1). Big change may indeed be detrimental (as per the cataclysmic events which triggered the extinction events), but on a geological timescale what we are experiencing is not a big change. The present warming is well within the scope of natural variability. [1] It's politicians, scientists wishing to maintain their income stream and environmental extremists (all with various axes to grind) claiming otherwise in the hope it will stir the gullible into action. One could say some have completely lost the plot. [2 & 3]
*
2). One may be reading, but one is undoubtedly not understanding. Note what was said of the Late Devonian Extinction:
"Volcanic ash is thought to be responsible for cooling earth's temperatures which killed off the spiders and scorpion-type creatures that had made it on land by this time."
The cataclysmic events bringing about the Triassic–Jurassic and Cretaceous–Paleogene extinctions were, as you say, believed to be asteroid impacts. However, the resultant dust cloud triggered catastrophic climate change (as per the above) cooling the planet. (Note: Atmospheric pollution causing cooling is the central theme of Rasool and Schneider 1971 [4] - which, as previously explained, was published during the time of the global cooling scare. Note too that the same paper also claims the induced heating effect of CO2 to be minimal.)
This leaves the Permian–Triassic extinction which may well be as a result of another sudden climatic shift, but to say it was caused by CO2 is being somewhat disingenuous; as the following quote (you didn't reproduce) clearly states it was the result of an enormous volcanic eruption releasing CO2.
"'The Great Dying' was caused by an enormous volcanic eruption that filled the air with carbon dioxide, which fed different kinds of bacteria that began emitting large amounts of methane. The Earth warmed, and the oceans became acidic."
(Note: Again as previously explained, an upwelling of CO2 can have serious consequences: [5] the reason for my concern over the storage component of CCS.)
It could be argued that in regards to the Permian-Triassic Extinction, the conclusions voiced in the article run contrary to the findings of Rasool and Schneider and the known understanding of CO2 lagging temperature change. The argument, however, is moot as none of the above supports your assertion that planetary warming is more detrimental to life than cooling - something you've inadvertently affirmed when you later go on to say:
"…yes the price is cheap per kWh, but don’t forget that in total cash this person is paying for electricity to heat their place roughly what you see in your table for electricity. The weather here gets much colder and for much longer."
*
3). Unless one is an environmental extremist, it's recognised that CO2 didn't become an issue (if, indeed, it is an issue) until the 1950/60s; thus, my two examples are perfectly valid. What you are also failing to recognise is that contrary to MSM reports, extreme weather events are occurring less frequently - which is a regular theme of Tony Heller's videos. This, of course, doesn't sit well with the gatekeepers of historical temperature data sets, as they are presently busying themselves rewriting temperature history - cooling the past and warming the present to support the illusion of there being a more significant warming effect than there has been. I would call this fraud, you may disagree, but whatever it is it isn't science.
*
4). Comparing investment in dispatchable hydro with non-synchronous sources such as wind and solar is like comparing apples to oranges. This has been made abundantly clear by the evidence and expert testimony I've provided. Your simplistic economic model doesn't work with present renewable technologies.
*
5). If one wishes to infer something unintended from a simple throwaway comment so be it. The reality, however, is I care not one jot about your paying 6 cents a unit. I do, though, care that someone who, while benefitting from almost 100% dispatchable hydropower, is trying to lecture me on the economics of non-synchronous generation; i.e. that it's perfectly viable and cheap when all the evidence, my practical experience and the expert testimony from those having worked in the industry is screaming no it isn't and never will be.
*
6). Pray tell how one can determine whether the 'answers' published by The Carbon Brief are correct or not when they do not provide the data and analysis upon which they are based? However, as previously stated, a measure of the report's worth can be determined by the inclusion of biomass in the renewables column, when even (as the TCB themselves report - in the same article) the CCC now sees biomass as being non-renewable. Putting it in its rightful place and their whole analysis and claim, if my figure for 3rd quarter biomass production is anything to go by, gets shot to pieces.
As previously explained, my analysis is based upon the freely available GridWatch data. This data appears to come from unimpeachable sources and as such also gives cause to question the validity of the TCB article. I do not, however, claim it to be 'correct' as I have no means of verifying traceability.
Note: One would do well to read this paper [6] on the Limitations of 'Renewable' Energy; the conclusions of which goes thus:
"In the years since I was first tempted to engage in trying to understand the real issues behind power generation - especially electrical power generation - there is, above all, one salient feature that emerges across the board. Sanity and rationalism have been cast aside, and the whole arena is now a political and ideological battleground whose main protagonists understand little or nothing about the industry they seek to bend to suit their ideological (and possibly commercial) needs.
"In short, the world is full of people who have an opinion about power generation, who understand nothing about how it actually works or even what actually works. They will readily believe contrary things at the same time. They believe the governments when it tells them that climate change must be addressed by renewable energy, they disbelieve it when it quietly lets slip that nuclear disasters are not actually disasters on much of a scale at all. They believe scientists who tell them that climate change is a proven fact, and it’s all the fault of Big Oil, they don't believe scientists who tell them that if that is so, the remedy is, in fact, nuclear power.
"Government policies are riddled with contradictions. Merkel shuts nuclear power stations and builds dirty brown coal ones, instead - the renewables don't work, and industry can't afford to continue funding the lost cause, but politically that can't be admitted, because with a PR system and enough Greens to hold the balance of power, the minority lunatic fringe must be kept appeased. The UK is in a similar position with a coalition comprised of people who know that nuclear power is needed, and are deeply sceptical of renewables, but are hamstrung by their coalition partners utter determination to drive it off the face of the planet and install windmills irrespective of their actual benefit.
"It’s a political minefield. One of the most telling statements I ever read came from a Danish paper [7] some years back. It bears repeating.
'Hitherto, the radical transformation of the Danish energy system has almost entirely been driven by economic considerations based on technical feasibility. The recent imposition of arbitrary targets by politicians that require unquestioning implementation by the infrastructure suppliers, without any apparent estimates of costs, is a relatively new and worrying departure for the way Denmark is organized.
The very fact that the wind power system, that has been imposed so expensively upon the consumers, cannot and does not achieve the simple objectives for which it was built, should be warning the energy establishment, at all levels, of the considerable gap between aspiration and reality. [My bold]
Denmark needs a proper debate and a thorough re-appraisal of the technologies that need to be invented, developed and costed before forcing the country into a venture that shows a high risk of turning into an economic black hole.'
"Rational scientific analysis shows conclusively that renewable energy cannot ever deliver on the very basis that it has been sold to the public. It's not cheap, it's anything but free, it’s not environmentally desirable, it offers no energy security, and it cannot exist in isolation from other technologies that are either even more costly than itself is or have grave risks associated with them. [My bold]
"What we find when we analyse the intermittency problem, is that intermittent non-dispatchable power actually carries very little value at all. What society requires, is dispatchable power – power that can be on tap when it’s required, and turned off when it's not, and it requires, in addition, a large component of cheap baseload power, that never needs to be turned off. What it does not require is wilful power that's here today and gone tomorrow.
"You cannot run a country on volunteers who turn up for work when they want to, and at other times don't (and take up 1000 times the office space of your normal workers even when they don't turn up at all). If the power density of renewable energy makes it large, awkward, expensive, and environmentally challenging, the intermittency destroys its value completely. It is not something you can engineer out either: if the fuel supply is intermittent, lacking storage, so too will be the output. And the fond hope that engineers can build anything you want given enough time and money is total fantasy. We simply do not know how to build storage - we do not even know where to begin - that is better than fossil or nuclear fuel in terms of cost, size and safety considerations. If we did, we would long ago have done it - and halved the capital cost of the rest of the grid in the process.
"The renewable lobby must know this. They simply seem not to care. If you look at the complete range of political pressures applied to the power industry worldwide, it benefits only one set of people: those engaged in the construction and supply of renewable technologies, and gas. Policies, when examined, result in no significant emissions reductions, but only increase profits for a minority. In fact, it makes more sense to regard the renewable energy business as a pure piece of cynical marketing with only profit in mind. They compare apples with oranges, and the solution is bananas! The cost metrics and the utility of renewable energy are simply not comparable with conventional plant. But by pretending that they are, hidden costs are brushed aside, and conclusions reached that are plainly fraudulent. [My bold]
"Above all, this emotional narrative of renewable energy has to march forward on the fundamental assumption that it is, in the end, the only long term solution to global energy needs. That no matter how outlandish, or costly, or complex it gets, the alternative is a fossil stripped world with no power at all.
"And yet, the actual reality that nuclear power can do everything that renewable energy claims to be able to do (but fails to achieve) at a fraction of the cost and far, far better, must not be allowed to gain traction. Reason must not be allowed to prevail. Affordable zero-carbon power that is clean safe and be tucked into a corner of the country and largely forgotten? No way! Not when you own a gas field in Azerbaijan or Texas. Or your wife is on the board of a wind power company...
"And if you are not concerned about climate change (and let's face it, a world with no electricity at all is a lot more terrifying than one a degree warmer) there's several hundred years of coal, which the Chinese will be burning anyway."
Of further interest may be Orsted’s latest research showing wind farms slowing wind speeds more than previously believed. [8] This will obviously impinge upon output, but what of the effects on local weather conditions, particularly if we continue down the path of mega off-shore wind farms? Could this be yet another environmental own-goal?
*
7). "First I never said you should heat electrically."
And at a stroke one highlights just how little one has taken on board what I have been saying.
I never said you said it, and I entirely agree to its being madness to replace a cheap heating option with one being circa three times as expensive. That, however, is precisely one of the options being faced by UK consumers if the CCC have their way and remove natural gas as a domestic energy source.
All this (and more) is detailed above, but clearly you've not troubled yourself to read (or if you have understood) it. Indeed your comments, vis-à-vis The Carbon Brief article ("I did not go out searching those sources..." "I was looking for info and those stuff, and they were the first things to pop up."), epitomises the lack of rigour in your research and arguments. Furthermore, your determination to maintain a belief in the cheapness of wind and solar renewables, in the face of a vast wealth of substantial physical evidence, academic studies and industry veterans explicitly explaining otherwise, illustrates your complete lack of rational thinking on the subject.
As I said previously, the bottom line is that wind, and solar renewables do not reduce electricity cost, they increase it. This is a demonstrably proven fact no matter what you, The Carbon Brief or the MSM might think.[9]
