• 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

Visage said:
No. Don't rewrite my point to suit your dogma.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Dogma eh? Please tell in a rational physics based way how you would make a fit for purpose industrial class electricity supply work.
Oh and while we are at it: You want to count off grid energy, how do you solve the heating, air conditioning, imported goods energy consumption and transport requirements? Just to name a few.
Remember at maximum demand neither wind or solar will contribute a jot.
 
Last edited:
Visage said:
Well, no. Solar doesn't show up because it's use generally reduces load from other sources, rather than being contributed to the grid, and most wind power isn't connected to the main backbones either, instead being distributed locally.

You should always be aware of how data is sourced before you rely on it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You clearly have little idea how a synchronous grid works and how to apply loads and sources without creating phase load balancing and power factor issues.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I don't think I've ever suggested anything other than agreement that we need investment in CCGT and we need it now. I perhaps have to take my eye off the ball to counter Vis renewables utopia.
Click to expand...

nimrod said:
we are short of baseload, not because of renewables, but because you cannot force private companies to invest in new ccgt. they've built nowhere near enough for years - if it was an economic no brainer don't you think they'd have been queuing up? when as a nation did we lose our ability to build for ourselves and so protect our critical infrastructure and which idiots created that environment? perhaps you should start thinking holistically about this yourself rather than believing everything a succession of oil and gas lobbyists tell you
Click to expand...

qed

the baseload shortfall has been known about for a long long time, so planning wise a deliverable solution was needed years back, not simply because it's become your flavour of the month. but how were you ever going to get private companies to build new ccgt when they've had no inclination to do so? whinging about renewables isn't a baseload policy even if the daily mail thinks it is. when has it ever written about the failure of privatisation in this regard?

i like the "to counter Vis renewables utopia" point. i think you've attacked renewables per se rather than any utopian vision he has (which would presumably be 100% renewables). you haven't conceded that any renewable production is beneficial from what i recall. i suggested, again years back, that it makes sense to look at this from the perspective of risk, as any business would. even if you thought a risk event was not likely to occur, if the impact of that event were so catastrophic to a business, it would be irresponsible not to probability assess the event consequences against risk mitigation costs. any analysis based simply on "right or wrong" rather than on a risk based approach is fundamentally flawed.
 
Indeed. Ive never argued that 100% renewables is possible, or even beneficial.

My point is entirely that we currently are able to supply 25% with little drama. Theres no reason, technological or othgerwise, why that 25% cannot, in time, be 50/60/70% or more.

If any of

You clearly have little idea how a synchronous grid works and how to apply loads and sources without creating phase load balancing and power factor issues.
Click to expand...

was an actually problem, rather than irrelevent technical terminology designed to muddy the issue, then we would have been unable to get even 1% renewable energy. Electricity is electricity. It doesnt remember where it came from.
 
Visage said:
Indeed. Ive never argued that 100% renewables is possible, or even beneficial.

My point is entirely that we currently are able to supply 25% with little drama. Theres no reason, technological or othgerwise, why that 25% cannot, in time, be 50/60/70% or more.

If any of



was an actually problem, rather than irrelevent technical terminology designed to muddy the issue, then we would have been unable to get even 1% renewable energy. Electricity is electricity. It doesnt remember where it came from.
Click to expand...

Maybe when you have your lucky underpants on we can derive 25% of electricity from renewables, however renewables will provide nothing at typical conditions of maximum demand. It is interesting that this October has been atypical in terms of wind generation.
 
nimrod said:
qed

the baseload shortfall has been known about for a long long time, so planning wise a deliverable solution was needed years back, not simply because it's become your flavour of the month. but how were you ever going to get private companies to build new ccgt when they've had no inclination to do so? whinging about renewables isn't a baseload policy even if the daily mail thinks it is. when has it ever written about the failure of privatisation in this regard?

i like the "to counter Vis renewables utopia" point. i think you've attacked renewables per se rather than any utopian vision he has (which would presumably be 100% renewables). you haven't conceded that any renewable production is beneficial from what i recall. i suggested, again years back, that it makes sense to look at this from the perspective of risk, as any business would. even if you thought a risk event was not likely to occur, if the impact of that event were so catastrophic to a business, it would be irresponsible not to probability assess the event consequences against risk mitigation costs. any analysis based simply on "right or wrong" rather than on a risk based approach is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

It isn't my flavour of the month, I've been consistant in my favour of both shale gas and nuclear if done properly.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Maybe when you have your lucky underpants on we can derive 25% of electricity from renewables, however renewables will provide nothing at typical conditions of maximum demand. It is interesting that this October has been atypical in terms of wind generation.
Click to expand...

How is it possible for Canada, for example, to derive around 65% of its electricity from renewable sources, but for us its apparently impossible?

Just because you say so? Because so far thats the totality of your argument. In the UK renewables have increased, year on year, for over a decade now. Costs have dropped, capacity is increasing, with no sign of the trend ending. If anything the rate of adoption is increasing.

Yet apparently renewables will 'provide nothing' .....
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
It isn't my flavour of the month, I've been consistant in my favour of both shale gas and nuclear if done properly.
Click to expand...

Nuclear cant be 'done properly'. You either need to provide massive subsidies, making it more expensive than nearly any other source, or it doesnt get built.
 
Visage said:
How is it possible for Canada, for example, to derive around 65% of its electricity from renewable sources, but for us its apparently impossible?

Just because you say so? Because so far thats the totality of your argument. In the UK renewables have increased, year on year, for over a decade now. Costs have dropped, capacity is increasing, with no sign of the trend ending. If anything the rate of adoption is increasing.

Yet apparently renewables will 'provide nothing' .....
Click to expand...

Incidentally, the new Canadian PM has comitted to raising that percentage even higher. Havent you told him thats impossible?
 
Last edited:
Visage said:
How is it possible for Canada, for example, to derive around 65% of its electricity from renewable sources, but for us its apparently impossible?

Just because you say so? Because so far thats the totality of your argument. In the UK renewables have increased, year on year, for over a decade now. Costs have dropped, capacity is increasing, with no sign of the trend ending. If anything the rate of adoption is increasing.

Yet apparently renewables will 'provide nothing' .....
Click to expand...

Adding more renewables such as wind and solar will not have a linear benefit. It has a low energy density return with its own environmental impact. The real world on demand baseload needs to be available 24/7/365.25 and at a price determined by real energy supply not by some fudge in priority to renewables.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
How do the French cope? Surplus to boot.
Click to expand...

they subsidise it. we've been through the numbers on here numerous times over. explain the edf deal and its rationale if nuclear doesn't need a huge subsidy, never mind taxpayer risk on cleanup and debt service. you even acknowledged it 3 years ago when you came up with your suggested price of up to £100/mwh. you can pay for it, but it's very expensive and clearly out of market.
 
nimrod said:
they subsidise it. we've been through the numbers on here numerous times over. explain the edf deal and its rationale if nuclear doesn't need a huge subsidy, never mind taxpayer risk on cleanup and debt service. you even acknowledged it 3 years ago when you came up with your suggested price of up to £100/mwh. you can pay for it, but it's very expensive and clearly out of market.
Click to expand...

Like I've said the UK government has put it's head in the sand with regard to energy generation for 30 years. The consequences loom.
 
Well, firstly his analyis is based on BM reports, which, as ahs been pointed out to you, underestimates the contribution of wind power, as it is generally not connected to systems that those reports refer to.

Secondly, do you really think it does your credidibility any good to cite a source like Derek Partington?

http://stopthesethings.com/tag/derek-partington/

We're not here to debate the wind industry, we're here to DESTROY IT!
Click to expand...

It seems objectivity isnt important, as long as they reach the right conclusions, right?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Like I've said the UK government has put it's head in the sand with regard to energy generation for 30 years. The consequences loom.
Click to expand...

So why are we comitting UK consumers to an electricity price that is literally double the current price, and doing so for 30 years?

Doesnt that rather dent the notion that nuclear is economical?
 
Visage said:
Well, firstly his analyis is based on BM reports, which, as ahs been pointed out to you, underestimates the contribution of wind power, as it is generally not connected to systems that those reports refer to.

Secondly, do you really think it does your credidibility any good to cite a source like Derek Partington?

http://stopthesethings.com/tag/derek-partington/



It seems objectivity isnt important, as long as they reach the right conclusions, right?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of Partington, but I stopped reading when he was described as a former chartered engineer. The only way you can lose your chartership is if you bring the institution into disrepute. Unless he just stopped paying his subs, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top