• 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

Why are you guys considering that? Its a red herring, designed to change the subject. CO2 isnt dangerous because of a poisoning risk. Its dangerous because its presence warms the planet. We'll all be under water long before it gets to the point of toxicity.

But while HGW has you talking about that he can avoid getting schooled.....
 
I get caught up in semantics, forgive me.
 
Visage said:
Gas plants that have been developed over a hundered years. In any engineering you start small and gain expertise then scale up - and its obvious that initial iterations will be proportionately more expensive.

The first nuclear reactor operated at half a watt. Doubtless had you been there that day you'd have scoffed and claimed that made nuclear power pathetic....
Click to expand...

So do you propose to scale up to the entire Bristol Channel/Severn Estuary for example? Environmental modification for no benefit and risk to habitat if there was one. A freak of geography gives the area the second highest tidal reach in the world but harnessing that for little reward can only damage.
Thermal power stations demonstrably work in an efficient, controlled and compact fashion. Name a non-nuclear technology that can replace that. For the UK alone you need to guarantee 50GW just for electricity. If you want heating, transport and other industrial processes you need vastly more than that. I find it strange that someone familiar with physics would argue otherwise.
You seem a bit clueless on sea level rise too... as if it is even quantifiable.
 
There are many potential options for combating climate change. Some are more workable than others.

I'd rather trust the people actually out there working on this than people with an agenda to push.
 
on the tidal project, how long is the subsidised tariff period for? if it's a cfd project isn't it 15 years?

and how long is the project's design life? in other words, how long after the subsidy can the plant continue to generate electricity receiving just the wholesale price (to cover maintenance, staffing)? I'd read somewhere it was 120 years.
 
Visage said:
There are many potential options for combating climate change. Some are more workable than others.

I'd rather trust the people actually out there working on this than people with an agenda to push.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with agenda, just engineering and accountancy. Climate changes and there is little we can influence, the multi-decadal to millenial scale oscillations will continue, political interference or otherwise.
By way of illustration compare these two electricity markets:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
 
Last edited:
nimrod said:
on the tidal project, how long is the subsidised tariff period for? if it's a cfd project isn't it 15 years?

and how long is the project's design life? in other words, how long after the subsidy can the plant continue to generate electricity receiving just the wholesale price (to cover maintenance, staffing)? I'd read somewhere it was 120 years.
Click to expand...

It is an academic point if it generates no meaningful electrical energy.

The claims of the company are here:
http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/

They claim a full roll out of a multitide of sites would provide 25TWh per year i.e. an average of 800MW. Bonkers. It still needs 100% backup since although tides are predictable they are asynchronous with demand.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
It is an academic point if it generates no meaningful electrical energy.

The claims of the company are here:
http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/

They claim a full roll out of a multitide of sites would provide 25TWh per year i.e. an average of 800MW. Bonkers. It still needs 100% backup since although tides are predictable they are asynchronous with demand.
Click to expand...

design life is significant if a plant continues to generate electricity beyond the 'support period' at minimal cost. I mean how much more would the nuclear tariff needed to have been per annum if it was supported over only 15 years rather than 35?

if, as you say, this tidal scheme generates no meaningful electricity then it won't be paid any meaningful subsidy, so why are you making such a fuss other than to misdirect?

just to be clear, this is a project supported by the government you voted for, just like the drax biomass projects you also 'voted for'.

but if you want to talk about a "meaningful subsidy" why don't you talk about the EDF nuclear project at £92.50 guaranteed for 35 years. you claimed drax projects are plain stupid at a subsidy of £80/mwh-£105/mwh for 15 years. but at 3.2GW the subsidy for EDF's nuclear plant per annum, assuming a baseload price of £45/mwh, will amount to c £1.3bn. where's your post criticising this? 3 years ago you said you'd pay for nuclear at £80-£100/mwh and then you post daily mail shite criticising a price of £80/mwh. you seem to be all over the shop on pricing.
 
nimrod said:
design life is significant if a plant continues to generate electricity beyond the 'support period' at minimal cost. I mean how much more would the nuclear tariff needed to have been per annum if it was supported over only 15 years rather than 35?

if, as you say, this tidal scheme generates no meaningful electricity then it won't be paid any meaningful subsidy, so why are you making such a fuss other than to misdirect?

just to be clear, this is a project supported by the government you voted for, just like the drax biomass projects you also 'voted for'.

but if you want to talk about a "meaningful subsidy" why don't you talk about the EDF nuclear project at £92.50 guaranteed for 35 years. you claimed drax projects are plain stupid at a subsidy of £80/mwh-£105/mwh for 15 years. but at 3.2GW the subsidy for EDF's nuclear plant per annum, assuming a baseload price of £45/mwh, will amount to c £1.3bn. where's your post criticising this? 3 years ago you said you'd pay for nuclear at £80-£100/mwh and then you post daily mail shite criticising a price of £80/mwh. you seem to be all over the shop on pricing.
Click to expand...

I think the Tory policy with regard to energy is misguided at best, I've made that point elsewhere. Combining poorly educated politicians and civil service entrenched in a policy direction will take some turning. I agree the nuclear options aren't good at the moment but that is policy failure for 30 years in not pursuing indigenous technology.
DECC needs a person like Paterson in charge IMO. With luck there will be a change of direction in the coming years as the folly is realised.
 
After over a thousand posts you're still saying that the notion of climate change is folly??
 
Visage said:
After over a thousand posts you're still saying that the notion of climate change is folly??
Click to expand...

I've never said climate change is folly, it happens quite what causes it is open to debate. In my opinion the evidence suggests that natural cycles are the main drivers and carbon dioxide sensitivity is low (which is where the debate is even in academia and the IPCC). What is also important is pointing out the absurdity of the supposed green 'solutions' to the imaginary crisis.
 
You often cite the importance of evidence.

What evidence do you have that the current warming is the result of a natural cycle?
 
Also, isn't it a bit of a coincidence that when we start pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere the Earth suddenly starts warming faster than it normally does in these natural cycles?
 
Visage said:
You often cite the importance of evidence.

What evidence do you have that the current warming is the result of a natural cycle?
Click to expand...

Temperatures flat lining for 18 years compared to model output, Solar activity diminishing, AMO entering its negative phase...
I could go on and I acknowledge that there is contention all around in this. What I do emphasise is the questionable mitigation proposals which simply don't add up.
 
Indeed. Of course there has been warming and cooling in the past. But the current warming is considerably quicker.

Also, if the current warming isn't caused by CO2, why is that CO2 we've been pumping into the atmosphere suddenly impotent? Why isn't it causing the warming we'd expect, given its physical properties?
 
The Bear said:
Also, isn't it a bit of a coincidence that when we start pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere the Earth suddenly starts warming faster than it normally does in these natural cycles?
Click to expand...

Just happened to be in phase which is why there is a discrepancy between model output and reality for the last two decades.
 
Visage said:
Indeed. Of course there has been warming and cooling in the past. But the current warming is considerably quicker.

Also, if the current warming isn't caused by CO2, why is that CO2 we've been pumping into the atmosphere suddenly impotent? Why isn't it causing the warming we'd expect, given its physical properties?
Click to expand...

The anthropogenic contribution is small to a trace gas that if the GHG hypothesis is to be believed has a logarithmic effect on temperature. There is plenty of evidence that temperature leads carbon dioxide not the other way around.
 
A) About a third of atmospheric co2 is man made.
B) I'd temperature leads co2 then where was the temperature spike that has caused co2 levels to climb, strangely at the exact time we started burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels...
 
Also, if co2 rises are down to natural causes, where did all the man made co2 go?

It seems you're tying yourself in knots to avoid the accepted conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top