewables, storage and peaking plants have made huge advances over the last 10 years. |
I notice that there are no costs divulged for either project in those links.
Are you allowed to tell us what they cost?
Also the peaker plant is supposed to run for the equivelent of just 2 months a year, not much return for it's investment.
Of course it wouldn't be needed at all if it wasn't for the variability of renewable energy.
Unless it replaced an old less efficient Gas turbine of course, or maybe they could use it to charge up some EVs. | | | |
| Solar panels on 11:21 - Jul 8 with 1199 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 08:35 - Jul 7 by felixstowe_jack |
Good to see the Royal Mail is trialling EV in urban areas. |
Yes wonderful.
The benefit to them of course is subsidised purchase, no Vehicle Tax, no congestion charges and no Fuel Tax either.
They can't lose can they? | | | |
| Solar panels on 13:41 - Jul 8 with 1186 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 11:16 - Jul 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
I notice that there are no costs divulged for either project in those links.
Are you allowed to tell us what they cost?
Also the peaker plant is supposed to run for the equivelent of just 2 months a year, not much return for it's investment.
Of course it wouldn't be needed at all if it wasn't for the variability of renewable energy.
Unless it replaced an old less efficient Gas turbine of course, or maybe they could use it to charge up some EVs. |
I have no idea. Both are privately funded - project Erebus is 80% funded by one of the biggest oil companies in the world.
It is worth noting that development hasn't started yet on the Abergelli peaker plant although they probably have about 4 years to do so before consesnt expires in the same way as the tidal lagoon. Not too long before consent ws granted the project was nearly mothballed as there didn't appear to be a demand. | | | |
| Solar panels on 14:25 - Jul 8 with 1169 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Solar panels on 11:21 - Jul 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes wonderful.
The benefit to them of course is subsidised purchase, no Vehicle Tax, no congestion charges and no Fuel Tax either.
They can't lose can they? |
Not quite they will pay 5% VAT on any electicity used but I agree it will be good for the climate. | |
| |
| Solar panels on 16:37 - Jul 8 with 1148 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 14:25 - Jul 8 by felixstowe_jack |
Not quite they will pay 5% VAT on any electicity used but I agree it will be good for the climate. |
5% VAT on electricity is not Fuel tax, Petrol & Diesel Fuel Duty is 57.95p/l and is added on before VAT at 20%.
So for every EV car the Government loses 57.95p + 19p = 76.95p per litre. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
