• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

HAzelGroveWolf said:
I'm aware of all your points, government policy in both countries needs to address energy supply, clearly France did a better job.
Click to expand...

if that's your conclusion then they didn't achieve it by pretending critical infrastructure doesn't requires investment on which the country may not make a return (ie subsidised/higher electricity bills or a combination of both). the same logic applies to all tech in the supply mix, including renewables.

more fundamental to energy supply is that, as a nation, they have control over their generation given they have a degree of state ownership. that's the major difference in respect of capacity shortfall. had the UK kept that control, it wouldn't be at risk of a shortfall.
 
Visage said:
http://offgridquest.com/energy/wind-power/silent-rooftop-wind-turbines-could-gener

Not scaleable blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

It might have domestic application but it does not solve the industrial capacity issue in the case of no wind/sunshine.
Note even the wacky Climate Change Commision acknowledges that renewables are an incomplete solution and that demand will necessarily increase.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/power-scenarios-for-2028-32/

Oh and NASA can't make its mind up on Antarctica:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/antarctic-ice-mass-growing-new-nasa-study/

(There is plenty of discussion elsewhere on that one).
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
It is only November but....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11980548/The-obsession-with-global-warming-will-put-the-lights-out-all-over-Britain.html
Click to expand...

it's a bullshit argument isn't it. investment in renewables doesn't prevent investment in new ccgt for instance. the article itself alludes to this - a capacity auction was designed to provide security. the fact that old depreciated plant would come in cheaper than new build is hardly rocket science and if it's failed to deliver new build then that's a failure of government policy in the auction design, which has nothing to do with renewables.

the fact we are at risk of capacity shortfall is down to non investment in new build by private companies. the spark spread too low for years to justify an economic case for it. of course, a government could have recognised that privatisation was not delivering investment and invested in the infrastructure itself. what stopped successive UK gvts doing this other than political dogma and not wanting to admit that privatisation has failed? why doesn't the telegraph write about the failed policy that it backed? did it perhaps help make all their chums rich at the nation's expense?
 
nimrod said:
it's a bullshit argument isn't it. investment in renewables doesn't prevent investment in new ccgt for instance. the article itself alludes to this - a capacity auction was designed to provide security. the fact that old depreciated plant would come in cheaper than new build is hardly rocket science and if it's failed to deliver new build then that's a failure of government policy in the auction design, which has nothing to do with renewables.

the fact we are at risk of capacity shortfall is down to non investment in new build by private companies. the spark spread too low for years to justify an economic case for it. of course, a government could have recognised that privatisation was not delivering investment and invested in the infrastructure itself. what stopped successive UK gvts doing this other than political dogma and not wanting to admit that privatisation has failed? why doesn't the telegraph write about the failed policy that it backed? did it perhaps help make all their chums rich at the nation's expense?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The Westminster/Whitehall bubble for you, even within the privatisation framework a better job could have been done by policy. Unfortunately the political fashion of the day keeps getting in the way. Look no further than the practically unchallenged in parliament Climate Change Act for the motivation.
 
....On the 'Ice mass growth in the Antarctic'; I reckon all the windmills are causing a draught.
 
Is our unseasonally warm November weather down to climate change, global warming or is it just a strange weather pattern?
 
Its just weather. A single warm month isnt significant. But lots of them may form a trend.
 
But the Express told me it would be the coldest November EVER.
 
Visage said:
Havent they heard? It wont scale!
Click to expand...

It covers electricity generation only and is a projection. Even so renewables other than hydro are a small player. What makes you think, like Greenpeace, that there is a realistic possibility that a greater proportion of electricity generation can be provided by low energy density renewables? All this in aid of the carbon dioxide emissions nonsense without proof of climate sensitivity.
 
nimrod said:
it's a bull$#@! argument isn't it. investment in renewables doesn't prevent investment in new ccgt for instance. the article itself alludes to this - a capacity auction was designed to provide security. the fact that old depreciated plant would come in cheaper than new build is hardly rocket science and if it's failed to deliver new build then that's a failure of government policy in the auction design, which has nothing to do with renewables.

the fact we are at risk of capacity shortfall is down to non investment in new build by private companies. the spark spread too low for years to justify an economic case for it. of course, a government could have recognised that privatisation was not delivering investment and invested in the infrastructure itself. what stopped successive UK gvts doing this other than political dogma and not wanting to admit that privatisation has failed? why doesn't the telegraph write about the failed policy that it backed? did it perhaps help make all their chums rich at the nation's expense?
Click to expand...


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd3fdaba-8d48-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3rqbFj2Dr

qed. acknowledgement of a failed policy too.
 
Excellent news. Binning coal is a valuable step forwards in combatting climate change.
 
Visage said:
Excellent news. Binning coal is a valuable step forwards in combatting climate change.
Click to expand...

I've not much to disagree with but two things strike me, that it is rather perverse that nobody seems to have mentioned the 155 coal fired power plants planned for China or where the UK should source its gas. By the way, Vis we cannot control climate by means of regulating an important trace gas. Proposed regulations in Paris (COP21) will make cock all difference even if you believe the nonsense.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/china-approves-another-155-coal-fired-power-plants-this-year/

There is an abundance of well referenced articles on that site that stand up to scrutiny.
 
Power delivered quickly and cheaply without having to use massive subsidies and with no hazardous waste that will take thousands of years to dispose of?

Impossible!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top