• 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:
this is not about "the grid", it's about the lack of capacity surplus which we've mentioned a number of times before.
your posts in this thread are typically adverse to what the report is saying.

for instance, if you're now really concerned about security of supply, why voice opposition to new baseload plant that can delivered quickly (biomass conversion).

note what it says about gas generation:

"The economics of generation are terrible" said Peter Atherton, a utilities analyst at Jefferies Investment Bank. "Every gas fired plant is losing money. And new build is not delivering. Hence the underlying margins are getting worse".

yet you post deliberately misleading daily mail articles comparing tariffs needed for new build generation with old depreciated plant much of which is due to go offline.

what your daily mail article didn't touch on is why we're in this position and having to throw money at private companies to build nuclear, convert biomass and pay extra to keep old capacity available. it's because privatisation policy has completely failed to deliver anywhere near sufficient generation. blackout risk is a consequence of that failed privatisation policy which papers like the daily mail have always supported.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that energy policy has been bonkers irrespective of government for at least 30 years. I also didn't necessarily endorse a newspaper view but felt it reasonable to point out that there are rational challenges to current policy. The Climate Change Act legacy needs to be reversed and a well engineered energy policy instated.

We have not considered the insignificance of UK native impact especially in light of imports shipped in from global sources.

You know full well my opposition to unsustainable biomass conversion.

BTW I've never been convinced that utilities should have been turned into privately owned pseudo competitive companies. It might work for telecoms but perhaps not for fuel and water utilities.
56
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Which renewables can replace a 50GW grid?
Click to expand...
Any we decide to push forward and invest properly in. Problems will be solved, capacity will be met, even if it's a phased introduction. And we don't need to rely on just one renewable either. We can combine them to get where we need to be.
 
The Bear said:
Any we decide to push forward and invest properly in. Problems will be solved, capacity will be met, even if it's a phased introduction. And we don't need to rely on just one renewable either. We can combine them to get where we need to be.
Click to expand...

I've no objection to a proper R&D process, subsidied or otherwise. Nothing is a product until it can stand on its own two feet and people want to buy it. The wind and solar industry are an invention of ideology and therefore politics, demonstrably worthless. Both were worthy sources of energy until the 18th century and then what happened?
 
How does this thread continue?? I don't read it but every time I log in it pops up!

Solar and wind aren't good enough to supply all power but supply SOME power which is obviously better than NO power.
 
I think HGW is a clever lad, who the more serious and the longer people's replies to his posts, the more enjoyment he gets out of this thread.
He can't believe people take him seriously and must fall over laughing, when someone spends hours researching and replying to his posts.
 
Last edited:
I spend half my time thinking hes a troll and half my time thinking hes serious. And im not sure what would be more disturbing.
 
I'm perfectly serious I'm not the sort to waste my time troubling others.
Fundamentaly I find the conventional political 'wisdom' unconvincing and the so called solutions disturbing as a present we do not have anything fit for purpose. As for the science there is a rather broad set of opinion that does not get reflected in the media.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
and the so called solutions disturbing as a present we do not have anything fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
You're not very forward thinking are you? The future of renewables doesn't depend solely on what we can achieve right now.
 
The Bear said:
You're not very forward thinking are you? The future of renewables doesn't depend solely on what we can achieve right now.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in my previous post any technology is welcome if is demonstrated to by effective environmentally, efficiently and cost effectively. Current renewable technologies do not do this. I design new technology for a living and you suggest I'm not forward thinking?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Current renewable technologies do not do this. I design new technology for a living and you suggest I'm not forward thinking?
Click to expand...
The key word there being "current". And no. You seem lost in a "what works now" world of negativity.
 
The Bear said:
The key word there being "current". And no. You seem lost in a "what works now" world of negativity.
Click to expand...

Nobody can expect to sell something unfit for purpose in the real world. What we have now is landowners and favoured industries being enriched for a system that is not fit for purpose from a grid perspective.
There is nothing negative about my point of view, customers generally like product that meets or exceeds expectation. Oh, in product development innovation rather than preconceived solutions are often deal breakers in the design process, still new ideas need to be proven.
 
tredman said:
Clearly not a salesman at least, nor an early adopter.
Click to expand...

There is nothing clever about selling flawed or non-existant product (seen that a few times). Being an early adopter should be done with caution, I necessarily do it with suppliers of IP or components. In turn our key customers will take our engineering samples before general release. Nobody is reckless in the process. I hope you take caution in car purchases for example.
You shouldn't throw up a wind turbine anymore than you should throw up a nuclear power station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top