• 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

I sometimes wish a very good friend of mine posted on here. He's got a phd in atmospheric physics and works for Manchester Uni as a research fellow, jetting all over the place studying climate change. He loves debating this subject.
 
Get him on here. More expertise can only be a good thing.
 
the daily mail article is interesting though - whilst the mail is a junk paper, some of the people mentioned in the article aren't
 
Visage said:
Your chosen sources seem to be a result of the conclusion they reach rather than the quality of argument therein.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this

HAzelGroveWolf said:
I didn't say all. I've worked with academics more recently too. If you work in the industry how do you justify the subsidy for no net benefit. Point me at something that shows any benefit from renewables for example.
Academics have to bid for funding just like the rest of us.
As for peer review, nothing goes out of the door without it in any competent industry.
Click to expand...

There you go again, making incorrect assumptions that I have a particular position or representation on the matter. As a matter of fact, based on the industry I actually work in, I do believe you need a "left wing" environmentalist lobby to drag the path back to the middle ground. On peer review I was alluding to the fact that it is the mechanism by which academic publications are prevented from being politicised or even just incorrect. Again you are answering a point I haven't made in order to progress your own argument.

The Daily Mail article makes a good attempt at explaining the situation for the non scientist if you read all of it. However the headline and opening paragraph can't help but put forward the right wing, non-interventionist, point of view. To anyone with any understanding of science, it doesn't say anything at all. Academics disagree and models are based on assumptions, I think I knew that already.
 
Premier Quality said:
the daily mail article is interesting though - whilst the mail is a junk paper, some of the people mentioned in the article aren't
Click to expand...

That is a good point, some people select a newspaper for themselves then denigrate others not to their taste.
The Daily Mail isn't my cup of tea but if specific content is of good value take notice.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I've done enough real world science professionally to know when someone is attempting to take the piss.
Like I said I'm sceptical, academics inquire, that is their job but often their output is simply blue sky thinking. They don't have customers as such for a product that demonstrably works. There might be a motivation to say what the customer (government) wants them to say. That said climate science is a broad church and it doesn't take much effort to realise that. There are too many unknown or poorly understood mechanisms to claim understanding. Climate is far more complex than the ecconomy. Are academics or politicians reliable on either issue?
When I go to work in the morning I might have a theory as to what might be going wrong but return home having solved the problem with knowledge that hadn't entered my head earlier. An ability to challenge one's preconceptions is vital in real world product development.
As I've said before even if the greens are right the solutions are wrong. Shale gas and nuclear are the electricity solutions and ever onward internal combustion engine development for transport, at least in the next few decades. By all means find alternatives but they must stand up to demand without ridiculous subsidy.
I have full knowledge of how dumbed down mathematics and physics has become at 'A' level over the last 30 years, no wonder I'm cynical.
Just thought, one of my drinking buddies is a retired former Met Office (they do climate change as well) physicist (Phd). He thinks whole thing stinks as well.
Click to expand...

has something happened on the cost front for nuclear since the last time nuclear was discussed on this thread? at that point you seemed to accept a price of up to £100/mwh would be sufficient for nuclear based on an old report that didn't take into account recent price hikes in build cost. Your own starting point of up to £100/mwh was already more than twice the current baseload price of electricity. That being the case, how can nuclear be considered economically viable without substantial subsidy even using your own numbers?

most supporters of nuclear as a long term solution are asking the same question - me included.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...e-wrong-path-on-new-nuclear-power-plants.html

It is absolutely hypocritical to hammer one form of electricity generation because it requires a subsidy whilst promoting another form that is likely to need an even bigger one.
 
Visage said:
I'm not sure you can bemoan Wikipedia and then base an argument on the Daily Mail...

Your chosen sources seem to be a result of the conclusion they reach rather than the quality of argument therein.
Click to expand...

I've been careful with my sources and you might note that I've included links to Guardian articles as well as the sceptical media. You need to try harder to convince me that there is physical justification for concern and moreover that you have solutions. You might also answer my query on your activity in climate science since graduation.
 
nimrod said:
has something happened on the cost front for nuclear since the last time nuclear was discussed on this thread? at that point you seemed to accept a price of up to £100/mwh would be sufficient for nuclear based on an old report that didn't take into account recent price hikes in build cost. Your own starting point of up to £100/mwh was already more than twice the current baseload price of electricity. That being the case, how can nuclear be considered economically viable without substantial subsidy even using your own numbers?

most supporters of nuclear as a long term solution are asking the same question - me included.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...e-wrong-path-on-new-nuclear-power-plants.html

It is absolutely hypocritical to hammer one form of electricity generation because it requires a subsidy whilst promoting another form that is likely to need an even bigger one.
Click to expand...

I don't have the figures to hand but nuclear makes more sense than wind as a practical portion of the mix, the French seem to think so. In any case wind has a much larger environmental land usage footprint than any other form of generation for little benefit.
The win-win is shale gas and maybe new indigenous coal fired plant.
Energy efficiency is all important too, not just to 'save the planet'. I spend much of my time on that latter topic.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I don't have the figures to hand but nuclear makes more sense than wind as a practical portion of the mix, the French seem to think so. In any case wind has a much larger environmental land usage footprint than any other form of generation for little benefit.
The win-win is shale gas and maybe new indigenous coal fired plant.
Energy efficiency is all important too, not just to 'save the planet'. I spend much of my time on that latter topic.
Click to expand...

Hmm, not sure what your trying to say about nuclear here. I mean you did start this thread based on concern for people with low to middle incomes and you've consistently gone on to dismiss "renewables" as being uneconomic because they require a subsidy. I've simply pointed out that the industry would face new nuclear build costs above that of the renewables you find so expensive. I went to the trouble of engaging with you on this a few pages back to see if you had better info on costs than the articles that have been hitting the press all year and you seemed to "broadly agree". So telling everyone nuclear should be "in the mix" without explaning the cost implications seems out of synch with your own thread.

Perhaps you can explain which of these applies:
(a) you're happy to criticise technologies you don't like based on cost, but ignore the expense of ones you do like, thereby being guilty of double standards;
(b) you didn't realise the cost of nuclear, even though you presented numbers earlier in this thread that showed it would need a subsidy. Based on it needing a subsidy, you can't support it, any more than other tech that needs a subsidy.
(c) you were looking for any reason to hammer renewables and cost seemed an obvious one to go for as everyone understands it. it's a bit inconvenient that nuclear has the same issue so you'll now go off and search around for other reasons thereby making this thread supposedly based on cost and concern for low to middle income families disingenuous.
 
nimrod said:
Hmm, not sure what your trying to say about nuclear here. I mean you did start this thread based on concern for people with low to middle incomes and you've consistently gone on to dismiss "renewables" as being uneconomic because they require a subsidy. I've simply pointed out that the industry would face new nuclear build costs above that of the renewables you find so expensive. I went to the trouble of engaging with you on this a few pages back to see if you had better info on costs than the articles that have been hitting the press all year and you seemed to "broadly agree". So telling everyone nuclear should be "in the mix" without explaning the cost implications seems out of synch with your own thread.

Perhaps you can explain which of these applies:
(a) you're happy to criticise technologies you don't like based on cost, but ignore the expense of ones you do like, thereby being guilty of double standards;
(b) you didn't realise the cost of nuclear, even though you presented numbers earlier in this thread that showed it would need a subsidy. Based on it needing a subsidy, you can't support it, any more than other tech that needs a subsidy.
(c) you were looking for any reason to hammer renewables and cost seemed an obvious one to go for as everyone understands it. it's a bit inconvenient that nuclear has the same issue so you'll now go off and search around for other reasons thereby making this thread supposedly based on cost and concern for low to middle income families disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Electricity is a small but significant part of the energy mix there are good and bad ways of generating it. There are also good and bad ways of distributing it.
I say we take stock, develop shale gas and at the same time relearn nuclear, thorium rather than uranium perhaps?
I'm all for new technologies provided they are developed by engineers and not environmental activists.
We just need something that works and a product that consumers are happy to pay for.
 
Last edited:
Is this the thread that never dies? Can't believe this is still going on and have no idea who is winning as my climate knowledge could be written on the back of a stamp and leave room for War and Peace.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Is this the thread that never dies? Can't believe this is still going on and have no idea who is winning as my climate knowledge could be written on the back of a stamp and leave room for War and Peace.
Click to expand...

It isn't about winning. Politicians and lawyers might see it that way. No one can claim complete understanding of the complex chaotic climate system.
Even if we chose the so called conventional wisdom that global temperatures can be controlled by international treaty using prescriptive measures there is no proof that the desired outcome would occur.
I'm pretty sure that if I promised a customer that one of my products could be upgraded to the Starship Enterprise in 100 years I would be met with a degree of scepticism.
The whole premise is most likely a bag of poo.
 
Last edited:
I understand that idea, but my inner lawyer wants to know which side is performing better in the debate!
 
nimrod said:
Hmm, not sure what your trying to say about nuclear here. I mean you did start this thread based on concern for people with low to middle incomes and you've consistently gone on to dismiss "renewables" as being uneconomic because they require a subsidy. I've simply pointed out that the industry would face new nuclear build costs above that of the renewables you find so expensive. I went to the trouble of engaging with you on this a few pages back to see if you had better info on costs than the articles that have been hitting the press all year and you seemed to "broadly agree". So telling everyone nuclear should be "in the mix" without explaning the cost implications seems out of synch with your own thread.

Perhaps you can explain which of these applies:
(a) you're happy to criticise technologies you don't like based on cost, but ignore the expense of ones you do like, thereby being guilty of double standards;
(b) you didn't realise the cost of nuclear, even though you presented numbers earlier in this thread that showed it would need a subsidy. Based on it needing a subsidy, you can't support it, any more than other tech that needs a subsidy.
(c) you were looking for any reason to hammer renewables and cost seemed an obvious one to go for as everyone understands it. it's a bit inconvenient that nuclear has the same issue so you'll now go off and search around for other reasons thereby making this thread supposedly based on cost and concern for low to middle income families disingenuous.
Click to expand...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article3561250.ece

EDF demand billions in subsidies to build nuclear. Presumably HGW will now change his mind again?
 
wrong.jpg
 
Visage said:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article3561250.ece

EDF demand billions in subsidies to build nuclear. Presumably HGW will now change his mind again?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the idiosyncrasies of certain posters, the rising cost of nuclear does create a problem to the energy sector and we absolutely should be looking to technological advancement to try to find long term solutions. I wrote last year that there is a huge energy gap with large scale nuclear and coal and gas due to go offline over the next 8 years. With the delay in getting a nuclear programme up and running there is probably only natural gas to fill the gap.

It's all well and good to say "build our own", but which party is going to propose it and who's going to vote for it? How long would it take to establish a state owned utility capable of doing it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top