• 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:
Or even the IET.
I was aware of some noise published about Oklahoma some weeks ago. That article seems to be an uber-alarmist interpretation when there could be simple historical explanations due to historical conventional oil recovery analogous to events that were common place related to the coal industry in the UK. I will endeavour to seek other views over the next couple of days.
Click to expand...

lol, but let's not pretend it'll be an objective view
 
"Damn those scientists, always pushing their agendas! Whatever would they research if global warming didn't exist? That would make climatology completely unnecessary for some reason!"

Insert for environmental research and repeat.
 
nimrod said:
lol, but let's not pretend it'll be an objective view
Click to expand...

I was merely trying to explain that I had previously seen something on this subject in recent weeks which was rather less alarmist than the self evidently alarmist link provided. You should note that the article provides no links to reports etc.
It is noticable if some non-referenced alarmist blog is linked on here then it must be gospel.
As promised I will take a look but demands on my time might mean you have to wait.
 
Yes I'm sure it's just a coincidence that earthquakes increased just after the fracking.

It's not like it's been known to happen anywhere else either.
 
The Bear said:
Yes I'm sure it's just a coincidence that earthquakes increased just after the fracking.

It's not like it's been known to happen anywhere else either.
Click to expand...

The point is that the OGS was reported as saying the opposite to it's statement. To ignore more likely causes from the known geology is pursuing a political agenda.
 
At least we now have proof that fossil fuel extraction causes earthquakes. So yet another argument in favour of renewables.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I was merely trying to explain that I had previously seen something on this subject in recent weeks which was rather less alarmist than the self evidently alarmist link provided. You should note that the article provides no links to reports etc.
It is noticable if some non-referenced alarmist blog is linked on here then it must be gospel.
As promised I will take a look but demands on my time might mean you have to wait.
Click to expand...

says who?

don’t shoot the messenger when it’s your own language betraying the lack of objectivity. just don’t pretend you are or change the language you use

if you want an objectivity test, answer this:

hgw opines that paying for baseload electricity from drax conversion plants is ‘plain stupid’. as per the daily mail article he posts these plants deliver electricity from £80/mwh

when asked how much he’d be willing to pay for baseload electricity from nuclear stations hgw has already stated £80-£100/mwh + supplier margin.

objectivity test: based on hgw’s criteria for drax (‘plain stupid’), what ‘s the best description for hgw’s support for nuclear at the price he gave above?
 
Visage said:
At least we now have proof that fossil fuel extraction causes earthquakes. So yet another argument in favour of renewables.
Click to expand...

More a historical management issue. Renewables are not fit for purpose currently and in all likelyhood will not be for generations, if at all. They have their own environmental impact which for their yield is not acceptable.
 
nimrod said:
says who?

don’t shoot the messenger when it’s your own language betraying the lack of objectivity. just don’t pretend you are or change the language you use

if you want an objectivity test, answer this:

hgw opines that paying for baseload electricity from drax conversion plants is ‘plain stupid’. as per the daily mail article he posts these plants deliver electricity from £80/mwh

when asked how much he’d be willing to pay for baseload electricity from nuclear stations hgw has already stated £80-£100/mwh + supplier margin.

objectivity test: based on hgw’s criteria for drax (‘plain stupid’), what ‘s the best description for hgw’s support for nuclear at the price he gave above?
Click to expand...

Drax is a nonsense because the use of wood that simply cannot be replaced at the rate it is burnt. Thankfully the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be able to see this.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
More a historical management issue. Renewables are not fit for purpose currently and in all likelyhood will not be for generations, if at all. They have their own environmental impact which for their yield is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my post. The report you quoted says that the extraction of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase in earthquakes. Do you disagree?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Drax is a nonsense because the use of wood that simply cannot be replaced at the rate it is burnt. Thankfully the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be able to see this.
Click to expand...

How fast are we replacing oil, coal and gas?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Drax is a nonsense because the use of wood that simply cannot be replaced at the rate it is burnt. Thankfully the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be able to see this.
Click to expand...

so have we changed chancellor since george osborne approved using taxpayers money to guarantee Drax's conversion projects can go ahead then?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said:
I am very pleased that the development of Drax has been able to benefit from the UK Guarantees Scheme. This is another example of how we are using the credibility Britain has earned through its determination to deal with its deficit to support investment in the economy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drax-biomass-backed-by-uk-guarantee

i think this thread lost its direction, if it ever had one, a long time ago and has become rather bizarre. it started with your supposed concern about the cost impact on lower/middle income families of the green economy. since then you've declared support for what has been described as the largest subsidised project in energy history (edf nuclear) and yet you're championing the chancellor of the government that approved it (what happened to your concern for lower/middle income families? disappeared very quickly didn't it?). you champion him (above) on the back of his supposed opposition to drax biomass conversion despite the fact that he not only approved it, but is using taxpayers money to ensure the profit making capability of a private company not just through a subsidy but through guaranteeing debt payments of the project for virtually no upside (is that helping lower/middle income families)? and your opposition to drax's scheme no longer appears to be on price (as you'd look hypocritical having declared higher support for nuclear) but instead you're jumping on a green bandwagon critique (you of all people!) regarding sustainability as if you were a green activist. and if you and the greens are right on that and there's not enough wood to source drax projects over 15 years, it means your champion chancellor has fucked up royally in putting taxpayers money at risk twice over.

here's the alternate view from drax on sustainability by the way, which of course is a criteria required by the support mechanism and hence had to be closely scrutinised by george's department before he gave his support. this is only to balance your detailed one line analysis above

http://www.theecologist.org/reply/2897163/biomass_for_energy_is_the_common_sense_option.html
 
Visage said:
That has nothing to do with my post. The report you quoted says that the extraction of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase in earthquakes. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

It doesn't look dissimilar to events in the UK related to historical coal mining. Perhaps modern engineers are a bit tuned into the risks.
Note hydraulic fracturing is not guilty.
I have to have a wry smile when those who opposed the closure of coal pits 25+ years at the behest of Thathcer now oppose the utilisation of such related natural resourses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top