Sorry, but your arguments are becoming increasingly surreal: that extinction events were the result of warming, that weather events post the industrial revolution must be attributable to it, and having gone to great length explaining the expense of renewables derived "Green Energy" in the UK one bizarrely claims I've not provided any evidence? The mind truly boggles!
On October 18, 2019 at 19:54, djy said... The trolling comment was not meant as a slur; it was merely an expression of my disbelief at what I believe to be your not appreciating the extremity of an ice age.
I agree it is enormous, I just also realise that 1) when one looks at the past, warming has always been a bigger disaster then cooling. Like I said, and you mocked, mammoths and the rest and the great extinction did not happen when the ice age was staring, it did not happen when it was at its peak, it happened with the warming. 2) no one in his right mind is talking about entering a new ice age. so it is a bit ridiculous fretting over nothing.
1). Though much remains unknown, it's believed that at least four of the five known mass extinction events were as a result of planetary cooling. [1] That an animal, which evolved during a cold phase, died out as the planet naturally rewarmed is hardly surprising. It lends no weight to your contention that warming is more dangerous than cooling – particularly the intense cold of a glacial period. 2). Not now no, but it was a concern in the late 60s and 70s, as I've previously pointed out and provided evidence for.
*
Extreme weather events occur all the time. Here are just two examples:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org] [Link: en.wikipedia.org]
Both occurred long before CO2 became an issue.
yes extreme weather does happen and yes it can have natural causes (like volcanos erupting, sun spots....) but your examples don't really work well since both of them happened after the start of the industrial revolution. If its pollution and the coal burning was enough to change the pepper moth how do you know that it did not also played a role in those incidents?
To claim the examples I’ve provided are tainted by the industrial revolution is to suggest that all weather related events since are such. I somehow doubt, however, that atmospheric soot in Manchester [2] has ever had much in the way of influence over typhoons in the South China Sea.
*
Given all the information I've previously provided, I'm at a loss to understand why you still believe "Green Energy" is universally cheap.
you have not shown any evidence, you have rambled on but you miss the point each time by focusing on what is there instead of what could be there.
I've told you how much I pay per unit of electricity. I've provided a link to how much they pay in Germany (who have invested far more in renewables). I've provided information on the lucrative subsides enjoyed by renewables. I've provided information on the climate change levies received by government in their financial reports. I've provided information on the CCC's future plans. I've provided information on the technological constraints of these plans. I've provided information on UK fuel poverty.
Perhaps one would care to clarify what one considers evidence?
*
Clearly your hydropower is, though I wonder if the price Quebec customers pay is discounted against the amount paid by the export market.
I agree our electricity is cheap. But (like most of this conversation) you are completely wrong.
[Link: cbc.ca]
The Quebec government is expected to force Hydro-Québec to return $1.5 billion to customers who have been overpaying the Crown corporation for electricity.
I say "real way" because like we have technically been over charged for the last decade. And no where near subsidized (in any real way) with exports.
you said we are few and far between and so we most likely would not have been able to do the projects if it was just for the Quebec market. But those other markets (and industry) pay less per kWh than I do.
This was simply a speculative comment based on the investment required to build the plants and the income which could be derived from the relatively small population base. You claim my comment is incorrect, which may very well be the case, but offer no evidence in support of your claim. You do, however, provide a link to a report indicating your already "dirt cheap" electricity should really be cheaper. Forgive me if exhibit a distinct lack of empathy.
And in regard to the linked news report, did one note the comments of Seethal Pathak?
'Seethal Pathak works at Project Genesis, an anti-poverty non-profit in Cote-des-Neiges. She said some people can only afford to heat part of their apartment. "[They] go to the mall to avoid their cold apartments or who even make the choice between eating or heating," she said.'
Fuel poverty at 6 cents a unit!? Do you still believe it easier to adapt to cold?
*
The UK energy market, however, is an entirely different beast.
agree and there in lies the problem ;)
As previously mentioned, ... At present, the market price for electricity is approximately £45 per MWh...
but that is the point you are looking at the past you need to look at the present and the future
[Link: carbonbrief.org]
In the third quarter of 2019, the UK’s windfarms, solar panels, biomass and hydro plants generated more electricity than the combined output from power stations fired by coal, oil and gas, Carbon Brief analysis reveals.
During the three months of July, August and September, renewables generated an estimated total of 29.5 terawatt hours (TWh), compared with just 29.1TWh from fossil fuels, the analysis shows.
[Link: independent.co.uk]
12 new energy projects coming in at a record low price of between £39.65 and £41.61 per megawatt hour, the government revealed on Friday.
That is less than half of the £92.50 per megawatt hour that the government has committed to pay for power from the delayed and over-budget Hinkley Point C nuclear plant which is due to open in 2025.
Compounding one's bizarre claim about my not providing evidence of the destabilising and costly effects of U.K. renewables, one condescendingly claims I should be looking to the present and future. Clearly, then, one has not troubled oneself to read the CCC's Net-Zero Britain report, which gloomily does precisely that. Indeed, it rather seems one would prefer the fanciful scribblings of The Carbon Brief and a puff-piece from The Independent.
Presently run by former Guardian reporter and WWF worker Leo Hickman, The Carbon Brief is funded by the European Climate Foundation, which channels millions from far left liberal organisations to promote Green ideology. The Carbon Brief is thus a fully paid up member of the Green Blob and one which is handsomely rewarded to promote carbon issues and the 'benefits' of renewables, albeit at the expense of the hard pressed British consumer.
By its inclusion of biomass in its list of renewables, The Carbon Brief's inherently untrustworthy nature almost immediately becomes evident; a hint of this being found in the report when it says:
"Some two-thirds of electricity generated from biomass in the UK comes from 'plant biomass', primarily [American] wood pellets burnt at Lynemouth and the Drax plant in Yorkshire. The remainder comes from an array of smaller sites based on landfill gas, sewage gas or anaerobic digestion. The Committee on Climate Change says the UK should "move away" from large-scale biomass power plants, once existing subsidy contracts for Drax and Lynemouth expire in 2027. Using biomass to generate electricity is not zero-Carbon and in some circumstances could [does] lead to higher emissions than from fossil fuels. Moreover, there are more valuable uses for the world’s limited supply of biomass feedstock, the CCC says, including carbon sequestration and hard-to-abate sectors with few alternatives."
Having already explained the preferential treatment afforded renewables (i.e. their indexed linked pricing and guaranteed market) it is not unusual for them to produce as much electricity as fossil fuels during the months of least demand. Furthermore, though the 29.5 TWh appears large, it still represents only 38% of wind and solar's potential given its installed capacity of 35 GW - once again highlighting their inherent inefficiency and the need for a huge amount of over capacity to supply even modest amounts. One is also ignoring the fact that sheer volume of production is no good measure of a systems worth; i.e. it does not demonstrate that renewables simply cannot be relied upon to produce output when most needed, or too much when it is not. As 'Planning Engineer' discusses here, [3] not all megawatts are created equal:
"Myth 3 – All Megwatts are equal – An electric power system is very complex and must operate within narrow parameters while balancing loads and resources and supporting synchronism. Conventional rotating machinery such as coal, nuclear, and gas plants as well as hydro generation provide a lot of support to the system. This includes reactive power (vars), inertia, regulation of the system frequency and the capability to ramping up and down as the load varies. Most renewable resources lack these important capabilities and furthermore are only intermittently available (not dependable). Since wind turbines must rotate at variable speeds their rotational energy cannot be used to support the system. Some, but not all of the disadvantages of solar and wind energy can be mitigated at extra costs through electronic and mechanical means. When these resources only make up a small percentage of the generation on the system, it is not a big deal. The system is strong enough that utilities are ok with letting a small percentage of solar lean on the system. But as the penetration of solar and wind energy increases the system robustness will degrade and reliability will be compromised without costly improvements. Such additional costs are not generally applied to renewable resources at this time."
(Note: Russ Schussler (Planning Engineer), P.E., Retired Vice President of Transmission Planning at Georgia Transmission Corporations, has spent over 35 years in the electric utility industry. Russ has served in various roles working to ensure the reliability of the grid including serving on the NERC Planning Committee and Chairing the SERC Engineering Committee.)
Now turning our attention to that latest round of wind farms, The Daily Telegraph's idiotic Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had this to say:
"Rejoice: Britain's huge gamble on offshore wind has hit the jackpot. Wind has won the argument. The auction prices for offshore projects announced today have blown away the competition. Four projects on the Dogger Bank – more than 60 miles out into the North Sea, and invisible even to the most outraged Nimby armed with a telescope – will have five gigawatts (GW) of capacity at a strike price ranging from £39.65 to £41.61 per megawatt/hour (MWh) from 2023 to 2024. A further project off Scotland will come in at similar price levels."
Leaving aside the suspicion of how supposedly unrelated companies manage to bid the same price…
...and why, if they were only going to bid market price they even bothered with the CfD auction (just get on and build) what is never considered is the cost of wind power's intermittency and the need to maintain standby capacity for when the wind doesn't blow. AEP's 'gamble' also ignores the over £100 billion already committed to get us to this position; i.e. that we've paid/going to pay over £100 billion developing an inefficient and intermittent energy source no cheaper than what we already have. These costs are as follows:
1). ROCs - Renewable Obligation Certificates. This was the original means of subsidising renewables. In the last financial year they awarded subsidy payments of £3.3 billion to wind operators, which is on top of the value of the electricity sold. Estimated cost to the consumer over the lifetime of the assets - £82.5 billion. Unsurprisingly, this system is now closed to new projects.
2). CfDs - Contracts for Difference. Previous to the latest round of awards, wind power CfDs totalled 7541 MW at an average price of £119.40 per MWh. [4] Removing market value and assuming a capacity utilisation of 40% (producing 26.4 TWh a year), the annual subsidy equates to £1.8 billion (index linked) payable for 15 years. Total cost passed on to the consumer - £27 billion.
3). Capacity Market. As previously discussed, the inefficiency and intermittency of wind power requires the National Grid to provide cover for when the wind doesn't blow. This year alone, that cost is set to be £1 billion. However, with coal set to be completely phased out in the next few years (spare capacity thus becoming even tighter) that figure will almost certainly rise. Cost to the consumer - £25 billion.
4). Constraint Payments. While the primary focus should rightly be on wind power's inability to provide when the wind doesn't blow, it should not be forgotten that there are times when there is simply too much energy for the grid to absorb. At times like these, the National Grid has to pay wind providers to switch off supply. Last year these constraint payments cost consumers £124 million; £115 million of which going to Scottish wind farms due to a lack of transmission capacity to England where the demand was.
Since 2010 this cost has inexorably risen and will continue to do so as more wind power is added to the system. Indeed, it’s believed these payments could easily reach £1 billion annually in the foreseeable future.
(Note: The updated table shows 2019 payments have reached £109 million. [5])
5). Total cost. Summarily dismissing the previously provided data and expert analysis as not being evidence of the true cost of wind and solar's destabilising intermittency and inefficiency (for propaganda from The Carbon Brief and a puff-piece in The Independent) clearly demonstrates one's innate desire not to understand the realities of living with wind and solar renewables. It is all the more galling coming from someone with the sinecure of abundant "dirt cheap" dispatchable hydropower who has no personal experience of the issues. It is not I who is missing the point (the one paying the price for this madness) it is you.
Pointing to a few extra GWs of wind power, having a strike price circa that of market price, as being a reason for optimism, completely ignores the over £150 billion the hard pressed British consumer/tax payer has already been committed to covering. Why on earth do you think I'm paying over five times more for my electricity and the Germans over seven times more? It's certainly not due to the cost of fossil fuels, as that heating costs chart clearly indicates. And what of the future, which we've not even touched upon?
6). The future. The CCC's plans, if you trouble yourself to actually read them, sees baseload being provided by nuclear, renewables providing the bulk of the supply with gas/biomass acting as a balancing and emergency backup mechanism. Sounds simple on paper, but the obstacles in achieving this supposed energy utopia are huge, costly and run contrary to all known engineering principles.
With plans to remove Natural Gas as a domestic energy source, the CCC's proposals have already been dealt a hammer blow by the collapse of talks to build a new generation of nuclear plants - lack of funding being cited as the primary reason. Gas could take up the slack, but its continued use is predicated on the, as yet undeveloped, cost effective CCS - £££s.
Regardless of diminishing baseload, the government is forging ahead with renewables in the hope it will eventually generate 57% of supply which, as I’ve already pointed out (and you have completely ignored), is almost twice the accepted level by which one can expect to maintain grid stability. Furthermore, the amount of extra capacity required is enormous (over 200 GW) and dwarfs that circa 6 GW being promoted by The Independent and Telegraph.
This impossible target has seen the CCC champion the idea retro fitting housing stock with improved insulation (at incredible cost), the installation of heat pump systems (also at immense cost) and the development of hydrogen as a replacement for Natural Gas (at lord knows what cost). Add to this the curtailing of freedom of movement (by the enforced removal of fossil fuelled transport) and the inevitable power cuts (the true reason behind the smart meter programme – the cost, £10-20 billion, once again to be borne by the consumer) and I can easily see frustration boiling over into violence.
The bottom line is that wind and solar renewables do not reduce electricity cost, they increase it. This is a proven fact no matter what you, The Carbon Brief or the MSM might say. [6-15]
Note: Using data freely available from GridWatch, my own analysis of third quarter electricity generation (by type – in TWhs) is as follows:
Gas (CCGT) – 24.3387 Gas (OCGT) – 0.0149 Coal – 0.4108 Oil – 0.0000
While they’re happy to toss around statistics like they’re going out of fashion, The Carbon Brief do not offer the reader the opportunity to review their calculations - nothing new there then.
*
Because electricity is the most expensive means by which to heat the home (and water), most households in the UK use gas - the table graphic being a means to illustrate the scale of the differential. Natural gas, however, is a fossil fuel and recent legislation will see the banning of gas boiler (furnace) installation in new build homes after 2025. This doesn't directly affect me (at least for the moment), but that was never my concern.
I get what you are saying and I agree. In the UK right now it does not make sense to heat electrically. What you are missing is that there was a time , not so long ago, when that was the case here as well which is why my houce was built with an oil furnace and later updated to bi-energy (electric+oil) and only recently I went full electric. Quebec usd to have more of its electricity that fossil fuel based and at first it was going to go nuclear and until very recently those two nuclear stations were creating expensive electricity.
You appear incapable of understanding that dispatchable baseload generation is the mainstay of any grid. Wind and solar are not baseload and their inefficiency and intermittency add cost by the need for grid balancing. It will never make sense to heat electrically with such an energy mix, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
*
No serious scientist or observer is claiming that the world has not warmed,
cool we agree on that
but it's cynical political opportunism feeding the belief that CO2 is the sole culprit and that by controlling its emissions we can control the climate.
but who is saying sole culprit? from the every beginning when you asked why CO2 I said it I not the only one but the easiest o deal with. Either you do nothing, procrastinate and only start reacting wen it is too late or you need to start somewhere.
The IPCC. And I don’t consider the spending trillions of dollars, impoverishing countries, destroying livelihoods, to achieve nothing (and almost certainly creating civil unrest in the process) the easy option.
Doing something simply for the sake of doing something is simply stupid and wasteful. And as I’ve been pointing out, the science simply doesn’t support the various doomsday theories.
*
If, as you appear to believe, climate change played a role in the Montreal flooding, surely you should be lobbying your government to implement a flood mitigation/prevention programme,
Quebec redraw flood maps this year Offered to buy the homes (up to 200k which is very little for a home) in the new flood zones.
And?
*
not expecting other countries to impoverish themselves in the pure blind hope it will stop the flooding.
I am not, like I said repeatedly it is too late for these people. my question is what impoverishment would happen if the UK needs to redraw flood zones and needs to buy out people living in places like London the same way Quebec needed to do right now)
The Government would likely address the problem as and when it arises. Flooding happens [16]. Get over it.
