unless really necessary I won't bother quoting you (I am guessing this post will be too long to begin with) and will just used your numeration if someone wants to go back to check


1 & 2

according to the oxford dictionary

your link says for the first one


and for the second


the first one does not sound cataclysmic and if the second part of the second one is right neither does it. Both of those sound like slow gradual changes over a long time that made them destructive.

I also find it funny that even though you brought up the article and he is saying we are a lot less sure of what happens in those two periods you find it easier to dismiss the third one because the first two kind of fit your argument while the third one does not.

As for the last two yes it would be cooler in the shadow of the asteroids before they hit the earth but I am guessing that getting crushed by the asteroid would have had more to do with the death of the animals and plants at the impact site than the cool of the shadow. If the asteroid slap the earth so hard that molten core smashed against the crust and came spewing out the other side ( aka volcanos) and all together they sent crud in the air so thick that it cooled the planet because it blocked the sun don't you think having that crud fall back to earth would have been destructive? don't you think that darkness (enough to cool the planet) would have reeked havoc on plant life ( that means issue with food for herbivores...)

as for your ccc fear can't you see the irony in that? you don't fear the CO₂ being let loose now but you fear that if we trap it and make it harmless now in the future it might escape and cause an issue.


3) missing the point , there is a difference between global issue and local issue.
CO₂ was having an effect on the UK (and other industrial nations) environment before that, that is why I brought up the peppered moth example.
But let's face it according to you it is still not an issue (locally or globally) and will never be.

4 & 5
Let me try this differently.
a)
I don't know how things work in the UK but here (& now) if you build a new place you need to pay for the infrastructure to connect to the existing network. Two summers ago I was working on clients cottage and I saw he had put solar cells on the roof, so I asked him about it, he said HQ told him it would be over 70k (if I remember correctly) to connect him to the grid and he crunched the numbers and decided to go solar and batteries instead. How much do you think that he paid the sun last year so he can produce his own electricity? At my sisters cottage she installed a propane generator as a backup (like I said before, in a few days or hours with out heat water in the pipes will freeze and cause major damage) I was there at Christmas time when the electricity went out for a few hours and so the generator (connected to the furnace and fridge) went on for that time. I don't know if she lost electricity some other time but who do you think paid more to produce electricity (my client for a full year 24/7 or my sister for the few hours when the power went out during the year.)

b) you posted previously





the last one dealing with prices ranging from £39.65 to £41.61 per megawatt/hour (MWh)

can't you see the obvious? Let me spell it out

first (starting from the end) the reason they can all bid at roughly the same price and one near "market price" is that they can. If the market in the UK is willing to pay £45 per MWh why should they go a lot below that? the simple fact that there was no shortage of submissions should show you that they believe that they can make a lot of profit at that amount.


second £40 per MWh= £0.04 per KWh~ at todays exchange=0.066 CAD KWH that is very close to what I am paying and very far from the two first statements I quoted.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not doubting those two statements, just trying to make you realize, what someone pays for electricity includes amortization, includes profit, includes distribution.....

When I install gear I don't ask my client to pay what I paid for the TV and I don't ask for what I am paying my employees per hour either (in both cases the prices I charge are more). Profitability is needed (though sometimes it can be exaggerated) so I am not bad mouthing it. Just realize that none pof the numbers you post are cost of production.


6) I get it you hate carbonbrief (can't be spinned to help your cause) but according to gridwatch

[Link: gridwatch.co.uk]

Renewables :This is the percent of the energy produced from renewable (wind + solar + hydroelectric + biomass)

also if you look at last month there were several times when wind was bigger than any other form and well over 40%. '

If their numbers are wrong tell me where they went wrong, can't you calculate it yourself if they are that off? Also the client I mentioned earlier 100% of his energy comes from solar. Why is that? because that is the only form of electricity production he installed. No matter what the % you like most a large part of it will be because of what is installed.

7) Until you start and take a good look and realize that the difference between Quebec and UK (or EU) is that we decided a long time ago to put a ceiling on the profits people involved with electricity can do while you guys decided to put a floor on the gouging and instead of blaming that idiocy you decided to blame the wind.