On December 20, 2019 at 19:00, djy said...
Use the full quote:
"Now provide a causal link between the anthropogenic component (if any) of present atmospheric CO2 content and any specific incidence of flooding".
Not for the first time you have cherry-picked a partial sentence to provide an answer to a question not asked and ignored the one that was.
I was not cheery picking, but in order to show there is a link between
A) anthropogenic component of present atmospheric CO
2 content
and Z) any specific incidence of flooding
we need to start somewhere and that might as well be A)
I note that you have also failed to respond to my follow up comment:
"Neither have you provided any justification for the spending of trillions on atmospheric 'control', in the hope, it will stop the flooding, rather than the few billions in practical flood defences that will".
*I did not want to be mean and point out how insanely stupid it was as an assertion.
1) if someone was discussing
I can understand asking about the justification of costs of such atmospheric 'control'
but when we are discussing stuff like capturing CO
2 and adding it to cement so that it becomes cheaper to produce, lighter and stronger
or
when you have on Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine
[Link: hydroquebec.com]
Current situation
Hydro-Québec’s largest off-grid system, serving 6,600 customers
Dependent on fossil energy
Thermal power generation :
40 million litres of oil burned every year
40% of Hydro-Québec’s direct greenhouse gas emissions in 2017
Future situation
94% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power generation in Îles-de-la-Madeleine
20% to 25% reduction in power generation costs (over 40 years)
Increase in grid capacity, giving a boost to economic development and transportation electrification initiatives
even if you forget the reduction in CO
2 there are still all those other benefits. So pretending those other benefits don't exist is intellectually dishonest
2) depending on the final outcome (and since your choice is do nothing, that means the worst case scenario) the sea levels can go up a few meters. So do you honestly think building a wall(or what ever you want to call it) around every land mass deep in the sea that goes up several meters above current sea level with two way pumps running 24/7 to keep the water levels land side at current levels will only cost a few billions of dollars?
3) yes flooding is one of the ills of warming but it is far from the only on that is negatively affected. There is :potable water; agriculture; drought; disease; extinction…. what do you do and how much will it cost to fix all of those?
Climate has changed naturally for millennia and though now the subject of intense study, its 'DNA' remains nothing like fully understood. Without said understanding, one cannot merely assert that past change is irrelevant.
I did not say past change is irrelevant (after all the past changes brought us to where we have been for the last few decades) I said 1520 is irrelevant. The Vikings that were living in Greenland left when cooling negatively affected their crops a long time ago. They are not there in Greenland trying to farm the land any more and hove not been there trying to farm that land for centuries. The people living in Greenland today (like the people living in northern Canada) depend on ice roads to truck in (cheaply) food and supplies and truck out (cheaply) what ever they produce. Global warming is killing these ice roads and for the most part the alternatives are helicopter/small plane which is extremely expensive.
I have never claimed sea level rise cannot cause flooding.
does that mean you agree that it does happen?
I have, however, previously mentioned that in some instances, land subsidence is more of a factor then rising water level
absolutely, so can natural disasters (like a tsunami), man made planning (like flooding a cranberry field at harvest time), man made disasters (like a damn braking)…., also if it is "more of a factor" and not the only factor
are any of those relevant to the discussion? absolutely not| .
also if it is "more of a factor" then rising water level is also a factor in what happened, you can't just dismiss it just because you want to pretend it is not true.
Once again, one's reply highlights one's total ignorance of the seriousness of the intermittency issue and the need for backup.
no I fully agree you need backup what you are missing is the reality electricity by its nature is intermittent as you call it.
One can forward plan fuel supplies
yes and no look at
[Link: cbc.ca]but one cannot plan for the wind to blow at a particular time or the extent to which it does blow when it condescends to do so.
agree, but the utilities can't plan when people will turn on and off their electric stuff either. You say you go to
https://gridwatch.co.uk/ all the time. Is the daily map that shows usage every 10 minutes a flat horizontal line? how about the monthly/yearly where it is by hour? how about if you click and compare CCgT/hydro to wind which ones "fluctuate" more?
My point. You may have a degree of understanding about your own grid, but in trying to apply that specific knowledge to beasts of a different colour (systems you clearly have no understanding of), you are going hopelessly astray.
Floundering in your efforts to justify your partisan view of wind power, you are making trite and nonsensical assumptions, adding 2+2, getting 25, and then wondering why I'm scornful and dismissive. Aptly, your next comment is a perfect example of this.
not at all, the laws of Physics Chemistry or economics are not different in Canada and the UK. The difference is I am willing to do the math, while you prefer listening to drunk guys that might or might not have written something on a napkin.
i). I find it amusing that someone who has predicted his whole argument on the basis of CO2 induced flooding, is now using the threat of drought as a (principle) concern of its primary electrical energy supplier.
not at all, man can destroy water (electrolysis splits it into hydrogen and oxygen gas) or make water (think of fuel cells that combine hydrogen and Oxygen gas to make water) but for the most part (naturally) water just moves and changes forms (solid, liquid, gas) more water in one location necessarily means less water
somewhere else.
ii). Your belief in the concept of wind power output ramping again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of its operating principles.
not at all, you are just, again, oblivious to the obvious. A wind farm has several wind turbines/mills all of them can be used to generate electricity or some of them can be stooped for maintenance, to prevent damage or
because the electricity is not neededif you have 10 turbines and 6 of them are working and you need more electricity you can start up #7 and #8 and #9 to match what is needed and if demand decreases you can take #1 and #2 off line.
now obviously if all 10 are producing electricity then you can't ramp up and if they are all off you can't ramp down but that is the truth about any form of electricity generating
While drought remains a theoretical possibility, it appears HQ has introduced a significant degree of resilience by the sheer spread of its generating facilities. This spread no doubt also aids in water level control, flow control and output balancing.
first of all, any electricity produced by a consumable can be build more or less anywhere, any electricity built by harnessing natural forces can only be build where those forces lie. I am sure HQ would have rather built dams closer to Montreal to feed electricity to Montreal instead of James bay where it needed to spend a lot on infrastructure (there was nothing but wilderness down there) and every day transmission (electricity does not like to travel).
If running out of water posed anything of a threat I have no doubt HQ would have long ago diversified into other means of baseload/dispatchable generation. The risibly small amount of wind generation they presently utilise does not qualify in this regard.
There has always been more than just hydro in HQ, But I agree with you there would need to be major changes to reality before it drops to 0 (and boy would we be screwed if things did not change before hand), but when I look at
[Link: gridwatch.co.uk] I don't see any point in the last two years where it was 0 (either because of too much or too little wind) over the last two years, can you tell me when it happened last?
Depending on prevailing conditions, the principle of wind generation is that one takes all one can get when one can get it. The only caveats to this are the wind blowing too slowly (no output), too fast (turbine stopped for safety reasons), or if the overall production is exceeding demand. As output can vary on a minute to minute basis, there is no such thing as ramping up and down: load balancing is undertaken by other dispatchable sources and short term peakers.
that is not the principle of wind but the best practice based on UK source mix. I know you don't want to admit it, but since wind is one of your cheaper sources of electricity it makes sense to max it out when possible and then there is no way to ramp up and no use to ramp down (and the utility pay more for electricity from the generators). The Source mix is different here, oil and NG exists and are used for the main grid but so little that they are almost never used (too expensive). wind is used year round because it can be ramped up and down more easily then Hydro can.
You finally condescend to look at the OBR report.
Rather than accept my word, you feel it necessary to question the origin of the Environmental Levies.
I did not question where the money came from, I remarked that it was not stipulated in the report (and Ofgem) later showed it most likely came from electricity pricing and that is more than good for me
The problem was not where it came from (if it is income tax, VAT or your electric rate it is still coming out of your pocket) but where you said it went according to the OBR report some of that 9B went to "warm home discount" that subsedizes poor people,"CRC energy efficiency scheme" that goes to corporations that reduce their carbon foot print...
Having provided an illustration of unit cost, via the Ofgem website, you now assert it presents a contradiction.
No the # are the #, I said they contradict what you believe.
Capital costs for wind farms are difficult to come by. Some while ago I found a website claiming the BBE cost circa £800 million, but have since been unable to find it again.
This website, using data from a Crown Estate study, estimates the cost of a comparable array at £2575 per kW; equating to £659.2 million. Whichever figure one employs though (even allowing for a generous life expectancy of 20 years and not accounting for age-related reduced efficiency) I believe it self-evident that the wholesale price would render the project totally impracticable. In contrast, one could argue the agreed strike price is too generous, but that's a wholly different argument.
No, your fist mistake is that capitol cost does not go on the cost side of the ledger but on the asset part of the ledger. i.e. the company owns a wind farm worth £800 million that it can use to make £ . Now if it were to sell it imidiately for 750M it will have a capitol loss of 50M and if it sells it for 850M it will have capital gains of 50M.
the second part is that you don’t know how to calculate depreciation
Now let’s say a company buys a van that costs ~40k if it were to sell it a year later it would not get any where near 40k. For that reason on the asset section of the ledger the value has gone down, to account for that loss in value on the expenses side there is a depreciation cost. Now for a van I would use Declining Balance Method (i.e. the van loses more value the first year then the 5th year) but let’s assume we use linear. what you would do is say the car costs 40k, its life expectency is 10 years and tyhe company will be able to get 5k for scrap so
(40k-5k)/10 =3.5k per year and that would be the depreciation on the cost side
now if a company bought a a new building, that would be a large capital cost but as an asset there normally won’t be any depreciation, if it were to sell it it could even get more than what it paid to buy it.
For a wind farm, from your article only ~40% of the cost should be considered depreciable, and then the residual would be very far from 0
thirdly I think your 20 is a bit low but low ballling naturalulay comes with the term of depreciation (i.e. if you keep it longer the depreciation cost is 0 going forward and profiatbility goes up) but just for the fun of it I would like to point out that Tvindkraft wind turbine has been operating since March 26th, 1978 (aka as over 40 years)
To make wind projects viable, the Government have agreed to strike prices significantly above that of wholesale cost and introduced a surcharge on energy bills to recoup the difference.
look at
[Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com]can you tell me the heading of the second to last column?
what does that do to your previous comment?
