• 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:
We are however probably near saturation of sites capable of >20% all of which requires 100% backup, it is never baseload and little bulk storage capability is available. Denmark probably has the highest electricity tariffs in Europe and at the same time by virtue of population/geography can dump/import electricity as it suits.
Click to expand...

the point of my post is that your assertion "(onshore wind <20% typical)." is not right.

as mentioned, when you upgrade plant, it will add to the overall weighted average cost at least until the primary financing period has expired. you'd have to look at the respective age of plant a country is running as well. a lot of our plant is old and needs replacing and the new plant will add to the overall cost regardless of what technology is used.

the point on wind "backup" (and grid issues) has always been relevant. the difference is that I think you've said you would never have embarked on wind in the first place (as well as unfairly criticising it on cost). however now that there is a certain proportion of wind and solar in place, engineers are focusing more and more on storage, and who's to say they won't solve that?
 
Alan USA said:
But you can't argue that too much CO2 in the atmosphere isn't directly harmful to human health. It simply can't be done. Period.
Click to expand...

So please tell, what is the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and at what point would you consider it an asphyxiant. I'll give you a clue, we breathe the stuff out at about 40000ppm.
 
nimrod said:
the point of my post is that your assertion "(onshore wind <20% typical)." is not right.

as mentioned, when you upgrade plant, it will add to the overall weighted average cost at least until the primary financing period has expired. you'd have to look at the respective age of plant a country is running as well. a lot of our plant is old and needs replacing and the new plant will add to the overall cost regardless of what technology is used.

the point on wind "backup" (and grid issues) has always been relevant. the difference is that I think you've said you would never have embarked on wind in the first place (as well as unfairly criticising it on cost). however now that there is a certain proportion of wind and solar in place, engineers are focusing more and more on storage, and who's to say they won't solve that?
Click to expand...

I see proposed storage technologies in the trade press on an almost daily basis, some might have a future, most are costly and by definition require hazard management (I acknowledge this applies in all generation). I've not seen anything that might work at scale that might significantly displace hydrocarbon generation.

Interesting discussion here on nuclear possibilities:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/16/thorium-the-last-great-opportunity-of-the-industrial-age/
 
Visage said:
So we shouldnt use renewables because we havent yet perfected storage, but we *should* use thorium reactors, which no-one has yet worked out how to build safely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

It seems your ideas of what is and is not possible derive from your technological prejudices, rather than any basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Of course nuclear solutions are problematic but in my opinion (and others) managable. The French seem to cope although might have lost their way a little.
As for your prejudice towards wind/solar/hydro, where do you anticipate realistic capacity will come from without breaking the principle of conservation of energy?
We need industrial scale low cost, low impact solutions.
Consider this:
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-why-fossil-fuel-divestment-wont-work/

I think I'm allowed one of those links for every three gruniad links.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
So please tell, what is the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and at what point would you consider it an asphyxiant. I'll give you a clue, we breathe the stuff out at about 40000ppm.
Click to expand...
As stated previously WEL 5000ppm LTEL
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
As for your prejudice towards wind/solar/hydro, where do you anticipate realistic capacity will come from without breaking the principle of conservation of energy?
Click to expand...

Renewables - primarily solar or wind - tend to get their energy from the Sun - you know, that big shiny thing in the sky....

We receive more energy from the Sun in a single hour than the entire planet uses in a year.

So no, I dont think we need to worry about conservation of energy - or were you just throwing a term in to try and muddy the waters, as usual?
 
Visage said:
Renewables - primarily solar or wind - tend to get their energy from the Sun - you know, that big shiny thing in the sky....

We receive more energy from the Sun in a single hour than the entire planet uses in a year.

So no, I dont think we need to worry about conservation of energy - or were you just throwing a term in to try and muddy the waters, as usual?
Click to expand...

Fine but that isn't available to exploit by our current industrial society. In fact it suggests that our influence is rather insignificant, we certainly don't posess a control knob. You might want to consider solar influences over the next decades.
I don't think I've ever contradicted what you have just written about the Sun, I've steered clear because of the alarmist attitude that carbon dioxide rules.
 
The only problem with using the sun is that it still has a finite limit. As a civilisation currently we use a fraction of the sun's output that shines on our planet. It'll take a few thousand years but eventually we'll need more than that.

Not a problem right now given our immediate needs, but still a limitation. Hopefully by the time we nee more we'll have cold fusion cracked.
 
Political focus will shift sooner or later. It'll have to once it becomes blindingly obvious to all that it needs to for the good of the planet and our future.
 
If we can voluntarily put Co2 into the atmosphere then we can certainly volutarily not do so. It just needs the political and social will...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top