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.
Then with your experience you should never have made such a stupid mistake. I am was an Engineer in the Motor Industry with a great interest in anything scientific. Since I retired I have spent my time investigating modern technology, climate change and energy development.
With your recent experience I am shocked that you still think Renewables + Backup is a good idea. I totally despair that economics has left the energy industry. You of all people should know about Grid stability, spinning reserves, system inertia, frequency control and reactive power.
So explain to me how the battery storage units are doing in terms of capacity to back up a single off shore wind farm.
The Director the National Grid can say what he likes, but he cannot overcome physics and does not talk about the cost of "zero-carbon".
ps Not this National Grid from 10 days ago and it isn't even winter yet.
We’re forecasting tight margins on the #electricity system over the next few days owing to a number of factors including weather, import and export levels and availability of generators over periods of the day with higher demand [1/3] pic.twitter.com/ttVQ3hWsPT
Because people should never make mistakes? Tell us AFD, have you never made a mistake?
Your stance is largely because you don't believe we are destroying the planet. Luckily for you, and probably me, we won't be around to see it but my 12 year old son will.
Because people should never make mistakes? Tell us AFD, have you never made a mistake?
Your stance is largely because you don't believe we are destroying the planet. Luckily for you, and probably me, we won't be around to see it but my 12 year old son will.
I make mistakes alll the time, but I don't expect a professional to make that kind of mistake about his profession. What is being proposed as far as carbon zero is concerned will not make the slightest difference to the world. Any minor changes over 50 or a 100 years is a case for adaptation as we have been doing since we left the trees.
How long does it take to pay back £8000 at a saving of 8p per Kw?
It is not a saving of 8p it is a saving of 16p . The average family uses 4000kw a year which at 16p per kw is £640 per year. This equates to 12.5 years payback.
For another £300 per year you can get a device to use any surplus energy to heat your immersion heater saving £100 per year if you currently use gas to heat your water. The same device will also power an Electric bar heater saving another £100 per year. This will reduce the payback to 10 years.
I make mistakes alll the time, but I don't expect a professional to make that kind of mistake about his profession. What is being proposed as far as carbon zero is concerned will not make the slightest difference to the world. Any minor changes over 50 or a 100 years is a case for adaptation as we have been doing since we left the trees.
[Post edited 26 Oct 2020 10:57]
I'm out , you seem to be a very angry sad individual . Regardless of the topic its your way or nothing , try taking some pills ,they may help .
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
It is not a saving of 8p it is a saving of 16p . The average family uses 4000kw a year which at 16p per kw is £640 per year. This equates to 12.5 years payback.
For another £300 per year you can get a device to use any surplus energy to heat your immersion heater saving £100 per year if you currently use gas to heat your water. The same device will also power an Electric bar heater saving another £100 per year. This will reduce the payback to 10 years.
Sorry, I read this "This equates to a generation cost of 8p per kilowatt as opposed to the 16p most electricity companies charge. " As meaning that the generation cost of 8p was instead of 16p thus 16p - 8p = 8p saving. My bad.
No, I don't want to make electricity more expensive and we don't need to put solar farms on green land. We have thousands of acres of rooftops to use.
I also believe all energy should be nationalised and not for profit wich would wipe out the expensive subsidy driven market. Dwr Cymru is not for profit, why can't all our utilities be the same? Or if they are nationalised any profit can be used for infrastructure funding.
Do you support wind farms which are also expensive and even more intermittent? Until we have sufficient technical knowhow green energy will always need full back up but as knowledge grows the reliability improves.
So not prepared to answer questions about how good Wind Turbines plus battery back up are then.
By the way I am not even the least bit "angry", just committed to exposing the green myths and climate change catastrophic forecasts.
I tell what I'm not prepared to do is have you make snidely accusations towards me . Crack on sunshine you're running figuratively speaking into a head wind of which you have no control, regardless of your bluster . Renewables are here to stay.
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
Sorry, I have learnt nothing from you, other than you use typical attack the source and not the data tactics.
Well it is a shame if you haven't. You keep on believing sources like an accountant who interprets meteorological data wrongly without even realising he has done so and then publishes it in blogs for you to post on here if you want.
I don't think you've ever posted anything where there isn't a massive flaw in either the source, the data or your interpretation of it.
Anyway you keep trawling right wing forums, posting links on here and I'll correct them when I get chance.
Well it is a shame if you haven't. You keep on believing sources like an accountant who interprets meteorological data wrongly without even realising he has done so and then publishes it in blogs for you to post on here if you want.
I don't think you've ever posted anything where there isn't a massive flaw in either the source, the data or your interpretation of it.
Anyway you keep trawling right wing forums, posting links on here and I'll correct them when I get chance.
I will look forward to it, why not start with this post then?
I make mistakes alll the time, but I don't expect a professional to make that kind of mistake about his profession. What is being proposed as far as carbon zero is concerned will not make the slightest difference to the world. Any minor changes over 50 or a 100 years is a case for adaptation as we have been doing since we left the trees.
[Post edited 26 Oct 2020 10:57]
We never lived in trees.
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 is for Cat, Boundy and Scotia. You do not believe me about the impracticalities of reaching Net Zero or Zero carbon, whatever you want to call it. Perhaps you will believe the BBC and Roger Harribin.
It reads just like Extreme Rebellion and st Greta's latest crap about changing your lives forever. I hope you enjoy it when they force it upon you, I won't be around to worry about it.
This is for Cat, Boundy and Scotia. You do not believe me about the impracticalities of reaching Net Zero or Zero carbon, whatever you want to call it. Perhaps you will believe the BBC and Roger Harribin.
It reads just like Extreme Rebellion and st Greta's latest crap about changing your lives forever. I hope you enjoy it when they force it upon you, I won't be around to worry about it.
Maybe I'm mistaken but didn't you yourself say we couldn't trust the BBC? If I'm right, not much later you were claiming the Express was a reliable source.
Thing is, you should know this, if a source is widely considered dodgy then the data is hardly worth looking at.
If I confuse you with another poster I apologise.
As for impracticalities, what is practical in ruining the only home we have? Maybe we need to stop trying to save the planet and start building a spaceship like the one in this,
Maybe I'm mistaken but didn't you yourself say we couldn't trust the BBC? If I'm right, not much later you were claiming the Express was a reliable source.
Thing is, you should know this, if a source is widely considered dodgy then the data is hardly worth looking at.
If I confuse you with another poster I apologise.
As for impracticalities, what is practical in ruining the only home we have? Maybe we need to stop trying to save the planet and start building a spaceship like the one in this,
Then we can find a new home.
So, you don't want to believe even the BBC then. OK.
Quote "Thus, higher temperatures than currently existing on Earthseem to be more favorable. The caveat is that the necessary moisture has to be available as well because inland desertswith low biomass and biodiversity are also common on ourplanet. One example is the early Carboniferous period, which was warmer and wetter (Raymond, 1985; Bardossy, 1994) on our planet than today, with so much biomass produced that we still harvest the organic deposits in the form of coal, oil,and natural gas from it. Thus, a slightly higher temperature, perhaps by 5°C–similar to that of the early Carboniferoustime period–would provide more habitable conditions untilsome optimum is reached."
This is for Cat, Boundy and Scotia. You do not believe me about the impracticalities of reaching Net Zero or Zero carbon, whatever you want to call it. Perhaps you will believe the BBC and Roger Harribin.
It reads just like Extreme Rebellion and st Greta's latest crap about changing your lives forever. I hope you enjoy it when they force it upon you, I won't be around to worry about it.
There are far too many of us on the planet to reach a carbon neutral state. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be absolutely trying to minimise our emissions to reduce the effects.
Overpopulation is the issue that underpins all negative impacts on the planet.
Quote "Thus, higher temperatures than currently existing on Earthseem to be more favorable. The caveat is that the necessary moisture has to be available as well because inland desertswith low biomass and biodiversity are also common on ourplanet. One example is the early Carboniferous period, which was warmer and wetter (Raymond, 1985; Bardossy, 1994) on our planet than today, with so much biomass produced that we still harvest the organic deposits in the form of coal, oil,and natural gas from it. Thus, a slightly higher temperature, perhaps by 5°C–similar to that of the early Carboniferoustime period–would provide more habitable conditions untilsome optimum is reached."
That's not really relevant to climate change. It only looks at a very small snap shot of conditions, have you read the paper?
One observation is that their reference to "early carboniferous" is too broad or unsuitable to draw the conclusions they have from. I assume they mean the missississipian which lasted for 30 million years? Do you think conditions were stable over that period?
I'm more concerned they went down the rapid communication route to publish an article looking for another planet to live on, do they know something we don't?
That's not really relevant to climate change. It only looks at a very small snap shot of conditions, have you read the paper?
One observation is that their reference to "early carboniferous" is too broad or unsuitable to draw the conclusions they have from. I assume they mean the missississipian which lasted for 30 million years? Do you think conditions were stable over that period?
I'm more concerned they went down the rapid communication route to publish an article looking for another planet to live on, do they know something we don't?
[Post edited 27 Oct 2020 12:25]
Conditions are never stable, which is the whole point of why there is no point in trying to control the current climate.
Yes I read the paper, they are scientists, go and argue with them and not me about their findings/conclusions.
The point that they are making is that Flora and Fauna both thrive when the world is hotter and wetter than now by at least 5 degrees C. It has been that warm during most periods, Cambrian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and half of the Tertiary.
Conditions are never stable, which is the whole point of why there is no point in trying to control the current climate.
Yes I read the paper, they are scientists, go and argue with them and not me about their findings/conclusions.
The point that they are making is that Flora and Fauna both thrive when the world is hotter and wetter than now by at least 5 degrees C. It has been that warm during most periods, Cambrian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and half of the Tertiary.
[Post edited 27 Oct 2020 12:34]
Climate isn't stable. It never will be and we aren't attempting to control it. There has never been a species emitting massive quantities of fossil Co2 into the atmosphere derived from deposits laid down over the entire geological record before. Those emissions are destroying the climate that they are dependent on, either directly or indirectly. We need to minimise our impact not control climate.
I'm (edit) not arguing with them, they have written an article that isn't relevant to climate change or this thread.
You've posted it because you or the forum you saw it on don't understand that it isn't relevant.
So, you don't want to believe even the BBC then. OK.
I didn't sau that, I thought you didn't want to believe the BBC...until they post something you agree with eh?
It's not even what you make it out to be though. It's saying it's not a silver bullet, not an instant cure for what ails the planet. Obviously we must all play a part. There is much more that must be done. That won't happen as long as people refuse to believe in the damage humans are doing.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
