-
Anyone in this sector?
Rantings of a denier or is wind full of hot air?
-
@MiketheSnow He's telling the truth, but in a typical government hating way. It's very boring, and predictable.
None of the points he raises are unsolvable.
The real issue with Net Zero is electrical production vs electrical storage. Between wind, sun & tidal, I do believe there is sufficient energy to power the UK. But I don't believe there is without storage for peak times.
The dude basically read this Guardian article and put his own Government whinge on top of the existing Guardian government whinge.
-
@Nevorian said in Climate Change:
Climate crisis or No climate crisis the reality is that fossil fuels are a finite resource so we need to be developing alternatives anyway
But we should be doing this based on real science. Not the crap that passes as science today in the West. Esp relating to man-made climate change.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Climate Change:
Anyone in this sector?
Rantings of a denier or is wind full of hot air?
what does he mean roads and drives have to be dug up to "swap over to electricity"...im assuming its just a poor wording and houses generally dont have gas lighting
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@Nevorian said in Climate Change:
Climate crisis or No climate crisis the reality is that fossil fuels are a finite resource so we need to be developing alternatives anyway
But we should be doing this based on real science. Not the crap that passes as science today in the West. Esp relating to man-made climate change.
your mixing up climate change and fossil fuels being a finite resource. I believe in climate change...hell, i believe its a fact and not something to be believed or not...but thats a moot point when your just talking about developing a different energy sources and importantly ones that are renewable or hell even ones that countries can own themselves like wind and solar and not being reliant of buying from other countries
@Nevorian literally says regardless of anything to do with climate change
its like those that mix up pollution and climate change....we can say improving air quality is in itself a good thing without thinking that will have and effect on "climate change"
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
I believe in climate change...hell, i believe its a fact and not something to be believed or not...
I do too. Everyone does. But the question is what causes it. Cows farting and burping. Or a tiny increase in CO2. Or changes in the Sun.
I back the Sun.
your mixing up climate change and fossil fuels being a finite resource
Its not just about energy. What about all the other uses? And finite for 5 years. or 500 years. We need real science. Not bullshit that is more more about money and control now
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
@Winger but the point was, despite the thread title @Nevorian wasn't talking about climate change but alternative energy sources
As were others further back in the thread.
There will always be two sides at least to any science debate and both may even have credible evidence.
-
your mixing up climate change and fossil fuels being a finite resource. I believe in climate change...hell, i believe its a fact and not something to be believed or not...but thats a moot point when your just talking about developing a different energy sources and importantly ones that are renewable or hell even ones that countries can own themselves like wind and solar and not being reliant of buying from other countries
Except that energy has to be stored, at times?, and you are most likely buying that battery/storage device or energy harvester from China so there will be dependence there.
Just wondering, since people conclude fossil fuels are a finite resource, what is the assumed supply of materials/precious metals needed to make storage devices? Obviously it's not infinite and is there any toxicity created once they have been exhausted? I am really green on this topic as I tend to run the opposite direction of those who think the world is going to burn up if we continue to use fossil fuels. I am pretty happy with fossil fuels except for the increased prices caused by those who want to reduce supply and tax the shit out of it.
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change:
@MiketheSnow He's telling the truth, but in a typical government hating way. It's very boring, and predictable.
None of the points he raises are unsolvable.
The real issue with Net Zero is electrical production vs electrical storage. Between wind, sun & tidal, I do believe there is sufficient energy to power the UK. But I don't believe there is without storage for peak times.
The dude basically read this Guardian article and put his own Government whinge on top of the existing Guardian government whinge.
Only just found this about wind generation. Completely agree with @MajorRage all solvable and yes those are good alternatives. Storage definitely an issue but again solvable.
The biggest issue is that everyone wants governments to do it in the first place. Macro generation, storage, and distribution is costly and wasteful. The whole system needs to be approached on a micro scale. Governments can play their part with subsidies (we really need to address some of the ways our whole societies operate wrt transport - power or otherwise) but if I stay on topic with power, it is far more efficient done as close to the user site as possible and can also be tailored to the local met conditions. The grid can still be used for surplus distribution where local conditions are over supplying.
I'm considering a 3kw vertical axis turbine to charge my battery because we still have wind at night and there is often a decent breeze on cloudy days to supplement the solar system. I have largely been forced into this as our grid is so unreliable (utter shit actually). If we get a decent breeze a tree somewhere will touch a wire a few times and we great brown or blackout. I could change that from a negative to a positive with a turbine on site. Electricity is getting so expensive that self-production and storage is becoming financially viable with a reasonable payback period.
Disclaimer - I have no idea who funds "statista". They may be vulnerable (bribed) to (by) green lobbyists and "contributions" as much as politicians are from oil and gas companies.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
as much as politicians are from oil and gas companies.
The same Politicians who are right behind all this Green energy.
The answer for energy is likely 4th generation mini nukes. So, we are unlikely to go there. Rather stick with useless wind turbines. That may be polluting the atmosphere doing production and also during their lifetime. And are an ugly eyesore when their life is up
-
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
It's kinda like me going to the doctor and them saying - well your going to die in 10 years time, here's a solution you can have right now that has these side effects or you can sit there slowly dying and wait for better technology to come along.
How many of us would take the dying slowly option while hoping something better comes along? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Yet this is apparently what we've decided to do.
Baffling.
-
@Windows97 I would suggest that psychology is a logical counter to why things are being done as they are. Humans are remarkably good at denying the existence of "inconvenient truths".
People are also generally change resistant (or those with the ability to effect change make a lot of money out of the status quo).
Those things don't change core facts or events, but they do mean that responses don't always happen in a "logical" manner.
-
Watched the first few minutes of the video and the very poor graphics of wind farms being "buried".
First thing: https://www.desmog.com/net-zero-watch/
Net Zero Watch (NZW) is a campaign group launched and managed by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) that claims to “scrutinise” the UK government’s net zero emissions plans and provide a “clear view of the reality of climate and energy policies”.1
The GWPF is the UK’s most prominent climate science denial group,
...
The group is currently based at 55 Tufton Street in Westminster, an address it shares with the GWPF and several right-wing, libertarian thinktanks.So I'd take what they say with a grain of salt. Maybe a bucket.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
@Windows97 I would suggest that psychology is a logical counter to why things are being done as they are. Humans are remarkably good at denying the existence of "inconvenient truths".
As a species, we're often very good at action when in a real crisis, but not putting in the work to prevent that crisis from happening.
There are still people who deny Y2K was ever a thing.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
Because, based on the experience in Europe and the USA, they cost too much, never meet timelines, and are being rapidly overtaken by other technologies. Money shouldn't matter when the cost of inaction is in the trillions, but think about the shareholders.
The promised SMRs don't look like delivering, either:
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
There are still people who deny Y2K was ever a thing.
fuck yes it was a thing! I watched it heaps!
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
As a species, we're often very good at action when in a real crisis, but not putting in the work to prevent that crisis from happening.
Yeah, reasonably important that is the correct action to a crisis as well not knee-jerk nuclear reactions to it (as your next post illustrates).
US navy pilots (I think) response to an emergency was to "wind the clock" i.e don't do anything until you have thought about it because you may well make things worse. A fire requires fast action, but you really do have to consider a few things before you end up putting fuel on it...
Balance between action, inaction, and time. Has our response to climate change been immediate enough? Is it now?
I hope we are past the "do we need to do anything" stage.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
Some countries are. Those are the ones where the public debate hasn't been completely hijacked and there's sufficient residual competence at high school mathematics.
One only has to look at the economics of renewables when it comes to the NEM. Adherents to the faith like to point out how cheap energy is when you've got the sun shining and wind blowing. The problem is twofold:
- Given enough capacity the wholesale price goes negative during the day, so who the fuck is going to add additional renewable capacity for that sort of return?
- The cost of provisioning dependable power is horrifically prohibitive once you go down this route. One only has to look at all the additional network and storage. Case in point; look at Snowy 2.0 if you want a case study in cost and schedule blowouts.
We'd have been better off accepting the iron law of human development thus far; energy density and looked to engineering amelioration. Because no matter what we do, there's three billion people wanting our quality of life and only one path for them to adopt it; cheap, dependable energy.
-
@antipodean Agree with everything you're saying but those issues are for massive infrastructure again - networks and storage. We really shouldn't really be continuing to discuss it because as you correctly point out (and @NTA re nuclear above) those projects are hugely expensive and tend to have other issues.
The fact that it keeps coming up is the biggest part of the problem, there has to be a quantum (quite literally) shift in how we address it. Generation and storage at source and some personal responsibility for power generation. As you mention developing nations want what we have but they also have the opportunity to do it differently and more efficiently. We have to change the whole way we even think about it.
That probably reflects my political views away from big government and Nanny states but is also a pragmatic approach to the issues that are repeatedly bought up about the problems with renewables. Some things like law and order, health and social welfare are essential services that we provide a safety net for people, but we can approach other needs like power slightly differently. Even water supply could be dealt with without such enormous infrastructure. Three waters debate is a case in point of how providing a basic human need on large scales can be very problematic. The stuff falls out of the sky in ever increasing quantities around NZ and yet we feel to need to transport it around the country in pipes FFS. Yes, we need drought management systems etc, but home storage from rainfall is so simple. I love the fact that I am in charge of providing my own clean, untreated water and I will soon be self-sufficient for energy as well, including our cars. Yes, I can afford it, but funding needs to be redirected so that more people can do it. Even income tax or rates deductions for self supply to increase uptake would be a step forward.
Just because climate change is a macro problem doesn't mean we can't have micro solutions. The sum of the parts, etc.
Rant over. When I'm in charge....
Climate Change