Jump to content

Fossil fuels should be 'phased out by 2100' says IPCC


Elixir

Recommended Posts

Pie and Bovril conspiracy discussions by the numbers.

Some random "climate change is a hoax"\"911 was an inside job"\"the moon landings never happened"\"evolution not very convincing".

person with evidence "here is loads of science and facts to show you are wrong"

random "you are just arrogant and I am entitled to my opinions!1!!!1"

person with evidence "you are a bit thick aren't you"

random "You seem upset" <usually with jpeg of Ainsley>

Also applies to helicopters falling on pubs as I recall.

I'm glad you're being rational and chilled out it all.

Oops did I say "chilled"? :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Eh?

You are YEARS of education away from being able to understand the scientific literature directly FFS.

Have a wee look at the paper Dorlomin posted and you'll understand why.

Start with the basics of physics, maths, chemistry, spectroscopy, maths and thermodynamics and come back when you understand why carbon dioxide absorbs radiation and warms up as a result. Alternatively come back if you can find any scientific literature which disproves that fact. THEN and only then will your opinion be of any value whatsoever.

You can't just barge into a complex area like this without doing some basic legwork and expect your voice to be taken seriously.

yeah I really need you to take me seriously......

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you done this with the arguments that refute these claims? Climate change propaganda is easy to come by. it's generally infused with 'catastrophic consequences" and timeline predictions which keep getting stretched as time goes on. I have heard all the arguments and I think they're BS

It's quite easy to find evidence (or propaganda as you are chosing to call it) that the Earth is round...BECAUSE IT IS ROUND!!!

If it's easy to find evidence of something then do you not think it's more likely to be fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness we at least agree on something.

You're like a drunk staggering into an operating theatre and trying to tell surgeons that leeches are the way forward and this new fangled heart transplant nonsense is a government conspiracy to control the population.

^^^

Colgitto type post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
he chart below shows how far solar will come out ahead in each state in 2016, assuming a worst-case scenario of lower tax credits. The blue bars show the anticipated cost of solar energy (assuming a conservative 20-year lifespan for the panels) minus average electricity prices. Positive numbers indicate the savings for every kilowatt hour of electricity.

i7FAGS1c8QHE.jpg

The chart below shows the price of energy sources since the late 1940s. The extreme outlier, of course, is solar, which only recently became an expensive blip in the energy marketplace. It will soon undercut even the cheapest fossil fuels in many regions of the planet, including poorer nations where billion-dollar coal plants aren’t always practical.

solarcosts14.jpg?w=480&h=326

Grid Parity to Reach 36 States in 2016

Solar%20Radiation.jpg

The cost of solar has been on a epic downward trend. Soon it will be better business logic to open a new factory in places with good solar resources than merely where there is low wages but reliant on coal.

This will not be Scotland, but in the US right wingers in Texas and Arizona are installing low carbon energy because it makes sense for them. As it starts making good economic sense to go low carbon the entire debate will shift. Over a twenty year life span, onshore wind is also hitting grid parity over twenty years compared with gas and nuclear. The problem for wind is you have to pay about 80-90% of the cost up front but has very little running cost. For gas you tend to pay only portion of the costs up front but you have to keep buying the gas\coal. So it is cheaper to get started. This is the reason why they have "feed in tariffs" that is they get more for the energy early so they can recoup some of the investment early. Over the coming decades as our installed wind starts hitting the point it repays its build costs (i.e. c 20 years after installed) that wind farm will be producing energy for very little cost for the rest of its life span.

Solar is looking very likely to become the disruptive technology of our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renewables are the only way forward both from the poin of view of climate change and economics. It always seems to me though that Scotland should target tidal and hydro power rather than wind. In the past Scotland was heavily reliant on water power with hardly any wind mills unlike in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i7FAGS1c8QHE.jpg

solarcosts14.jpg?w=480&h=326

Grid Parity to Reach 36 States in 2016

Solar%20Radiation.jpg

The cost of solar has been on a epic downward trend. Soon it will be better business logic to open a new factory in places with good solar resources than merely where there is low wages but reliant on coal.

This will not be Scotland, but in the US right wingers in Texas and Arizona are installing low carbon energy because it makes sense for them. As it starts making good economic sense to go low carbon the entire debate will shift. Over a twenty year life span, onshore wind is also hitting grid parity over twenty years compared with gas and nuclear. The problem for wind is you have to pay about 80-90% of the cost up front but has very little running cost. For gas you tend to pay only portion of the costs up front but you have to keep buying the gas\coal. So it is cheaper to get started. This is the reason why they have "feed in tariffs" that is they get more for the energy early so they can recoup some of the investment early. Over the coming decades as our installed wind starts hitting the point it repays its build costs (i.e. c 20 years after installed) that wind farm will be producing energy for very little cost for the rest of its life span.

Solar is looking very likely to become the disruptive technology of our lives.

That's utter bollocks.

Wind is producing next to nothing for the vast sums of money invested into it and it's nowhere close to being at "grid parity" with coal and gas.

For instance, right now, the UK is producing 70% of all its energy from coal and gas. 6.7% from wind. Yesterday we were producing virtually nothing at all from wind. Its an utter fantasy to think we will ever be able to produce enough energy from wind in order to turn off a significant portion of our fossil fuel generation. Indeed, for every GWH of wind coming on stream we need the equivalent in back up from the likes of gas (because it can be fired up quickly) for days like yesterday when the wind just doesn't blow.

It MAY be that down the line we can produce abundant energy from renewables, but we certainly can't right now. As for hydro, its producing around 2% of energy production consistently. We would need an enormous building project and we would need to flood a ridiculous amount of land if thats the route we wanted to go down. The country is in danger of not being able to cope with its demand for energy thanks to stupidity on the part of government. Bad planning and bad investment in technologies that simply don't deliver power when required.So much money is being pissed away on shite energy projects that deliver f**k all.

Our nuclear power generation is down by around a third thanks to issues with some of the power stations that are knocking on. Its shameful that we are in the situation we are in just now through underinvestment based on ridiculous "green" philosophies. Last month we had some buckled hemp wearing f**k on the radio crowing about the amount of energy wind was providing over a weekend. He was claiming that nuclear was producing less (true for 48 hours) and that wind was tearing ahead (true for 48 hours). But it didn't last, and looking at the figures, the power all came in overnight when it was least needed. You can't guarantee wind power to match with grid demand. Thats the main isse and thats why you'll ALWAYS need proper back up for it. And at the moment, this means gas turbines as they are fastest to react to demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's utter bollocks.

Wind is producing next to nothing for the vast sums of money invested into it and it's nowhere close to being at "grid parity" with coal and gas.

For instance, right now, the UK is producing 70% of all its energy from coal and gas. 6.7% from wind. Yesterday we were producing virtually nothing at all from wind. Its an utter fantasy to think we will ever be able to produce enough energy from wind in order to turn off a significant portion of our fossil fuel generation. Indeed, for every GWH of wind coming on stream we need the equivalent in back up from the likes of gas (because it can be fired up quickly) for days like yesterday when the wind just doesn't blow.

It MAY be that down the line we can produce abundant energy from renewables, but we certainly can't right now. As for hydro, its producing around 2% of energy production consistently. We would need an enormous building project and we would need to flood a ridiculous amount of land if thats the route we wanted to go down. The country is in danger of not being able to cope with its demand for energy thanks to stupidity on the part of government. Bad planning and bad investment in technologies that simply don't deliver power when required.So much money is being pissed away on shite energy projects that deliver f**k all.

Our nuclear power generation is down by around a third thanks to issues with some of the power stations that are knocking on. Its shameful that we are in the situation we are in just now through underinvestment based on ridiculous "green" philosophies. Last month we had some buckled hemp wearing f**k on the radio crowing about the amount of energy wind was providing over a weekend. He was claiming that nuclear was producing less (true for 48 hours) and that wind was tearing ahead (true for 48 hours). But it didn't last, and looking at the figures, the power all came in overnight when it was least needed. You can't guarantee wind power to match with grid demand. Thats the main isse and thats why you'll ALWAYS need proper back up for it. And at the moment, this means gas turbines as they are fastest to react to demand.

You do realise that Scotland, and the UK in general is nowhere near it's maximum installed capacity for both onshore and offshore wind (which operates at higher efficiency than onshore), that variablity can be forecast and that wind was only ever intended to be part of a complimentary mix of renewables including wave, tidal, solar and hydro-storage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydro was largely abandoned due to cost. The French have quite a lot of hydro power, mostly built after the war. Around 80% of their energy generation comes from nuclear which in terms of footprint is tiny in comparison, and is working out far cheaper for them. They have zero issues regarding power delivery in their grid. Indeed, the UK imports more power from France than our wind farms generate on a yearly basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that Scotland, and the UK in general is nowhere near it's maximum installed capacity for both onshore and offshore wind (which operates at higher efficiency than onshore), that variablity can be forecast and that wind was only ever intended to be part of a complimentary mix of renewables including wave, tidal, solar and hydro-storage.

I understand totally. Thanks.

Wind doesn't deliver. The figures entirely back up my position. Wave? Hasn't developed to the point where its achievable yet, solar? mmm hmm and hydro storage is going to take a completely enormous investment in NEW hydro schemes which are the most costly by far to build in terms of capital outlay. What we have in the grid right now produce 2% of all our energy. You can work out what we would need to build to strap on pumped storage to what we already have as well as what would be required in order to shut down even the coal fired stations which delivers our baseload of around a third of all our power. Coal is also by far the cheapest method of power generation. So you'd shut down the cheapest system of power and replace it with the most expensive? And you are concerned for "the poors"? Explain that to them when their bills come in. Explain that to them when the costs to industry (the biggest users of energy) in terms of power becomes so ludicrously high that they cant compete and jobs go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand totally. Thanks.

Wind doesn't deliver. The figures entirely back up my position. Wave? Hasn't developed to the point where its achievable yet, solar? mmm hmm and hydro storage is going to take a completely enormous investment in NEW hydro schemes which are the most costly by far to build in terms of capital outlay. What we have in the grid right now produce 2% of all our energy. You can work out what we would need to build to strap on pumped storage to what we already have as well as what would be required in order to shut down even the coal fired stations which delivers our baseload of around a third of all our power. Coal is also by far the cheapest method of power generation. So you'd shut down the cheapest system of power and replace it with the most expensive? And you are concerned for "the poors"? Explain that to them when their bills come in. Explain that to them when the costs to industry (the biggest users of energy) in terms of power becomes so ludicrously high that they cant compete and jobs go.

Wind can and does deliver. You need a lot of sites, but it does deliver - at least for a place like Scotland. Bitching about wind presently and saying 'it doesn't deliver' is like saying a single Nuclear power station running a single 300MW generator doesn't deliver. in practice you need more generators and more stations. Last year the renewables mix which is still heavily accented towards onshore wind delivered 46% of Scotland's electricity demand by gross consumption. Clearly, far more work is needed and much of the necessary development will be in offshore wind which can deliver higher capacities and efficiencies, as well as in tidal schemes which, given Scotland's geography should give good returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wind can and does deliver. You need a lot of sites, but it does deliver - at least for a place like Scotland. Bitching about wind presently and saying 'it doesn't deliver' is like saying a single Nuclear power station running a single 300MW generator doesn't deliver. in practice you need more generators and more stations. Last year the renewables mix which is still heavily accented towards onshore wind delivered 46% of Scotland's electricity demand by gross consumption. Clearly, far more work is needed and much of the necessary development will be in offshore wind which can deliver higher capacities and efficiencies, as well as in tidal schemes which, given Scotland's geography should give good returns.

It simply doesn't. Not only does it not deliver, it isn't predictable which means you need to install back up.

How many more windfarms will you require to deliver what is needed and what do you do when you have periods of weather like right now, when the system is effectively down? What do you back it up with?

When? And where are these figures coming from?

I'm afraid that you are absolutely away with the fairies on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And its also worth pointing out that we have a national grid. It was brought about to serve the nation, not particular regions. Its like me claiming that Ayrshire is entirely self sufficient in energy thanks to Hunterston and the nonsense windfarms dotted around the place.

Scotland nuclear stations will be offline in a decade or so unless they get ANOTHER life extension. Hunterston is currently operating at low capacity thanks to cracks. Longannets coal burning will cease at some stage because of regulation, not because it fails to deliver. So there's a fucking enormous chunk of power away from Scotland if they cease generation. Wind simply doesn't cut it. At peak demand for instance, can you guarantee me that the wind will blow from 4 in the afternoon to around 7 in the evening every single day 365 days a year? If you can't, what will you do about it? Candles and waterwheels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It simply doesn't. Not only does it not deliver, it isn't predictable which means you need to install back up.

How many more windfarms will you require to deliver what is needed and what do you do when you have periods of weather like right now, when the system is effectively down? What do you back it up with?

When? And where are these figures coming from?

I'm afraid that you are absolutely away with the fairies on this one.

It simply does.

If the onshore windfarms operate at 40% efficiency then you need to install about 2.5 times your stated consumption. The offshore ones run at much higher efficiencies (it's a lot windier at sea and more often) and also there are much larger areas available to place them. You complemenmt them with tidal (which are quite predictable), Solar (you need a lot of installed capacity, but generally weather systems that lead to low winds also tend to clearer conditions so that solar becomes more useful when wind is 'offline') and yes, you back it all up with a couple of fast gas reactors.

The finished article is a decentralised grid using a broad mix of complementary renewable systems - not just 'wind' even though that is already generating a large part of Scotland's gross electricity demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It simply does.

If the onshore windfarms operate at 40% efficiency then you need to install about 2.5 times your stated consumption. The offshore ones run at much higher efficiencies (it's a lot windier at sea and more often) and also there are much larger areas available to place them. You complemenmt them with tidal (which are quite predictable), Solar (you need a lot of installed capacity, but generally weather systems that lead to low winds also tend to clearer conditions so that solar becomes more useful when wind is 'offline') and yes, you back it all up with a couple of fast gas reactors.

The finished article is a decentralised grid using a broad mix of complementary renewable systems - not just 'wind' even though that is already generating a large part of Scotland's gross electricity demand.

I'll go back as far as you like and refute this. But I'd be interested to see where you get you output figures from for Scotland as I can never find them for here alone. I CAN get all I need for the grid as whole. And it's perfectly obvious that wind doesn't deliver. As I mentioned before, we buy more cheap nuclear surplus from the French than our entire wind array (onshore and offshore) provides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...