• 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

Visage said:
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!
Click to expand...

Make that work in the UK at up to 70GW (or more) 24/7/365. None of your fantasy engineering will work at maximum demand in the just about still industrialised UK after you have chased all the energy intensive industry away only to import the products (if you can still afford them).
As a self proclaimed physicist you might have noticed the output figures for these schemes and tried to reconcile them with real demand.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/25/abengoa-obama-green-energy-project-on-verge-of-ban/
 
That wasn't self proclaimed. If it were I could have avoided four years of study.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
That wasn't self proclaimed. If it were I could have avoided four years of study.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I understood that. Do you think people are defined by what they achieved at university many years ago?
Just a question but you do seem to struggle with the energy requirements of the UK. What exactly do you propose that can realistically fulfill the physical requirements of UK energy demand?
 
You're obsessed with pointing out that new renewable technologies can't fulfill current demand.

No-one is suggesting that they can. But clearly they will in the future as the technologies are developed and more investment is made. It's a matter of how soon it'll happen, not pointing out we can't do it right this very minute.

Keep clinging on to the only argument against renewables while you can though.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I understood that. Do you think people are defined by what they achieved at university many years ago?
Just a question but you do seem to struggle with the energy requirements of the UK. What exactly do you propose that can realistically fulfill the physical requirements of UK energy demand?
Click to expand...
In the short term a fifty fifty mix of gas and renewables. Then, as storage technology improves you phase out the former.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
In the short term a fifty fifty mix of gas and renewables. Then, as storage technology improves you phase out the former.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Seems a bit arbitrary to me, you will require 100% dispatchable power from gas, which means 100% investment. What of the environmental impact of so called renewable technologies. Also what storage technologies are likely to have any meaningful impact in the next decade or two? Electrical energy solutions have to provide meaningful supply for decades.
We haven't dealt with transport, heating etc yet.
 
The Bear said:
You're obsessed with pointing out that new renewable technologies can't fulfill current demand.

No-one is suggesting that they can. But clearly they will in the future as the technologies are developed and more investment is made. It's a matter of how soon it'll happen, not pointing out we can't do it right this very minute.

Keep clinging on to the only argument against renewables while you can though.
Click to expand...

Explain to me your magic physics. The avatar probably explains all.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Seems a bit arbitrary to me, you will require 100% dispatchable power from gas, which means 100% investment. What of the environmental impact of so called renewable technologies. Also what storage technologies are likely to have any meaningful impact in the next decade or two? Electrical energy solutions have to provide meaningful supply for decades.
We haven't dealt with transport, heating etc yet.
Click to expand...

I presume you foresaw the Internet, silk carbon nanotubes for storage and graphene. All new technologies in the last 3 decades or so. As an electrical engineer I presume you can tell us the next stages for all of these?

I also presume you know the next stages for regenerative electrical technologies in transport, hydrogen powered engines and solar powered energy storage solutions?

You seem to know more than the rest of the world so a 'heads up' would be nice. How is the view from Luddite hill?
 
If Hazel had known Nikola Tesla he'd have been telling him that AC generators were too expensive and couldn't meet demand, and to stick with Edison's system.
 
'Sail west to India? You'll fall off the edge!'

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Johnny75 said:
I presume you foresaw the Internet, silk carbon nanotubes for storage and graphene. All new technologies in the last 3 decades or so. As an electrical engineer I presume you can tell us the next stages for all of these?

I also presume you know the next stages for regenerative electrical technologies in transport, hydrogen powered engines and solar powered energy storage solutions?

You seem to know more than the rest of the world so a 'heads up' would be nice. How is the view from Luddite hill?
Click to expand...

I've grown up with Moore's law which would suggest I'm no Luddite. We might get a couple of more process nodes out of that before having to move on to something else.
My challenge is that there are fundamental physical challenges to industrially capable power extraction. Isaac Newton isn't entirely redundant and as for Tesla then I think you will find my implied appreciation.
By all means research new technologies but bring them to the table when they can be demonstrated to be effective. Remember nuclear fusion power has always been 30 years away. I expect my work to be scrutinised in such a way.

BTW most of the ingredients for the internet were kicking about in the 70s and 80s, we had email on the UNIX OS enabled DEC PDP-?? machines at university in 1984. UNIX had been around with such a facility since the early 70s.
 
That's a whole lot of words to say 'I have absolutely no idea how to answer your questions'.
 
But you've advocated molten salt reactors, which are still on the drawing board.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
It's not as if stuff like Solar and Wind are unproven technologies either. They clearly work and provide a good percentage of capacity. That will surely increase with time and more countries/companies investing into it. And with that the technology will improve and become more affordable/efficient as well.
 
Im sure HGW hasnt replied because he's on the way to Paris to tell literally every government on earth that they're wrong and that he knows best.
 
the fundamental issue is that the climate sceptics have zero risk mitigation if they are wrong. their answer could only be that there was fuck all we could do about it any way so there was no point in trying. no government or business can act that way, it would be totally irresponsible.
 
k5ngA.jpg


Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
So far it seems from China to America to everyone else, that there is a recognition of Global Warming ( call it what you like), but what the fuck would all these top leaders of the world, with a zillion scientists advising them every day, by the minute know, that our very own HGW doesn't?

For simple old me, if 99% of world leaders acknowledge that we have a serious global warming problem, and I am finding scorpions still romping around in November when they normally fuck off 1st of September, I am inclined to go with the big guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top