• 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

nimrod said:
you're just making stuff up now. it was a treasury backed scheme. the guarantee can only be provided on the condition normal sources of finance are not available. so without the scheme, no project - who was the chancellor who signed it off? if the scheme was so stupid, why did he support it?

the absurdity is you pointing the finger at anyone else for a project that you've effectively voted for, nevermind you then critiquing it for lacking green credentials that you don't believe in anyway. if you've got a problem with the project, go and criticise the chancellor - the one you voted for.

and again, you only ever look at one side of an argument - on fuel sourcing, where is the coal sourced from that is displaced by the converted plant? doesn't about half drax coal come from south africa and siberia? how do you think it gets to the uk? the requirement for a conversion is that it makes carbon savings - ie is better than what it replaces. so it doesn't have to be 100% green, only sufficiently greener. drax's estimate, all in, was something like an 80% carbon saving. the people that approved the project clearly believed it. and you, implicitly, by voting for a party that approved it.
Click to expand...

I voted for what I perceived as best outcome, it does not mean I endorsed the coalition energy policy, far from it. It is a fudge without a doubt. Explain what an 80% carbon saving is, I was of the understanding that it is a very valuable element in all its isotopes. As for the useful carbon dioxide compound, why do the emissions of such change at Drax? Only by cooking the books can this occur, import some imaginary 'regenerative carbon' source from outside. All it does is satisfy political desire.
 
The Bear said:
I'm glad you're not in charge of any large scale industrial projects. They'd never see the light of day because you'd consider them unrealistic or unworkable.

If we want it to happen we will make it happen.
Click to expand...

I feel very confident that physics tells me that scaling a Hebridian domestic supply of limited reliabilty to mainland industrial supply will not work.
BTW my stuff has global penetration. Engineering is not a place to stand still nor is it an arena for the fantasy of 'If we want it to happen we will make it happen'.
Product development requires us to be fully aware of ambition and risk, neither factor fantasy.
 
Are you always such a defeatist in your own job?

And why do you always make your negative arguments by pooh-poohing what no-one has even suggested?

If we want to make the UK renewable then we will. We'll invent the technology and the infrastructure. It what the human race does that constantly drives us forward.

I bet if you'd have been an engineer in the 60s you'd have scoffed at the idea of putting men on the moon. Probably because "the technology doesn't exist" or "We can't just scale up rockets in orbit to take us there".
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I feel very confident that physics tells me that scaling a Hebridian domestic supply of limited reliabilty to mainland industrial supply will not work.
BTW my stuff has global penetration. Engineering is not a place to stand still nor is it an arena for the fantasy of 'If we want it to happen we will make it happen'.
Product development requires us to be fully aware of ambition and risk, neither factor fantasy.
Click to expand...

This made me chuckle since throughout capitalist history industries have almost always sided with ambition and ignored risk.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
BTW my stuff has global penetration. Engineering is not a place to stand still nor is it an arena for the fantasy of 'If we want it to happen we will make it happen'.
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. By that statement nobody would invent anything. That kind of Dinosaur product development thinking kills business. Virgin, Dyson, Jaguar, Tesla, Apple and BAE prove you completely wrong and I've listed businesses that to risk to the nth degree.

Unless business achieves 'we need to make this happen' they die.
 
So if I follow HGW's argument, the only things worth inventing/developing are things that are already proven to be scalable on a global level. :spaz:
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Engineering is not a place to stand still nor is it an arena for the fantasy of 'If we want it to happen we will make it happen'.
Click to expand...

Really? How ridiculous. As an Engineer, these are the challenges that are presented to me on a daily basis. Change management is to be embraced, not scorned or feared.
 
The Bear said:
Are you always such a defeatist in your own job?

And why do you always make your negative arguments by pooh-poohing what no-one has even suggested?

If we want to make the UK renewable then we will. We'll invent the technology and the infrastructure. It what the human race does that constantly drives us forward.

I bet if you'd have been an engineer in the 60s you'd have scoffed at the idea of putting men on the moon. Probably because "the technology doesn't exist" or "We can't just scale up rockets in orbit to take us there".
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand my engineering mentality, I spend my life pushing the technology, a necessity to be successful.
Developing product requires an evaluation of a plethora ideas and technologies. Physical limits will require other thinking.
Your space programme analogy is probably the last one you should apply to me, I've been facinated by the stuff since a kid. You might know that the Apollo-Saturn V transposition, rendevous and docking concept ensured a less costly elegant solution.
That is knowing physical constraints.

I will post this ensemble of thoughts:
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=47c851434b&e=96bb006873
 
Last edited:
Alan USA said:
This made me chuckle since throughout capitalist history industries have almost always sided with ambition and ignored risk.
Click to expand...

In product development there are risks, the skill is in knowing what they might be. There is always something in technology development that includes unknowns.
 
Johnny75 said:
What utter nonsense. By that statement nobody would invent anything. That kind of Dinosaur product development thinking kills business. Virgin, Dyson, Jaguar, Tesla, Apple and BAE prove you completely wrong and I've listed businesses that to risk to the nth degree.

Unless business achieves 'we need to make this happen' they die.
Click to expand...

There is nothing ordinary or unambitious about the technology I develop and it is used by major OEMs the world over.
Notice that I quoted the fantasy of an earlier poster, surely that is not so hard to comprehend.
 
nimrod said:
I was gonna respond to hgw's drax 'issue', but as he's already getting hit from all directions....

anyway, saw this article today. thought it was interesting given the background of the writer.

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/short-termism_and_the_threat_from_climate_change

note, the writer has been labelled as one of the "25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis".
Click to expand...

So we have an unknown risk and a set of 'solutions' that are determined politically rather than by rational engineering?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
So we have an unknown risk and a set of 'solutions' that are determined politically rather than by rational engineering?
Click to expand...

don't be deliberately obtuse, you know it's all political, which is why oil and gas companies spend c $150m per annum on political lobbying in the U.S. perhaps you can point out where in the 37 pages of this thread you've critically assessed tHe undue influence the oil and gas lobby has on western politics?
 
nimrod said:
don't be deliberately obtuse, you know it's all political, which is why oil and gas companies spend c $150m per annum on political lobbying in the U.S. perhaps you can point out where in the 37 pages of this thread you've critically assessed tHe undue influence the oil and gas lobby has on western politics?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that $150m is chicken feed compared to the self perpetuating spending by the EPA, NOAA, NASA and numerous academic instituitions that lean another way.
Dr Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Hunstville that leads the UAH satallite record thinks differently, a sample here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top