Re. Glaciations
No, you just don't want to accept the overwhelming evidence…

And yet once again one signally fails to provide any.

*

Re. The CCC and CCS.
Most of your links are garbage, so no, I don't spend too much time on them.

Another simple assertion. One needs to offer an argument (evidence) as to why one believes what one does.

Why does it need to be 500,000 (whatever) ppm before you agree it is an issue, if not who cares about your whatever number?

Once again, nit-picking a simple comparison – between today's beneficial atmospheric CO₂ content and the possible concentration of a limnic style eruption.

In my opinion, the damage I have seen being caused now makes the number we have now as way too high.

Another simple assertion with no basis in scientific fact. If one disagrees provide an argument (evidence) as to why.

Isn't this all about a balancing act? If we produce more CO₂ then is being eliminated that first number will keep on growing and getting closer to whatever number even you see as an issue. The only logical thing is to make sure that the number falls in balance.

A balancing act, indeed.

As has previously been shown, the preindustrial CO₂ level was dangerously low; thus, there is an argument to be made for our being in the midst of a CO₂ drought. The enhanced level of CO₂ is re-greening the planet and helping in reducing world poverty and hunger.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that anthropogenic activity can cause a dangerous level of CO₂, as in the case of the deaths resulting from the limnic eruption at Lake Nyos. That would require a well of concentrated CO₂, as per the storage part of CCS – or is one claiming this to be one of my "garbage" links?

*

Re. Missing the point.
In life, you can acknowledge your part and make the world a better place, or you can pretend it is always other people's fault and live in garbage. None of us individually can make a difference, but there are 7,5B of us, and if we all do our very small and insignificant part we can do wonders.

I have, and I do, but I'm also a realist. Galvanising a country to 'litter pick' by reducing CO₂ emissions to net-zero is only beneficial if it is cost-effective and has a global effect. The plans being put forward by the CCC are certainly not the former and will do nothing for the latter. Even the ridiculous 2008 Climate Change Act acknowledges that unilateral action would be meaningless. I'm at a loss to understand why you cannot appreciate this simple fact.

CO₂ captured by CCS can be useful (but not in the amounts we are producing it right now, but in the future who knows)

CCS is predicated on the belief that the present level of atmospheric CO₂ is dangerous - it isn't. One is also wholly oblivious of the sheer scale of the necessary operation.

CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form so "went awry" sounds a bit odd if it is saved that way.

Citation required.

The math does not work in your favour. If the stockpile of one plant "went awry" and got released it will still be the CO₂ of one plant. If it is the stockpile of one country that "went awry" and got released it will still be the CO₂ of one country. Unless all the CO₂ of all the world are stored together the reality is any such scenario will become a "small" local issue. Possibly a real tragedy for the area like Chernobyl but it can't become an extinction-level event.

What're a few dead people when we have a planet save? Frankly, I'm speechless.

*

Re. Let me try this differently.
I get that, and I feel bad it is so high. The question you should be asking yourself is why. If your utility is buying the wind electricity for .04 what is that other .14 going to?

I know why and have been at pains to highlight it. One, however, appears incapable of appreciating my reasoning and evidence; indeed, preferring instead to consider the latter garbage.

Once again, then.

The difference is due to the environmental levies being applied to bills to cover the cost of the subsidies being paid to renewables operators.

My garbage evidence shows exactly where this can be seen in Government finances, though it seems one would prefer to remain ignorant of it.

But even though you don't want to face it wind is your friend, not your foe.

And one's arrogance in continually trying to tell me (someone well versed in the relative costs, whereas one is obviously not) that wind is my friend is, quite simply, staggering.

*

Re. The Carbon Brief and GridWatch.
Electricity is electricity, the price of propane or Natural gaz or coal might change depending on quantity but not the price to "buy" natural wind, light or running water. They are either there or not and when they are, they are free.

Singularly the most stupid comment one has yet made. Please provide evidence of free wind and solar.

Is it that it fails to perform or that there is not enough capacity?

Both; which one would have appreciated had one the wit to follow the links I provided.

Not sure what's your point the way to fix installed capacity is to install more. Like I said before there was a time when a lot more of my electricity came from Nuclear and thermal. In the very late 80's HQ they decided to change plans and focus on hydro.

Good Lord! Pray tell how many wind turbines will need to be installed to provide sufficient output if there is no wind blowing?

I've addressed this issue several times. The fact one appears incapable of understanding even this simple metric is, again, beyond me.

Note: I've also covered the converse issue of overproduction and constraint payments – that is payments to wind farm operators to turn their machines off.

NO, I reject bozos opinions how many of your "experts" are electrical engineers that have installed wind farms/solar farms?

Your arrogance and ignorance are astounding. What on earth do installation engineers have to do with the practicalities and economics of wind and solar? Even a cursory investigation (which I've done) highlights their complete impracticality, but dismissing the likes of Michael Kelly as a bozo is simply contemptible.

[Link: thegwpf.org]

*

Re. Profiteering.
Then why do so many exist, why, like you said very wise investors like Warren Buffet put their money in it? why are there over 20 wind farms in Quebec with HQ buying electricity from most of them (I don't know if they buy from all, but they do buy the power from the one near my home)

"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms," Buffett said. "That’s the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." Warren Buffett

Maybe they are gouging with the 0.04, but that does not explain the other 0.14 if that 0.14 gets halved that would bring you to 0.11 if the 0.4 gets halved that only brings you to 0.16 even if that 0.04 goes down to 0 you are still at 0.14 which is still a lot.

What on earth are you babbling on about? How many times do I have to you explain to you that the cost consumers pay covers the costs and profits of the supplying companies plus the government levies being applied to cover the cost of the subsidies paid to renewables suppliers? Again, why this simple fact is beyond your understanding defeats me.

your the one making the call to authority. If we both agree, then that makes it easy. But if we don't it is not up to me , for example, to explain why unemployed actress doesn't make someone an authority but up to you to give me qualifications for the person that makes them credible as an authority.



wouldn't it be easier for me not to nitpick stupid stuff in your posts if you did not make exaggerated and stupid comments in the first place?

like you see in blue my comment started with "In my opinion" so your whole comment does not make any sense. On the other hand the evidence is everywhere in the rising water and the flooding and the deaths every year from even worst heat waves. For me the destruction I see now is more than I wish to see. It is that simple.


lol

let's see if I understand you correctly. We can create so much artificial CO₂ that it helps the preindustrial age CO₂ drought. A drought that enabled cities like Venice to exist for centuries (well over a millennia) in a few short decades but with unche cked man made CO₂ that is always increasing it can never reach the point where we end up with too much CO₂?


I can understand the fact and I agree with you no country, no region (province, state...), no city, no person and even no continent (if we go larger) can do it alone. We must all work together.

One person running with a bucket from the well to the burning building won't put out the fire, but making two chains passing the bucket from person to person from the well to the fire and back just might.


see you are contradicting yourself again.

If the roof is good then it does not need fixing
If there is a bit of damage (let's say replace one tile) then the fix is small
If the whole roof is finished then the whole roof needs replacing and you need a big fix.

the scale of the fix is directly in relation with the scale of the problem.


let's start with the basics

have you ever seen a tree? plants? they take in CO₂ keep the C to build their structure and release O₂ through a process called photosynthesis.

have you ever heard of coal or petroleum. those are natural biproducts of captured CO₂

if you want more techno stuff there are others but

vhttps://[Link: carboncure.com]


If that is true then can you tell me the exact value of the levie per kwh?

the same way I can tell you that for every litre of gas here

1) there is Federal excise tax: 10 cents
2) Provincial fuel tax: 19.2 cents
3) Public transportation tax: 3 cents

and then added at the pump to the price (if the price is 1.25 per litre it includes the top 3 but not the next two that are federal and provincial sales tax)

4) GST: 5%
5) PST: 9.975%



have you been outside on a sunny day? how much did you have to pay the sun to be there? have you been outside on a windy day? how much did you have to pay the wind to blow?

I can't understand how something so basic is so hard to grasp.


so then it is simple build more capacity.



obviously none can help with that. But

1) that is why any sane grid will have different sources

for example here some is wind, some is hydro, some is biomass some is diesel....

2) if we are talking a small area (like a home) your might have a point. But the UK (even if it is smaller than Quebec) is a large country and wind farms tend to be built in windy areas. what is the likely hood that there is no wind on the whole of Great Britain for any measurable length of time?


yes you have and I agree with you it is stupid on many levels but you are missing the point

1) is it the winds fault that it is blowing at night (I am guessing)and too much electricity can be produced in Scotland but no one was smart enough to build lines that can distribute it to the rest of GB and so those wind farms are paid for nothing while expensive none green electricity needs to be produced in the rest of the UK.

2) is it the winds fault that the contract was negotiated in such a way, plus I hope the people that drew up that contract had enough sense to reduce maintenance from it

3) Like I said, it is sad but look at the numbers study the numbers, understand the numbers. these look big but when you compare it to how much electricity is really used these are rounding errors that would not have any real impact on price.

(i.e. if it is 0.179991 or 0.18 who cares both will round to the same price.


wouldn't a better question be what does an unemployed semiconductor engineer know of the practicalities and economics of wind and solar as well as meteorology?


I am not sure of your point.



simple math but that is way beyond your understanding.

And so it continues: pragmatism and common sense being replaced by mysticism and climate voodoo – let's not analyse and build practical flood defences, let's appease the climate Gods by tinkering with the atmosphere and praying that in doing so the flooding will stop. 2019, the year when the lights went out on scientific enlightenment; when rational discourse was cast aside for the wibblings of 16-year-old Swedish teenager with personality issues. At this rate I genuinely begin to wonder how long it will be before we return to using chicken entrails to determine health issues.

Once again, one's conceit, arrogance and utter disdain for facts which do not conform to one's increasingly wacky opinion are astonishing. You claim little understanding of climate change science (indeed, it appears you even take pride in your ignorance of the subject) and yet you happily continue to assert wild conjecture about CO₂ as it were fact. In return I offer fully documented argument highlighting the flaws in your claims, which you not only dismiss out of hand as being garbage, you now (in a clear case of psychological projection) risibly claim is my appealing to authority. Perhaps one is unaware of the distinct difference between referencing authoritative work and merely claiming its existence. Hint: It's the latter which is the logical fallacy, not the former.

In similar fashion to the science of climate change, you clearly have no understanding of grid-level power generation, energy density by source and the destabilising effect of intermittency. And yet, in the face authoritative evidence to the contrary, (and once again failing to providing anything in support of one’s own contentions) you continue to assert the cheapness and viability of wind and solar renewables; stubbornly believing, with your Lego type mentality, that if one doesn't have enough all one need do is add more. That statement alone demonstrates your ignorance of the issues – and yet you have the gall to question the credentials of Michael Kelly. Presumably one has not considered the simple logical extension to your naïve assertion: that if the issues were so simple China and India would be building bucket loads of wind turbines rather than hundreds of new coal-fired power stations?

*

You're the one making the call to authority.

As mentioned above, there is a distinct difference between referencing source material and merely asserting its existence. I also note that you have once again failed to provide any support for your previous claim of:

No, you just don't want to accept the overwhelming evidence…

What overwhelming evidence?

*

Wouldn't it be easier for me not to nitpick stupid stuff in your posts if you did not make exaggerated and stupid comments in the first place?

Exaggerated and stupid? I'm not so sure those who suffered the consequences of the well documented Lake Nyos disaster would entirely agree. Crass.

*

Like you see in blue my comment started with "In my opinion" so your whole comment does not make any sense. On the other hand, the evidence is everywhere in the rising water and the flooding and the deaths every year from even worst heat waves. For me the destruction I see now is more than I wish to see. It is that simple.

i). Of course, my comment makes sense. You opine a personal belief that atmospheric CO₂ content is too high, but personal opinion is meaningless if not supported by scientific fact. I merely ask you provide that evidence.

ii). The issues of sea-level rise, extreme weather, poplar ice and wildfires are fully covered in post 85. There is also graph detailing how climate-related deaths have plummeted in the years between 1920 and 2017 – though no doubt you will consider it garbage because it trashes your personal opinion.

iii). The (increased?) destruction you perceive is an artefact of population growth (more people, more stuff, more damage) and nothing to do with increased weather severity. ^[1]

*

Lol

I'm so pleased you find the positive benefits of CO2 funny.

*

Let's see if I understand you correctly. We can create so much artificial CO2 that it helps the preindustrial age CO2 drought. A drought that enabled cities like Venice to exist for centuries (well over a millennia) in a few short decades but with unchecked man made CO2 that is always increasing it can never reach the point where we end up with too much CO2?

Re. Venice:

Is one aware that the floodwaters were 7cm higher in 1966? That official records only go back to 1924? That unofficial records detail many instances of similar flooding? That the recent flooding was caused by a combination of a very high tide and storm surge; known locally as Acqua Alta? That Venice is also sinking?

The effect of increasing CO₂ has already been clearly explained. It is entirely your concern if you cannot understand or wish to continue denying universally recognised science.

*

I can understand the fact and I agree with you no country, no region (province, state...), no city, no person and even no continent (if we go larger) can do it alone. We must all work together.

Tell that to the Chinese and Indians, and the other emerging nations to whom the proposals will condemn to perpetual poverty.

*

See, you are contradicting yourself again.

i). There is no evidence to claim the present level of atmospheric level of CO₂ is dangerous.

ii). Without that alarmist claim, there is no argument for developing CCS technology.

iii). Political expediency/ideology, however, dictates the issue be investigated for viability.

iv). While some pilot plants have been built (as proof of concept), there is, as yet, no evidence to suggest a mass rollout of the technology is (or will ever be) efficient, effective and/or economical to run.

iv). If political expediency/ideology dictates the process be pursued (regardless of its overall effectiveness and cost) the sheer scale of the (UK) operation then becomes apparent.

v). All fossil fuel processes will require the implementation of the technology, including the 'cracking' of natural gas into its constituent parts to produce the hydrogen the CCC believes can act as a replacement for natural gas.

vi). Hydrogen, however, has only about one third the calorific value of natural gas, thus to maintain present levels of usage will require almost three times as much natural gas and the disposal of many millions of tons of CO₂ per year. Furthermore, the CCC has already estimated that a national switchover to hydrogen would cost £50-100 billion just for household conversions; a figure that does not include the extra cost of building new hydrogen-producing plants.

vii). There is no contradiction, only your lack of wit in appreciating the cost and scale of the wishful thinking.

*

Let’s start with the basics.

Have you ever seen a tree? Plants? They take in CO2 keep the C to build their structure and release O2 through a process called photosynthesis.

Have you ever heard of coal or petroleum? Those are natural by-products of captured CO2

If you want more techno stuff there are others but…

Being facetious merely highlights your childishness. Clearly my reply was aimed at your comment, 'CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form…', thus trees, coal and oil have nothing to do with the extraction of CO₂ from the likes of natural gas.

The link provided is interesting, and I admire the innovation. In reality, however, the process only offsets the CO₂ released in the manufacturing of the concrete and is not a solution to mass storage on the scale being envisioned by the CCC.

*

If that is true then can you tell me the exact value of the levy per kWh?

I care not one jot about how much you pay for fuel, and I've already provided plenty of information for you to determine the information you seek. That you are too idle to carry out your own research is no concern of mine.

As I went on to say, "My 'garbage' evidence shows exactly where this can be seen in Government finances, though it seems one would prefer to remain ignorant of it."

*

Have you been outside on a sunny day? How much did you have to pay the sun to be there? Have you been outside on a windy day? How much did you have to pay the wind to blow?

I can't understand how something so basic is so hard to grasp.

More childlike facetiousness. Drying clothes on a washing line is not converting your 'free' energy into electricity, which is the problem the grown-ups are concerning themselves with.

Note: Wind and sunshine may be renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the lands, habitats, wildlife, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, transmission lines, raw materials, mines and labourers required or impacted to harness this intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity are absolutely not.

*

So then it is simple build more capacity.

I've provided plenty of evidence to inform you why adding increasing levels intermittent energy is not a viable proposition. That you prefer to dismiss it and remain ignorant of the issue is, once again, not my concern.

*

Obviously none can help with that. But

1) that is why any sane grid will have different sources. For example here some is wind, some is hydro, some is biomass some is diesel...

2) If we are talking a small area (like a home) your might have a point. But the UK (even if it is smaller than Quebec) is a large country and wind farms tend to be built in windy areas. What is the likelihood that there is no wind on the whole of Great Britain for any measurable length of time?

I have previously supplied a wealth of information appertaining to the economics and performance of wind and solar. To anyone with a modicum of understanding, it is more than sufficient to determine their complete inadequacy as either baseload and/or despatchable sources and the scale of the investment required in attempting to go net zero. That you dismiss this information without regard and would prefer instead to believe in unicorns is again your problem, not mine.

Historically, the UK Grid has always had a mixed source of supply: primarily coal, gas, nuclear, but also oil, hydro, pumped hydro and various interconnectors. What one cannot do, however, is replace high-density baseload/despatchable sources with low-density intermittent sources without, that is, a huge (as in as far from cost-effective as one could possibly imagine) investment in load balancing mechanisms and/or storage systems. That you describe Quebec's grid as being mixed source is somewhat disingenuous when at least 95% is supplied via baseload/despatchable hydro. Within such a grid, the intermittency of wind's measly 4% contribution can easily be accommodated. ^[2]

The wind and solar graphs at GridWatch clearly illustrate their volatility.

*

Yes you have and I agree with you it is stupid on many levels but you are missing the point.

1) Is it the winds fault that it is blowing at night (I am guessing) and too much electricity can be produced in Scotland but no one was smart enough to build lines that can distribute it to the rest of GB and so those wind farms are paid for nothing while expensive none green electricity needs to be produced in the rest of the UK.

2) Is it the winds fault that the contract was negotiated in such a way, plus I hope the people that drew up that contract had enough sense to reduce maintenance from it

3) Like I said, it is sad but look at the numbers study the numbers, understand the numbers. These look big but when you compare it to how much electricity is really used these are rounding errors that would not have any real impact on price.

(i.e. if it is 0.179991 or 0.18 who cares both will round to the same price.

How quaint. Someone believing in unicorns claiming I'm the one missing the point.

i). Extremes in production are endemic in a system reliant on unregulated variable sources, regardless of the number of interconnectors employed by the system. Wind and solar have the well-documented propensity for producing too much output when not required and too little when it is. Once again, this behaviour can clearly be discerned from the GridWatch graphs.

ii). I’ve long argued about the ridiculousness of the original contracts, but as already advised they were predicated on the belief of peak oil being reached and its cost per barrel, thus continuing to grow. The fracking revolution in the USA trashed this notion.

iii). I find it amusing that someone believing a few extra molecules of atmospheric CO₂ can spell doom and disaster, and that he's been overcharged at a mere 6 cents (Canadian) per unit of electricity, can simply dismiss a few hundred million pounds per year, for quite literally nothing, as little more than a rounding error. Clearly, your understanding of the economics of climate change is as naïve as your understanding of its science.

*

Wouldn't a better question be what does an unemployed semiconductor engineer know of the practicalities and economics of wind and solar as well as meteorology?

And how crass is it for someone who refuses to carry out his own research should question the credentials of someone who has?

"On his return full-time to Cambridge, he was asked by his engineering colleagues to lead the teaching of final-year and graduate engineers on present and future energy systems, which he did until he retired in 2016. The introductory lecture of that course was on the scale of any energy future transition and is the forerunner to this lecture. This last point is to dismiss the cavilling critics who suggest that an electronic engineer should not be able to address these matters."

Professor Kelly is not only suitably qualified he is, as I alluded to, but one of many experts saying the same or similar.

As I said, contemptible.

*

I am not sure of your point.

Really? Having invoked Warren Buffett as some sort of renewables investment guru, I was merely pointing out (in his own words) that his reasoning for buying into wind energy was neither altruistic or for the greater good; it was simply because of the subsidies/tax breaks, being offered made it worthwhile. It was just business.

As I said, on a level playing field (if the operators were forced to pay for their intermittency) no one in their right mind would ever invest in wind or solar as a grid level generator. Your inability to appreciate this simple truism, even when directly referenced, speaks volumes about your blinkered reasoning.

*

Simple math but that is way beyond your understanding.

Sigh! Oh, there's no denying your simplistic approach, but in the context of wind power economics, your calculations (and trite analogies) are utterly meaningless. One may as well speculate about the price of fish.

The European wind industry is in a parlous state. One of the leading firms, Enercon (of Germany), has just announced 3000 redundancies, losses of $220m in 2018 (with worse to come in 2019) and that they can no longer afford to manufacture turbine blades in Germany. Senvion, another German manufacturer, entered into self-administered bankruptcy/liquidation in April. Their situation remains unclear, and in not having issued any financial reports since the beginning of the year Moody's has now withdrawn all its ratings from both Senvion S.A. and its subsidiary Senvion Holding GmbH.

Detailed analysis of the these and the many other issues affecting the wind industry, including reasoning behind those latest ridiculously low strike prices that were recently announced (likened to a high stakes poker game), can be found in reports and posts at the GWPF. ^{[3 - 8]} I commend one do some actual research for a change.


[1] [Link: tandfonline.com]
[2] [Link: cer-rec.gc.ca]
[3] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[4] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[5] [Link: thegwpf.com]
[6] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[7] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[8] [Link: thegwpf.com]

not at all. if I say Greta said..... IF I add a link it does not make it any more valid. She might be a credible source on ditching school, but is she a climate expert? is she a socioeconomic expert...… The issue is you link to people making statements on climate, botany, electrical grid.... that are just not experts in any imagination of the word on the subjects they are discussing.


it is supported by scientific facts, you just don't accept the conclusion.
You agree CO₂ has increased, there is warming, there is flooding there is destruction. where it becomes an opinion is is the destruction enough to say "too high" like me or ""who cares I think I am OK for now and I don't care about what it really means" like you and then not "too high" yet.



it is not that I am dismissive. It is that you are cherry picking info that I see mostly as useless that supports your case. For example does "number of deaths" show the destruction from flooding that happened in Montreal? no as far as I know no one died, did it cost the province and the individual home owners a lot of money and heartache? absolutely. It also dismisses reality, unrelated to the topic a 7.0 earthquake is a 7.0 earthquake, but if it happens in an area with a lot of up-to-date homes it will appear to be less destructive then if it happens in a third world country where the norms are less strict.


population growth can play a role in $ and casualties. My friends home did not exist 100 years ago, his dads place in the neighborhood did and it was a farmhouse surrounded by fields and now it is. But does it matter? the reality is his dad moved into that home 80 years ago and there was never flooding in the area until 2017 and 2019. The flooding did not happen because there are more people in the area and like it or not there will be population growth.


There is a big divide between the rich and the poor and I fill bad for the people in those countries that are practically reduced to slavery, but you do realize that the GDP of China is second only to the us and India is #5. I would not call the country poor




I was not being facetious it is just that you tend to ask for proof of the obvious. A And to me they are obvious. If plants can do it, one day we might have artificial plants (i.e. find a none natural and cost effective way to brake down CO₂ and use their components. There might be solutions that are more than simple storage (why not pump a very small % of the CO₂ into a new age green house and let the plants do their job and that could help feed a growing population...… also if the CO₂ is stored in a retrievable manner, we can then use it if and when we find a better use for it.

As for the link I am glad you liked it there are many ways it can be used and be inert but it is the one that I personally find most interesting. A simple google search will show you others. there is also ways to use it where it is not inert or stored(like draft beer, soda fountains, dry ice....) and storage itself is a complicated subject (for the most part it tends to be used to push out other liquids and gazes.


no, it is just the last time I did that you said that I did not know anything about UK trash sites so I want to start with numbers you accept.


not at all, just pointing out the obvious. Coal is not free, natural gas is not fre, radioactive material is not free…. and since they get consumed their high cost needs to be factored into the price. I pointed out the cost of wind is free and you asked me to prove it. Now you call me factious because I tried to prove the obvious.

Is there a cost of transformation. Absolutely, but that cost as well is a lot lower then the cost of transforming coal, natural gas..... into electricity.



any change takes money I never disputed that fact. But what you don`t want to see is that investing intelligently ends up saving money.

As for here, like you point out the vast majority is hydro and because it has a cost of consumables of 0 we have cheap electricity. But that was not always (going to be) the case. like I pointed out there was a time when HQ was on the road of seeing a very large chunk of its electricity being nuclear. There was plans to build over 30 plants across the country. But a change in power (gouvernment) put a stop at that. If my electricity came from expensive uranium instead of free water flow you would not be jealous of my rate today.

As for the % it does not matter if it is 3%, 4%, 5%, 25%, 30%, 50% or 100%, electricity needs load balancing in real time. the amount produced must always equal the amount consumed, that is why we talk load balancing.

The point was simply , if we have more than enough electricity and we can export it at 4 cents to the US if wind did not make sense we would not have any wind in our mix?

I never said they are not volatile. that is one of the reasons I was surprised my client had solar cells at his cottage. they have 8.5h of sunlight in the winter and then there is snow, cloudy days and heating to deal with.

And I get it, they need to make sure that if there is no wind they can still produce/buy enough electricity but when there is enough wind it beats the pants off the price of electricity made from combustibles.


First I never claimed I was overcharged.
Second I never joined or supported the class action.
Thirdly a judge ruled that all Quebercer's (myself included) were overcharged.

Personally I found it all useless and idiotic.
it was 1.4B over 8 years. The number looks big but that is ~350$ per customer, that is 12 cents a day. that is less then a penny a kwh difference in what HQ should have been allowed to bill us. It is a rounding error.

the same with you, you could not see the difference in the price unless they went deep in the fractions of a p. It is not opinion it is simple grade school math.



can you please stop with the ad hominem, they really don't make you look good?
You asked me if I thought the guy was an expert. If you are not prepared to listen to the answer don't ask the question.

That is the issue with calls to authority a person either is an authority (and nothing more needs to be said) or he is not and then it is useless because I can't question that person.

As for him doing "his research" there is no hint of it in his paper. In that way you are a lot better because I can immediately see if your conclusion is built on a house of cards nor not. Yes I might not add as many links but when you ask a question,like when I brought up storing CO₂ you can ask and I can answer. Can I ask that guy what expert told him plants grow better when the filed is drenched in the fall and you need to delay planting and in the summer growth is stunted because of lack of rain even if there is more
CO₂. because that guy must know something my friend who is a farmer does because he keeps on complaining about the harvest.


You missed the reason I asked completely.

I asked because I agree "that his reasoning for buying into wind energy was neither altruistic or for the greater good" like you just said. It is to make money.


the tax credit reduces the carrying cost. In essence what he is saying the taxpayer is putting up capital while not benefiting from the profits. which means he has a much better ROI and he gets his cost of capital back faster and so it is good for him.

Not at all. If I say Greta said..... IF I add a link it does not make it any more valid. She might be a credible source on ditching school, but is she a climate expert? is she a socioeconomic expert...… The issue is you link to people making statements on climate, botany, electrical grid.... that are just not experts in any imagination of the word on the subjects they are discussing.

I have linked to numerous sources, including academic studies. If you have reservations about their integrity, please provide specifics.

You, on the other hand, even after repeated requests, have provided nothing in the way of substantive argument. In essence, you claim the existence of 'pixie dust', fail to provide any proof of its existence and then claim I'm ignoring its existence. This is illogical and intellectually bankrupt thinking not worthy of further comment.

*

It is supported by scientific facts; you just don't accept the conclusion.
You agree CO2 has increased, there is warming, there is flooding there is destruction. Where it becomes an opinion is the destruction enough to say "too high" like me or "who cares I think I am OK for now and I don't care about what it really means" like you and then not "too high" yet.

Again, you claim the existence of 'pixie dust' without providing proof, and then claim I refuse to accept the ramifications of its existence. More nonsensical thinking worthy of no further comment.

CO₂ has increased – check.
The average global surface temperature has increased – check.
Flooding happens – check.

Now provide a causal link between the anthropogenic component (if any) of present atmospheric CO₂ content and any specific incidence of flooding. As in Chaos Theory, one could just as easily claim it was the result of a butterfly in Japan flapping its wings too vigorously.

*

It is not that I am dismissive. It is that you are cherry-picking info that I see mostly as useless that supports your case. For example does "number of deaths" show the destruction from flooding that happened in Montreal? No as far as I know no one died, did it cost the province and the individual home owners a lot of money and heartache? Absolutely. It also dismisses reality, unrelated to the topic a 7.0 earthquake is a 7.0 earthquake, but if it happens in an area with a lot of up-to-date homes it will appear to be less destructive then if it happens in a third world country where the norms are less strict.

I repeat - I have linked to numerous sources, including academic studies. If you have reservations about their integrity, please provide specifics.

You, on the other hand, even after repeated requests, have provided nothing in the way of substantive argument. In essence, you claim the existence of 'pixie dust', fail to provide any proof of its existence and then claim I'm ignoring its existence. This is illogical and intellectually bankrupt thinking not worthy of further comment.

*

Population growth can play a role in $ and casualties. My friends home did not exist 100 years ago, his dads place in the neighbourhood did and it was a farmhouse surrounded by fields and now it is. But does it matter? The reality is his dad moved into that home 80 years ago and there was never flooding in the area until 2017 and 2019. The flooding did not happen because there are more people in the area and like it or not there will be population growth.

And the pragmatic would learn to live with the new reality and develop flood defences, rather than expect other countries to spend trillions decarbonising their economies in the blind hope it will stop the flooding. Such is not science; such is religion.

*

There is a big divide between the rich and the poor and I fill bad for the people in those countries that are practically reduced to slavery, but you do realize that the GDP of China is second only to the us and India is #5. I would not call the country poor.

And here one misses the point. My reference to China and India was nothing to do with their being poor. Read again.

*

I was not being facetious it is just that you tend to ask for proof of the obvious. A And to me they are obvious. If plants can do it, one day we might have artificial plants (i.e. find a none natural and cost effective way to break down CO2 and use their components. There might be solutions that are more than simple storage (why not pump a very small % of the CO2 into a new age green house and let the plants do their job and that could help feed a growing population...… also if the CO2 is stored in a retrievable manner, we can then use it if and when we find a better use for it.

As for the link I am glad you liked it there are many ways it can be used and be inert but it is the one that I personally find most interesting. A simple google search will show you others. There is also ways to use it where it is not inert or stored (like draft beer, soda fountains, dry ice....) and storage itself is a complicated subject (for the most part it tends to be used to push out other liquids and gases.

I have regularly asked for proof of your contentious assertions, but none has ever been provided. On the other hand, I have never asked for proof of the obvious, and you furnish a rudimentary explanation of photosynthesis. This is the very definition of facetiousness.

One's answer also further confirms one's complete lack of understanding of the scale of the necessary CCS operation.

*

No, it is just the last time I did that you said that I did not know anything about UK trash sites so I want to start with numbers you accept.

Meaningless comment. Do your own research.

*

Is there a cost of transformation. Absolutely, but that cost as well is a lot lower then the cost of transforming coal, natural gas..... into electricity.

So you continue to assert, but as repeatedly demonstrated, it is not.

*

Any change takes money I never disputed that fact. But what you don`t want to see is that investing intelligently ends up saving money.

As for here, like you point out the vast majority is hydro and because it has a cost of consumables of 0 we have cheap electricity. But that was not always (going to be) the case. Like I pointed out there was a time when HQ was on the road of seeing a very large chunk of its electricity being nuclear. There was plans to build over 30 plants across the country. But a change in power (government) put a stop at that. If my electricity came from expensive uranium instead of free water flow you would not be jealous of my rate today.

As for the % it does not matter if it is 3%, 4%, 5%, 25%, 30%, 50% or 100%, electricity needs load balancing in real time. The amount produced must always equal the amount consumed that is why we talk load balancing.

The point was simply, if we have more than enough electricity and we can export it at 4 cents to the US if wind did not make sense we would not have any wind in our mix?

Investing intelligently would be investing in baseload and despatchable generation – not destabilising intermittent generation. As I said previously, how would one load balance a 100% wind system when there is no wind.

The fact you continue to dismiss expert opinion on this issue without cause speaks volumes.

*

I never said they are not volatile. That is one of the reasons I was surprised my client had solar cells at his cottage. They have 8.5h of sunlight in the winter and then there is snow, cloudy days and heating to deal with.

And I get it, they need to make sure that if there is no wind they can still produce/buy enough electricity but when there is enough wind it beats the pants off the price of electricity made from combustibles.

Well bully for your client, but as previously stated, private installations and grid-level generation are two entirely different things.

*

First I never claimed I was overcharged.
Second I never joined or supported the class action.
Thirdly a judge ruled that all Quebercer's (myself included) were overcharged.

Personally I found it all useless and idiotic.
It was 1.4B over 8 years. The number looks big but that is ~350$ per customer, that is 12 cents a day. That is less than a penny a kWh difference in what HQ should have been allowed to bill us. It is a rounding error.

The same with you, you could not see the difference in the price unless they went deep in the fractions of a p. It is not opinion it is simple grade school math.

Again, in the context of grid-level wind generation, your trite and simplistic maths are meaningless.

I have previously provided a link to UK government income data which clearly shows their receipt of environmental levies added to energy bills. This is the additional charge added to energy bills to pay for subsidies provided to renewables operators. In 2018/19 alone this amounted to £9 billion, representing an average of £340 per year, per household.

In essence, I am paying as much in environmental levies, per kWh, as you do for your full charge. Environmental levies are not a rounding error.

*

Can you please stop with the ad hominem, they really don't make you look good?
You asked me if I thought the guy was an expert. If you are not prepared to listen to the answer don't ask the question.

That is the issue with calls to authority a person either is an authority (and nothing more needs to be said) or he is not and then it is useless because I can't question that person.

As for him doing "his research" there is no hint of it in his paper. In that way you are a lot better because I can immediately see if your conclusion is built on a house of cards nor not. Yes I might not add as many links but when you ask a question, like when I brought up storing CO2 you can ask and I can answer. Can I ask that guy what expert told him plants grow better when the field is drenched in the fall and you need to delay planting and in the summer growth is stunted because of lack of rain even if there is more

CO2. Because that guy must know something my friend who is a farmer does because he keeps on complaining about the harvest.

I have never asked your opinion of any of my references. It was you who decided to collectively refer to them as bozos simply (so it would seem) because their views and research do not accord to your simplistic, blinkered and misguided perspective. Without providing supporting specifics as to your reasoning I believe it entirely legitimate to call your opinion both crass and contemptible. It continues to be so.

As I said, Professor Kelly is only one of several references I have provided, all of which say the same or similar. You dismiss their reasoning, without cause, but have never offered any evidence in support of your claims. Who are you then to claim they are bozos?

*

You missed the reason I asked completely.

I asked because I agree "that his reasoning for buying into wind energy was neither altruistic or for the greater good" like you just said. It is to make money.


The tax credit reduces the carrying cost. In essence what he is saying the taxpayer is putting up capital while not benefiting from the profits. Which means he has a much better ROI and he gets his cost of capital back faster and so it is good for him.

And you completely missed the second paragraph.

Long it's been (dubiously) been claimed that wind can now compete with fossil-fuelled generation, but then cry foul when subsidies are removed. Again I suggest one do some actual research.

*

I believe I've tolerated your nonsense long enough.

• You attach a religious-like zeal to your views on climate change which are entirely unsupported by fact or science.


• You dismiss academic research as garbage without excuse.


• You claim a wealth of evidence in support of your assertions, but other than quaint personal anecdotes you provide nothing in support of your claims.


• You claim I 'cherry-pick' openly available data in support of my assertions, but once again offer no supporting evidence of such.


• You dismiss expert opinion without excuse and inexcusably refer to those offering those opinions as bozos.


• You then, laughably, take exception to my calling such childish intolerance crass and contemptible.


• You consistently refuse to accept the blindingly undeniable fact that the destabilising effects of intermittent weather-dependent renewables make them more expensive than traditional sources of power generation; attempting to explain it all away with homilies and kindergarten maths, which bears no relation to reality of grid-level generation.


• And in what can only be described as a textbook case of psychological projection, you claim that it is I refusing to accept evidence to the contrary - which would be extremely difficult as, even after repeated requests, you've never provided any evidence for me to ignore.

I have repeatedly urged you to carry out your own research (which you have patently failed to do) and proffered a comprehensive wealth of information detailing precisely the cost of and why wind and solar renewables can never be considered a front-line energy source. You have dismissed it all out of hand and in doing so have also disgracefully disparaged those presenting it. Well, here's another article for you to ignore, the conclusion of which goes thus:

"Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power. At the same time, Weather Dependent Renewables are both capital and maintenance expensive and inevitably unreliable.

"Weather Dependent Renewables are universally more expensive than the conventional alternatives of Gas-firing or Nuclear power. ~2-5 times for Nuclear power and in the UK ~16 times more expensive than Gas-firing.

"The late Prof David Mackay (former chief scientific advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change) in a final interview before his untimely death in 2016 said that the concept of powering a developed country such as the UK with Weather Dependent Renewable energy was:

"An appalling delusion".

At the time he also said:

"There’s so much delusion, it's so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions, that they are willing to not think carefully about the numbers, and the reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics."

"This costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay's back of the envelope calculations, in the UK, showing that Weather Dependent Renewables, (Offshore wind and Solar Power), are approximately ~16 times more expensive in both capital and lifetime costs when compared to the use of Gas-fired Generation technologies. At the same time, Onshore wind power is only ~6 times more costly than Gas-firing.

[Link: theguardian.com]

"The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet amount to some 77£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 300£billion.

"If the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly 'saving the planet' from the output of the UK's small amount, (~25% of 1.1%, much less than the annual growth in China and the Developing world), of Man-made CO₂ produced by the UK for electricity generation, their actual costs, in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability, Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation.

"It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these government-mandated excess costs to the improvement of the environment and for the possibility of perhaps saving undetectable temperature increases a 100 years in the future, especially in a context where the developing world will be increasing its CO₂ emissions to attain its further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades.

"Reducing the UK’s minor part of Man-made CO₂ emissions as a means to control a 'warming' climate seems even less relevant as the long-term temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, towards the coming end of the current Holocene interglacial epoch."

[Link: edmhdotme.wordpress.com]

[Link: edmhdotme.wordpress.com]

*

Note: Professor David Mackay's credentials are impeccable and thus beyond reproach. Also, being an environmentalist and Green Party member he could never, in any shape or form, be considered a 'denier' (or even a bozo). He was a pragmatist and like Professor Dieter Helm, was fully aware of the cost and limitations of wind and solar renewables.

Surprisingly enough, neither, David Mackay or Dieter Helm believed/believes in unicorns or pixie dust.

let me fill in the blanks
your car, my car, the coal power plant..... all produce anthropogenic CO₂

increased temperature means melting glaciers, the water from such glaciers raises the sea level




but aren't you the one that does not want to live with the new reality? You are the one bitching about your gouvernment building wind farms.



ok here is your previous quote

I thought maybe there is a language barrier, but according to the oxford dictionary
[Link: oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com]
it means " the state of being poor"

I have regularly asked for proof of your contentious assertions, but none has ever been provided. On the other hand, I have never asked for proof of the obvious, and you furnish a rudimentary explanation of photosynthesis. This is the very definition of facetiousness.

yes it was rudimentary, did you want more details on how it works?
Am I supposed to dismiss a process that takes in many billons of metric tons and renders it inert in the form of biomass just because you wanted to make an invalid point?

Investing intelligently would be investing in baseload and despatchable generation – not destabilising intermittent generation. As I said previously, how would one load balance a 100% wind system when there is no wind.

The fact you continue to dismiss expert opinion on this issue without cause speaks volumes.

1) to be clear, I never said it should be 100% wind. honestly that would be dumb a healthy grid needs different forms of production. Some that are faster (easier to ramp up and down) some that are cheaper where you use them for the grunt work.

2) I asked you which day (only need one) there was no wind in the UK. your point is useless because it does not take reality in consideration someone making a similar useless statement could say "how would one load balance a 100% hydro system when there is no water flow" or how would one load balance a 100% solar system when there is no sunny days" or even "how would one load balance a 100% coal system when there is no coal"...

3) I do listen to experts. It is just that I follow well defined and strict rules for experts while you think any bozo is an expert. I think HQ knows a lot about producing and distributing electricity and since (even with their gouging) our prices are low that means that they are experts on producing cheap electricity. When they say more wind is a way to do that I listen to them.

4) here is the breakdown of Ontario electricity sources

here is Quebec

here are Ontario costs

there is a small difference between the two for wind in % and TWh. The difference is that we are 95% (none consumable sourced) hydro and roughly 1% from consumable sources while they are 28% hydro and the vast majority is from expensive consumable sources (65%)

the issue is you want to blame
that small <20% slice of pie when the obvious culprit is those big slices of pies.
he smaller the slice the less of an effect it can have on the pie

Again, in the context of grid-level wind generation, your trite and simplistic maths are meaningless.

math and facts are always meaningless in your opinion.

I have previously provided a link to UK government income data which clearly shows their receipt of environmental levies added to energy bills. This is the additional charge added to energy bills to pay for subsidies provided to renewables operators. In 2018/19 alone this amounted to £9 billion, representing an average of £340 per year, per household.

In essence, I am paying as much in environmental levies, per kWh, as you do for your full charge. Environmental levies are not a rounding error.

do you mean [Link: cdn.obr.uk]
1) it does not say the source of environmental levies (I am guessing one of them is the climate change levy but it does not affect domestic electricity)

2) it says: Environmental levies include levy-funded spending policies such as the renewables obligation (RO), contracts for difference (CfD), feed-in tariffs, the capacity market scheme and the warm home discount. We also include receipts from the ‘CRC energy efficiency scheme’ until its abolition from the 2018-19 compliance year

I am guessing RO might be wind in whole or in part but warm home discount definitely does not sound like it.

I have repeatedly urged you to carry out your own research (which you have patently failed to do)

I have there in lies your issue with me. You hate that I see through the garbage you post

see I agree with

At the same time, Weather Dependent Renewables are both capital and maintenance expensive

This costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay's back of the envelope calculations, in the UK, showing that Weather Dependent Renewables, (Offshore wind and Solar Power), are approximately ~16 times more expensive in both capital and lifetime costs when compared to the use of Gas-fired Generation technologies. At the same time, Onshore wind power is only ~6 times more costly than Gas-firing.

The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet amount to some 77£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 300£billion.

Like I said many pages back capital costs are much higher(it does not matter if it is earth, wind,water or sun). The problem is none of those quotes give me anything else to work with or to put doubt in anything else I said from the beginning. Capital costs look scary but in the end they are not because with time they tend to move to 0 while cost of goods (or in this case consumables) and salaries don’t look scary but they add up over time (and just keep on growing with inflation), your coal plant can’t make electricity if you don’t keep on buying more coal but you don’t need to buy the land and re-build the wind farm every decade, year, month, day, it is a one time cost.

that is why there is the falacy of appeal to authority
[Link: iep.utm.edu]

You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority's words.

that is why I don’t care about an individuals conclusions but I want their calculations (the facts behind the scene). I taught university students how to do these calculations for two years before I got poached in the corporate world. Plus if we are talking about how much electricity a wind farm can produce then the expert would be an engineer in that field, if we are talking about the economics of wind farms then the expert would be an economist, if we are talking about about how

Look at Quebec and Ontario back in the 70s we almost took the same path. we were going to go nuclear big time like them until HQ (premiere) went “nuts” and decided to spend 13B$ for phase one of the James bay project instead. But if you divide it by the 50 years since the start of the project or 40 years since it has been producing electricity it becomes 260/325 but those rerouted rivers, reservoirs and dames won’t disappear tomorrow.and if we use 100 years then it becomes 130M per year....

and I know in your mind wind and water are completely different and yes wind is a bit more temperamental, but the water levels in upstream and downstream affect how much electricity can be produced just like wind turbines depend on the wind. water also has the issue of water management ( can’t flood places upstream or downstream for the sake of electricity) and ice

look at the Netherlands for centuries they have been using wind power to pump out the water beyond the dikes some of those mills have been doing that job since the 1400’s ( 600 years sure takes a bite out of capital cost ;) )

Let me fill in the blanks. Your car, my car, the coal power plant..... All produce anthropogenic CO₂

I think by now most everyone is fully aware of what creates CO₂, but that's not what I asked. One has not proven a causal link: that the CO₂ emitted by my wife’s car caused the flooding in Montreal. Indeed, by your logic, Quebec population growth could equally be as guilty.

Neither have you provided any justification for the spending of trillions on atmospheric 'control', in the hope, it will stopping the flooding, rather than the few billions in practical flood defences that will.

*

Increased temperature means melting glaciers; the water from such glaciers raises the sea level.

Previously covered in post 85.

Glacier melt and retreat is nothing new. For several hundred years the Vikings farmed land in Greenland and Iceland was once covered in forest.

Sea level rise has been constant for the past 150 years, which is consistent with a naturally warming world. If it were reacting to increasing atmospheric CO₂ content, there would, by now, have been a discernible acceleration. There hasn't been.

*

But aren't you the one that does not want to live with the new reality? You are the one bitching about your government building wind farms.

Did one miss the word pragmatic? Spending vast resources on indirect actions that will have no discernible effect on what is assumed to be the problem at hand is illogical, immoral and insanity on a stick. Yes, I freely admit to having issues with other people's unthinking, uncritical stupidity.

*

Ok here is your previous quote

"Tell that to the Chinese and Indians, and the other emerging nations to whom the proposals will condemn to perpetual poverty."

I thought maybe there is a language barrier, but according to the oxford dictionary

[Link: oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com] it means "the state of being poor".

Childish pedanticism. Any plans to combat atmospheric CO₂ level are meaningless unless China and India come on board. And denying emerging nation’s access to cheap and affordable electricity is condemning them to perpetual poverty.

*

Yes, it was rudimentary, did you want more details on how it works? Am I supposed to dismiss a process that takes in many billions of metric tons and renders it inert in the form of biomass just because you wanted to make an invalid point?

I asked for a citation on how CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored inertly – which was your claim. You provided a link to a small scale concrete improvement process and a rudimentary description of photosynthesis. Neither answers the request and the childish nature of your reply to the latter was facetious.

The increased level of atmospheric CO₂ is already re-greening the planet and aiding agricultural production. If you want to assist by planting more trees, carry on, but that was not the issue under discussion.

*

I asked you which day (only need one) there was no wind in the UK. your point is useless because it does not take reality in consideration someone making a similar useless statement could say "how would one load balance a 100% hydro system when there is no water flow" or how would one load balance a 100% solar system when there is no sunny days" or even "how would one load balance a 100% coal system when there is no coal"

There is a vast difference between regulating a known constant input and a randomly variable one. Concentrating on an all or nothing scenario for hydro, coal, gas etc. is total nonsense, but not so in the case of renewables.

*

I do listen to experts. It is just that I follow well defined and strict rules for experts while you think any bozo is an expert. I think HQ knows a lot about producing and distributing electricity and since (even with their gouging) our prices are low that means that they are experts on producing cheap electricity. When they say more wind is a way to do that I listen to them.

It is only your opinion that those I reference are bozos. Your arrogance in not providing any reasoning for the assertion (validating your self-proclaimed strict rules) continues to make the claim crass and contemptible.

HQ is not a special case as any half-competent power company could produce low-cost electricity from a grid so dominated by baseload/despatchable hydro.

No doubt HQ see a sound business opportunity, but adding a few more MW of wind power to a grid so dominated by hydro is by no means comparable to its being promoted as a primary source.

*

Here is the breakdown of Ontario electricity sources.

I'm fully appreciative Quebec's generation mix (post 138 ref.2), but it has no bearing on the issue of UK renewables generation.

*

The issue is you want to blame…

A graph of electricity generation by fuel type has nothing to do with cost. It is, however, interesting to note that the 34GW of installed wind and solar capacity (the equivalent of 57% of total grid capacity) only managed to supply 18.4% to the mix. Such is the inefficiency of wind and solar.

*

Math and facts are always meaningless, in your opinion.

No, only your math and 'facts' concerning UK energy costs.

*

"I have previously provided a link to UK government income data which clearly shows their receipt of environmental levies added to energy bills. This is the additional charge added to energy bills to pay for subsidies provided to renewables operators. In 2018/19 alone this amounted to £9 billion, representing an average of £340 per year, per household.

In essence, I am paying as much in environmental levies, per kWh, as you do for your full charge. Environmental levies are not a rounding error."

Do you mean [Link: cdn.obr.uk]?

It does not say the source of environmental levies (I am guessing one of them is the climate change levy but it does not affect domestic electricity)

It says: Environmental levies include levy-funded spending policies such as the renewables obligation (RO), contracts for difference (CfD), feed-in tariffs, the capacity market scheme and the warm home discount. We also include receipts from the ‘CRC energy efficiency scheme’ until its abolition from the 2018-19 compliance year

I am guessing RO might be wind in whole or in part but warm home discount definitely does not sound like it.

I have done you the courtesy of believing what you have to say about Quebec's generation and costs. I would have hoped one would be gracious enough to reciprocate, but clearly not.

[Link: ofgem.gov.uk]

*

"I have repeatedly urged you to carry out your own research (which you have patently failed to do)."

I have therein lies your issue with me. You hate that I see through the garbage you post.

No, what I dislike is your continued failure to provide any specifics about what you claim to be garbage. I cannot hate that which I do not know.

*

Like I said many pages back capital costs are much higher (it does not matter if it is earth, wind, water or sun). The problem is none of those quotes give me anything else to work with or to put doubt in anything else I said from the beginning. Capital costs look scary but in the end they are not because with time they tend to move to 0 while cost of goods (or in this case consumables) and salaries don’t look scary but they add up over time (and just keep on growing with inflation), your coal plant can’t make electricity if you don’t keep on buying more coal but you don’t need to buy the land and re-build the wind farm every decade, year, month, day, it is a one-time cost.

Having previously supplied example cost scenarios (ref. posts 10, 85 and 114) I believe I'm fully appreciative of capital costs.

Follow the link for the meat and potatoes of the quotes. There will also find your one-time cost assumption about wind farms to be somewhat in error. Onshore/offshore life expectancy is said to be 25/20 years respectively, though research by Dr Gordon Hughes (for the REF ^[1]) indicates these figures to be overly generous.

Note: Full disclosure dictates I should advise that Professor David Mackay disputes those latter findings ^[2&3] and that in turn, Dr Hughes rejects the criticism ^[4]. Plenty of figures, calculations and facts behind the scene to please the most ardent of mathematicians.

Further work on wind farm costs, by Dr Hughes, can be found here ^[5&6].

[1] [Link: s3.amazonaws.com]
[2] [Link: withouthotair.blogspot.com]
[3] [Link: inference.org.uk]
[4] [Link: ref.org.uk]
[5] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[6] [Link: thegwpf.org]

*

That is why there is the fallacy of appeal to authority
[Link: iep.utm.edu]

"You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority's words."

As I said, referencing authoritative work is perfectly valid. If you have issues to that which I refer, provide specifics.

*

That is why I don’t care about an individual’s conclusions but I want their calculations (the facts behind the scene). I taught university students how to do these calculations for two years before I got poached in the corporate world. Plus if we are talking about how much electricity a wind farm can produce then the expert would be an engineer in that field, if we are talking about the economics of wind farms then the expert would be an economist, if we are talking about how

Look at Quebec and Ontario back in the 70s we almost took the same path. we were going to go nuclear big time like them until HQ (premiere) went “nuts” and decided to spend 13B$ for phase one of the James bay project instead. But if you divide it by the 50 years since the start of the project or 40 years since it has been producing electricity it becomes 260/325 but those rerouted rivers, reservoirs and dames won’t disappear tomorrow. And if we use 100 years then it becomes 130M per year....

And I know in your mind wind and water are completely different and yes wind is a bit more temperamental, but the water levels in upstream and downstream affect how much electricity can be produced just like wind turbines depend on the wind. Water also has the issue of water management (can’t flood places upstream or downstream for the sake of electricity) and ice

Look at the Netherlands for centuries they have been using wind power to pump out the water beyond the dikes some of those mills have been doing that job since the 1400’s (600 years sure takes a bite out of capital cost ;) )

Once again, a mishmash of confused thinking.

From those who seek to challenge the orthodoxy you demand numbers, calculations, "the facts behind the scene". Yet it's clear, from what you've written here, that you place no such strictures on the claims made of CO₂ by the IPCC. Logic and rationality do not enter into that particular equation. Apparently, we must spend trillions, trash the economies of goodness knows how many nations and care not one jot about the ensuing civil unrest and the bodies in the streets. But at least your friend's house won't get flooded again - well, maybe. I wonder what an economist, or any sane person, would think of that rationale. That now in the 21st century, the blind and ignorant are once again demanding we regress to a culture of human sacrifice in the hope it will appease the climate gods.

And yet, amusingly, this is the view of one who readily admits to having little understanding of the issues:

"And even though this is nowhere near my field of expertise if you have something better to bring up please do so."

I duly obliged and proffered multiple references: including some from luminary climate scientists, engineers, economists (Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all). But it seems that all I've been engaged in is an esoteric form of dumpster diving. One is clearly not impressed by the vast array and depth of evidence countering the consensus view. That, contrary to what the IPCC would have one believe, it's not just a few maverick scientists demanding a more open and realistic approach to climate science. Not only have you not troubled yourself to read the links and reports provided (evident, amongst other things, by your lack of understanding of the life cycle of a wind turbine), you dismiss it all out of hand and refer to the authors in unsavoury terms. And thus endeth the golden age of the 'scientific method' – replaced by the Mannian era of muddle and strife: if you can't argue the science, trash the messenger’s reputation instead.

You proclaim possession of strict guidelines for the acceptance of expert opinion. You proudly claim I don't, but in doing so, you misapply the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to Authority'. As I previously said (and as your own quoted extract implies) there is a distinct difference between citing an authoritative source as a reference and proclaiming something merely because 'so and so' said it was so. I'm led to believe, for example, that David Mackay's book 'Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air' is a seminal work, but I've not read it. It would, thus, be wrong for me to cite it, and a logical fallacy for me to do so based on Bill Gates claiming it to be: "one of the best books on energy that has been written." That is the appeal to authority, whereas your version would have all references, even those in academic papers, considered such.

The most disappointing aspect of this dismal affair, however, is that your failure to acknowledge this library of work condemns you to remain ignorant of reality. One can teach the theory and fundamentals of costings to whomsoever one pleases, but in the real world, your trite assumptions, particularly about UK energy policy and costs, are leading you hopelessly astray.

A simple internet search of energy prices across Europe will quickly reveal the higher electricity prices paid by consumers in those countries heavily invested in weather-dependent renewables. It will further show that the greater the penetration, the higher the cost. Hence the reason why those in Germany are paying the equivalent of 45 Canadian cents per kWh as opposed to my paying circa 30 Canadian cents. There is a reason for this, and it's called intermittency.

This is where your simplistic model fails. Intermittency is something which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Wind is not merely a more temperamental version of hydro; in this regard, it is a fundamentally different beast. You can deny the science and arm wave as much as you like, but 'ye cannae change laws of physics', hence...

"There’s so much delusion, it's so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions, that they are willing to not think carefully about the numbers, and the reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics." Professor David Mackay.

But, but, but, the Dutch have been using wind power pumps for centuries. Indeed, and yet one would have us believe it beyond the ken of the modern world to protect itself from a modest sea-level rise. There is also another delicious irony here: that when the Somerset levels suffered massive flooding over the winter of 2013/14, it was Dutch pumps which were called in to save the day - but they weren't powered by wind…

you said
"Now provide a causal link between the anthropogenic component (if any) of present atmospheric CO2 content"
that was all I was doing.

agree, solar aqctivity, asteroids, volcanoes... can all affect climate. The issue is none of those are in contention now and 1520 is for the most part irrelevent


funny how the time frame coincides with the growth of human produced CO₂ but somehow that sea level rise can't cause flooding.


perfectly agree, it takes EVERY place, China, India, UK, Canada, Quebec...

|And denying emerging nation’s access to cheap and affordable electricity is condemning them to perpetual poverty.
you said it before and it was never true. If it was true China would not be the second richest nation now and soon the richest. India would not have climbed to 5th and moving up in leaps and bounds.



No, I said

1) CO₂ captured by CCS can be useful (but not in the amounts we are producing it right now, but in the future who knows)

2) CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form so "went awry" sounds a bit odd if it is saved that way

3) the math does not work in your favour. If the stock pile of one plant " went awry" and got released it will still be the CO₂ of one plant. If it is the stock pile of one country that " went awry" and got released it will still be the CO₂ of one country. Unless all the CO₂ of all the world are stored together the reality is any such scenario will become a "small" local issue. Possibly a real tragedy for the area like Chernobyl but it can't become an extinction level event.


capturing polluting CO₂ (i.e. CCS) is something relatively new. Most of that CO₂ (at least for now if not for ever) is a waste product and will need to be stored, that is what #3 dealt with. #1 said some of it is useful. Some of those uses will h store it inertly. I never said all of it will be inert and I don't feel a need to differentiate between natural processes and technological ones.

But like always you try to dismiss reality


none are all or nothing scenarios or the grid would never work.


I agree never said they are special, They are just easier to use as an example because I know a lot about the situation here.


agree, for the most part (and simple $) hydro is a bit cheaper, but with any source you need variety, if there is a drought it will affect how much hydro you can produce, a dam is not only about creating electricity but it also needs to manage the water level(s) upstream, downstream and (for lack of a proper term) middlestream (i.e. when you have more then one damn on the same river you are in full control of water levels between those two damns).

on the other hand wind is easier to ramp up and down, if tehre is an issue with one turbine it can be taken off line withourt issues....



you do realise you quoted me saying ONTARIO


I am not god so don't "believe" me, I don't have an issue with that. I am human and sometimes I make mistakes, so if I do please correct me and don't take what I say as gospel.

I do put my faith in a lot of stuff that you write, but I can't turn a blind eye when your link contradicts your interpretation

according to this latest link

Wholesale costs=32.32% so that would mean it is around 5.8176 p.
you attached earlier


this has wind at around 4p wholesale because some of your other sources are more than 6p (50% more expensive) it averages out to 5.8p

IMHO those other >6p are part of thye problem of your high cost and even though they probably can't be eliminated totally reducing them is not a bad idea

network costs it is 23.15% that puts it at over 4p, just your network costs (something that should be super low) is roughly the same as my total cost (which includes generating, network, gouging and other costs- like Indian land rights...).

Operating costs17.34%=3.1212 p
Supplier pre-tax margin 0.73%=0.1314p
Other direct costs 1.25%=0.225p
I am not sure what these are, if they are related to transmission/distribution then they just make network costs look more ridiculously high compared to those of HQ

(i.e. let's say network cost = putting up a pole or a cable, operations could be, the person reading the meter (if you don't have a smart one) creating invoices, sending them, cashing in the payment, CEOs big salary....)

Now in all fairness I don't know how it works in the UK, here my bill has a 40.64 cents a day System access charge i.e. if someone did not use any electricity in Nov they would have had to pay12.19$+tax and in Oct it would have been 12.60+tax

VAT4.76%=0.8568 what can you do, there is no choice there, on the other hand I am guessing it is a % so it would depend on the rest (plus if it makes you feel better GST+QST which are charged here after the total add up to around 15%)

the last bit
Environmental and social obligation costs20.44%=3.6792

that looks like it might be related to what you posted last time

Environmental levies include levy-funded spending policies such as the renewables obligation (RO), contracts for difference (CfD), feed-in tariffs, the capacity market scheme and the warm home discount. We also include receipts from the ‘CRC energy efficiency scheme’ until its abolition from the 2018-19 compliance year


I have nothing to say to that.


Now, there is what you posted earlier
Last year these constraint payments cost consumers £124 million But that is Millions while the revenue should be in the tens of billions,that means that to your 18p it can't be responsible for pences, or tenths of pences or even hundredths it will most likely be in the thousandths.
is the issue 18p or 17.991p or 17.99p


what you bolded is absolutely true, do I take it for granted when you say you pay 18p absolutely, did I question the numbers from ofgem not at all, with uk gov I am assuming they know what they re talking about. Imagine if every time you wanted to calculate the hypotenuse you needed to build the triangle and measure all three sides and stuff. Now do I trust Pythagoras knew what he was talking about? there have been enough people that proved he was right, do I need a reference link to him saying it? not at all. imagine this

Aristarchus of Samos: the earth and the other planets revolves around the sun
other guy: Plato, Aristotle all say the earth is in the center of the universe here is a tablet from them.

is Aristarchus wrong because Plato and Aristotle are accepted as smart guys or were Plato and Aristotle bozos giving their opinion on something thety did not really understand.




not just those that challenge the orthodoxy but everyone. But technically the more outrageous the conclusion the more evidence should be required.


no, the truth is, thanks to you and this thread, I have read a lot more from dissenters then accepters. It is just that reality does not help your cause. I don't need t the IPCC to tell me that there were flooding, I saw that with my own eyes. I don't need them to explain how weather currents work I learnt that when I was taking piloting lessons. I don't need the IPCC to tell me my food will be more expensive and there will most likely be a potatoe shortage due to weather here.

[Link: cbc.ca]

"I think by now most everyone is fully aware of what creates CO₂, but that's not what I asked. One has not proven a causal link: that the CO₂ emitted by my wife's car caused the flooding in Montreal".

You said: "Now provide a causal link between the anthropogenic component (if any) of present atmospheric CO₂ content" that was all I was doing.

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 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".

*

"Glacier melt and retreat is nothing new. For several hundred years the Vikings farmed land in Greenland and Iceland was once covered in forest".

Agree, solar activity, asteroids, volcanoes... can all affect climate. The issue is none of those are in contention now and 1520 is for the most part irrelevant.

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. One's comments regarding solar activity are also incorrect.

[Link: perspectaweather.com]

*

"Sea level rise has been constant for the past 150 years, which is consistent with a naturally warming world. If it were reacting to increasing atmospheric CO₂ content, there would, by now, have been a discernible acceleration. There hasn't been."

Funny how the time frame coincides with the growth of human-produced CO₂ but somehow that sea-level rise can't cause flooding.

Correlation does not imply causation. Sea level has been rising for thousands of years.



I have never claimed sea level rise cannot cause flooding. I have, however, previously mentioned that in some instances, land subsidence is more of a factor then rising water level (ref. post 109).

*

"Childish pedanticism. Any plans to combat atmospheric CO₂ level are meaningless unless China and India come on board."

Perfectly agree, it takes EVERY place, China, India, UK, Canada, Quebec...

And the COP gravy train continues to rumble on…



*

"And denying emerging nation’s access to cheap and affordable electricity is condemning them to perpetual poverty".

You said it before, and it was never true. If it was true China would not be the second richest nation now and soon the richest. India would not have climbed to 5th and moving up in leaps and bounds.

Again mere assertion. Research says otherwise…

[Link: thegwpf.org]
[Link: thegwpf.org]

There's also this…

[Link: reuters.com]

*

"I asked for a citation on how CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored inertly – which was your claim. You provided a link to a small scale concrete improvement process and a rudimentary description of photosynthesis. Neither answers the request and the childish nature of your reply to the latter was facetious."

No, I said

"1) CO₂ captured by CCS can be useful (but not in the amounts we are producing it right now, but in the future who knows)

"2) CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form so "went awry" sounds a bit odd if it is saved that way

"3) the math does not work in your favour. If the stockpile of one plant " went awry" and got released it will still be the CO₂ of one plant. If it is the stockpile of one country that " went awry" and got released, it will still be the CO₂ of one country. Unless all the CO₂ of all the world are stored together the reality is any such scenario will become a "small" local issue. Possibly a real tragedy for the area like Chernobyl but it can't become an extinction-level event."


Capturing polluting CO₂ (i.e. CCS) is something relatively new. Most of that CO₂ (at least for now if not forever) is a waste product and will need to be stored, that is what #3 dealt with. #1 said some of it is useful. Some of those uses will h store it inertly. I never said all of it will be inert, and I don't feel a need to differentiate between natural processes and technological ones.

But like always you try to dismiss reality.

Weasel words. My answer was perfectly valid for the issue under discussion – your claim that "CO₂ captured by CCS can be stored in inert form…" You have still not provided an answer.

Most of your other twaddle I answered in post 138 thus:

"i). There is no evidence to claim the present level of atmospheric level of CO₂ is dangerous.

"ii). Without that alarmist claim, there is no argument for developing CCS technology.

"iii). Political expediency/ideology, however, dictates the issue be investigated for viability.

"iv). While some pilot plants have been built (as proof of concept), there is, as yet, no evidence to suggest a mass rollout of the technology is (or will ever be) efficient, effective and/or economical to run.

"iv). If political expediency/ideology dictates the process be pursued (regardless of its overall effectiveness and cost) the sheer scale of the (UK) operation then becomes apparent.

"v). All fossil fuel processes will require the implementation of the technology, including the 'cracking' of natural gas into its constituent parts to produce the hydrogen the CCC believes can act as a replacement for natural gas.

"vi). Hydrogen, however, has only about one third the calorific value of natural gas, thus to maintain present levels of usage will require almost three times as much natural gas and the disposal of many millions of tons of CO₂ per year. Furthermore, the CCC has already estimated that a national switchover to hydrogen would cost £50-100 billion just for household conversions; a figure that does not include the extra cost of building new hydrogen-producing plants.

"vii). There is no contradiction, only your lack of wit in appreciating the cost and scale of the wishful thinking."

Further to the above:

i). To claim CO₂ is a pollutant is to also claim water is. Both are essential to life on this planet.

ii). That 'waste product', as you so quaintly put it, is helping to re-green the planet and aid agricultural production.

iii). I have never claimed you said all CO₂ captured by CCS will be inert. I merely asked you provide an example of a system capable of storing inert CO₂ (in significant quantity).

iv). Oh, I think you very much do need to differentiate between natural and technological solutions, as the latter adds significant cost (ref. my comments about SaskPower in post 98). A possible natural solution, on the other hand, would be to continue as we are and allow the planet to develop, er, naturally.

[Link: thegwpf.org]

It is not I dismissing reality.

*

"There is a vast difference between regulating a known constant input and a randomly variable one. Concentrating on an all or nothing scenario for hydro, coal, gas etc. is total nonsense, but not so in the case of renewables."

None are all or nothing scenarios or the grid would never work.

Once again, one's reply highlights one's total ignorance of the seriousness of the intermittency issue and the need for backup. One can forward plan fuel supplies, and in no small extent water, 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.

*

"HQ is not a special case as any half-competent power company could produce low-cost electricity."

I agree never said they are special. They are just easier to use as an example because I know a lot about the situation here.

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.

*

"No doubt HQ see a sound business opportunity, but adding a few more MW of wind power to a grid so dominated by hydro is by no means comparable to its being promoted as a primary source."

Agree, for the most part (and simple $) hydro is a bit cheaper, but with any source you need variety, if there is a drought it will affect how much hydro you can produce, a dam is not only about creating electricity but it also needs to manage the water level(s) upstream, downstream and (for lack of a proper term) middlestream (i.e. when you have more then one damn on the same river you are in full control of water levels between those two damns).

On the other hand wind is easier to ramp up and down, if tehre is an issue with one turbine it can be taken off line withourt issues....

Two issues:

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.

ii). Your belief in the concept of wind power output ramping again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of its operating principles.

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. 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.

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.

*

"I'm fully appreciative Quebec's generation mix (post 138 ref.2), but it has no bearing on the issue of UK renewables generation."

You do realise you quoted me saying ONTARIO

My apologies for confusing you by missing out "here is Quebec".

*

"I have done you the courtesy of believing what you have to say about Quebec's generation and costs. I would have hoped one would be gracious enough to reciprocate, but clearly not."

[Link: ofgem.gov.uk]

I am not god, so don't "believe" me; I don't have an issue with that. I am human, and sometimes I make mistakes, so if I do, please correct me and don't take what I say as gospel.

I do put my faith in a lot of stuff that you write, but I can't turn a blind eye when your link contradicts your interpretation.

To summarise:

• You assert wind power is cheap.


• My experience and evidence from further afield contradict this view.


• You ignore what I say and the evidence I provide, even going so far as to claim it's not evidence (post 117).


• I persevere.


• 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.


• Having provided an illustration of unit cost, via the Ofgem website, you now assert it presents a contradiction.


• My mind boggles.

The basis of my claim:

As first mentioned in post 10, the Burbo Bank Extension wind farm is comprised of 32 x 8MW Vestas V164 turbines. Such an array has a theoretical output of 256MW capable of supplying 2,242,560MWh annually. However, it has a load factor of 38.6% (Orsted's own figure) suggesting an actual annual production of circa 865,628MWh. From this, we can estimate prospective annual generation income at wholesale price (£45.00 per MWh)* and at present strike price (£170.03 per MWh)**

Wholesale 45 x 865,628 = £38,953,260
Strike 170.03 x 865,628 = £147,416,448

*Wholesale price is variable; thus, the figure used is indicative only.
**The strike price is index-linked: continuously adjusted for inflation. (The original price agreed in 2012 was £150.00 per MWh.)

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.

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. Not only has this increased bills directly but also indirectly through increased retail prices as suppliers raise them to recover the additional cost. Further costs are also incurred through increasing grid complexity and the need to pay generators to remain on standby to cover for the intermittency of the renewables. In short, renewables increase cost, not decrease them.

(Note: My unit cost is 18.4485p per kWh. Yes, I also have a standing charge of 16.233p per day.)

Turning our attention to your calculations, though I'm not sure why one felt the need. It appears as if you're endeavouring to justify your opinion of wind power by claiming certain costs of the UK grid are higher than they need be. Once again though you are basing your views on a comparison between the UK grid and that of Quebec which, customer wise, fuel diversity wise and complexity wise, is an apples to oranges comparison.

I’ve never claimed UK electricity is cheap, only that adding intermittent renewables is increasing costs, undermining grid stability and doing nothing to support the rationale behind its implementation: i.e. reducing global CO₂ level. Ofgem is the Government's industry regulator; if there were any significant irregularities, they would be on top of it.

There are two further points also in need of mention.

i). I'm not sure of the point you're endeavouring to make in regards to the constraint payments: that is the payments made to wind power suppliers to turn off supply in the event of an overcapacity issue. As pointed out in post 118, they are presently but a small cog in the Environmental Levies big wheel. There is, however, a massive potential for growth, as once again we have seen an increase on last year: with a few days of the year left they presently stand in excess of £135 million.

ii). As mentioned above, the electricity wholesale price is variable, so there is nothing unusual in seeing differing figures being quoted. The graphic you've used, however, has nothing to do with wholesale price: it is a list of the wind power projects which 'won' the last round of CfD auctions.

Note. These projects are the subject of your link to an article in the Independent newspaper in post 117 and my reply in post 118. Further commentary and links to a more detailed analysis of the problems facing the wind industry can be found in post 138.

*

What you bolded is absolutely true, do I take it for granted when you say you pay 18p absolutely, did I question the numbers from ofgem not at all, with uk gov I am assuming they know what they re talking about. Imagine if every time you wanted to calculate the hypotenuse you needed to build the triangle and measure all three sides and stuff. Now, do I trust Pythagoras knew what he was talking about? there have been enough people that proved he was right, do I need a reference link to him saying it? not at all. imagine this

Aristarchus of Samos: the earth and the other planets revolves around the sun
other guy: Plato, Aristotle all say the earth is in the center of the universe here is a tablet from them.

is Aristarchus wrong because Plato and Aristotle are accepted as smart guys or were Plato and Aristotle bozos giving their opinion on something thety did not really understand.

Semantics. They are of no concern to me.

*

"From those who seek to challenge the orthodoxy you demand numbers, calculations, 'the facts behind the scene'."

Not just those that challenge the orthodoxy but everyone. But technically the more outrageous the conclusion the more evidence should be required.

Presumably, you've not read post 34:

"Many years ago, my naive understanding of science was one of honourable professional people carrying out research and experimentation in the cause of furthering human knowledge. They would condense their thoughts, reasoning, methodologies and results in 'papers' and offer it to their peers for honest review and debate. Exemplifying this is a saying popularised by Carl Sagan, 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence'. Would one then not consider a claim overturning a swathe of previous peer-reviewed research extraordinary? Steve McIntyre certainly did."

This quote is, of course, in reference to Michael Mann’s bogus hockey stick graph.

Has one never speculated about where we would be today had the IPCC carried out its due diligence? Is it not extraordinary to claim that, out of multifarious factors involved in the planet’s climate control system, a minor atmospheric trace gas is considered its primary driver? And where, after the billions spent and continuing to be spent on research, is the extraordinary evidence in support of the claim?

*

"Yet it's clear, from what you've written here, that you place no such strictures on the claims made of CO₂ by the IPCC."

No, the truth is, thanks to you and this thread, I have read a lot more from dissenters then accepters. It is just that reality does not help your cause. I don't need t the IPCC to tell me that there were flooding, I saw that with my own eyes. I don't need them to explain how weather currents work I learnt that when I was taking piloting lessons. I don't need the IPCC to tell me my food will be more expensive and there will most likely be a potatoe shortage due to weather here.

And what reality would that be?

• That regardless of some blatant malfeasance and collusion, the CO₂ narrative being peddled by the IPCC is being thwarted by Mother Nature to such an extent that the land-based data sets, used to determine global average temperatures, are being homogenised to artificially create more 20th-century warming than actually occurred.


• That the IPCC continues to use unvalidated numerical models to claim unwarranted apocalyptic future warming.


• That since the turn of the century, there has barely been any additional warming, even though atmospheric CO₂ content continues to climb.


• That the claims of increased severe weather events and wildfires are not supported by recorded data.


• That the hysterical claims of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice collapse have simply not materialised and are not likely to.


• That sea-level rise is not accelerating and continues at a sedate rate, which is consistent with that of a naturally warming world.


• That you have previously dismissed known scientific fact about CO₂ as being nonsense.


• That you have and continue to ignored or dismiss all evidence countering the CO₂ narrative without explanation.


• That you claim such evidence is mere garbage and those who present it, regardless of expertise, as bozos.


• That your partisan view is based purely on your experiencing some bad weather resulting in the flooding of Montréal and, in a staggering show of wanton hypocrisy, a news article claiming you may have to pay more for your veggies.

No, I think my observation is perfectly valid. Furthermore:

• You clearly have no interest in the science of climate change.


• You are expressing opinions based on propaganda peddled by the MSM.


• The exaggerations of the MSM are based on the alarmist rhetoric emanating from the IPCC.


• And the alarmist rhetoric of the IPCC is a direct result of their disturbing lack of rigour in validating the 'science' being presented to them.

Montréal is not the only place to suffer flooding, and bad weather has been a factor of agricultural production since 'man' put down the spear and started tilling the land. As distressing as the former might be and as inconvenient the latter, neither justifies the spending of gazillions on a hope and a prayer plan that will impoverish and destabilise nations and thus be more dangerous and deadly than adapting to change.

Regardless of the billions already spent, the IPCC is no nearer confirming their claims about CO₂ than they were some 30 years ago. Yet in displaying something akin to a collective cognitive dissonance they still believe they can terrify the populous into action by sensationalising its effects, while conveniently forgetting that all their past predictions have miserably failed to materialise. This has not been lost on more rational minds and even, perhaps, some of those tasked with formulating action plans, as yet another COP conference ends in disarray with the can once again being kicked a little further down the road. Indeed, it would seem that all the IPCC have genuinely managed to accomplish is a passing of the alarmist baton to extremist political groups more radical than they (not forgetting, of course, a gullible Swedish teenager with personality issues). These groups, like you, have no time for the niceties of science.

While the mechanisms of climate change remain far from fully understood, impressionable young minds, already poisoned by years of one-sided MSM propaganda, are now unwittingly being drawn into the theatre of extreme left-wing politics. Here, rational thought is to be discouraged, even vilified. Those guilty of wrong think to be sent to re-education camps, or worse. The young to be brainwashed into believing that if they don’t act, they will have no future. No doubt you'll think such a view far-fetched and yet this is precisely the threat posed by the likes of Extinction Rebellion. They are perfectly happy to lie and misrepresent science to achieve their fundamental aim of political change and, more worryingly, by using the cloak of environmental concern, are seemingly being encouraged to do so by parents and schoolteachers. The naivety of the young is being cynically exploited by those claiming to offer a brave new world but are, in fact, engineering a dystopian nightmare. I fear for them.





[Link: policyexchange.org.uk]

I was not cheery picking, but in order to show there is a link between
A) anthropogenic component of present atmospheric CO₂ content
and Z) any specific incidence of flooding

we need to start somewhere and that might as well be A)



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 CO₂ 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 CO₂ 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?


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.


does that mean you agree that it does happen?


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.


no I fully agree you need backup what you are missing is the reality electricity by its nature is intermittent as you call it.


yes and no look at [Link: cbc.ca]




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?


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.


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.



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 needed

if 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


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).


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?


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.




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...






No the # are the #, I said they contradict what you believe.

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)



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?

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 cherry-picking, but in order to show there is a link between A) anthropogenic component of present atmospheric CO₂ content and Z) any specific incidence of flooding we need to start somewhere and that might as well be A).

More obfuscation, equivocation, procrastination, vacillation and, of course, good old general flimflam.

'We' don't need to do anything. You, however, need to provide an answer to the query I raised rather than giving excuses for not doing so.

Formulating a response to a phrase within a sentence while ignoring that which was explicitly requested is the very essence of cherry-picking. You did not deem it necessary to qualify your response at the time and now, for the third time, you have failed to provide an answer to my original comment.

We all acutely aware of the rising proportion of atmospheric CO₂, but after 30 years of intense study and billions spent, there is still no clear evidence to suggest CO₂ is the demon the IPCC claims it to be, and certainly no evidence of the water vapour amplification effect, as speculated upon in the Charney Report. There is, however, a growing catalogue of evidence suggesting CO₂ is merely a convenient scapegoat.

If you believe differently, do something radical for a change and provide an argument as to why.

*

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.

Continuing your propensity for ignoring inconvenient comment and data, your claim my statement above is mere assertion comes as little surprise. Of course, without any supporting evidence or argument, your claim too can as easily be classified as such. The difference, however, is that I have previously provided such an argument, whereas you deny its existence and preferring instead to exercise your wild imagination in a risible attempt at deflection.

Note: Estimates to retrofit Britain's housing stock alone are around the £2 trillion mark, and AOC's Green New Deal in the US has been costed at anything between $51 - $93 trillion. It appears the only thing 'insanely stupid' around here is your comment.

1). As previously mentioned, injecting CO₂ into concrete to improve the product cannot be considered a mass storage solution, as it only offsets the CO₂ produced in its production.

With such an abundance of dispatchable hydro on tap, the Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine 'microgrid' project is a perfectly reasonable undertaking and likely sensible regardless of climate issues. It is, however, no justification for the mass adoption of wind power as it only plays a minimal role in HQ's energy supply mix. Good for green virtue signalling, but little else.

2). Another worst-case scenario is an extinction-level meteor strike à la Deep Impact or a pandemic à la 12 Monkeys. Metres high sea-level rise from presumed CO₂ induced warming is, however, pure alarmist hyperbole, not even worthy of a low budget Hollywood film.

3). Pragmatic planning outweighs wing and a prayer hope. Only the institutionally gullible would believe otherwise, which is perhaps the reason for your wild speculation and unsupported claims.

*

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 anymore and have 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) whatever they produce. Global warming is killing these ice roads, and for the most part, the alternatives are helicopter/small plane which is extremely expensive.

Again. Pragmatic planning outweighs wing and a prayer hope.

*

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 dam breaking)…., 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.

More paranoid alarmist twaddle.

Seaborne flooding events are entirely the result of natural disasters creating large tidal swells (e.g. The Bristol Channel floods of 1607) or storm surges during periods of unusually high tides (e.g. The North Sea Floods of 1953). The modest sea level rise we've seen for the past 150 years (circa 45 cms) would have had little additional effect, and once again the practical solutions of maintaining and improving sea defences* trumps the wishful thinking of atmospheric CO₂ control - the latter, of course, presupposing the, by no means certain, belief that CO₂ is the cause of the rise in the first place.

*Note: The Dutch are doing precisely this with the ongoing renovation works being carried out on the Afsluitdijk: the primary sea wall protecting their polder regions.

As for sea-level rise itself. Climate change lore tells us The Maldives should no longer exist, but not only has their seaborne doom failed to materialise, the islands are actually thriving; most notably from the billions of infrastructure investment (airports and hotels) being provided by the Saudis. And land subsidence is far from irrelevant, as areas where it's occurring (e.g. Jakarta, The Mekong Delta) have been principally promoted as areas threatened by climate change, which is a complete misrepresentation of fact.

Stories of apocalyptic sea-level rise are unsupported alarmist exaggerations, specifically designed to lure the institutionally gullible into unnecessary pre-emptive action. It seems to me you've been hooked.

*

Once again, one's reply highlights one's total ignorance of the seriousness of the intermittency issue and the need for backup. One can forward plan fuel supplies, and in no small extent water, 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?

Basic principles of electricity supply.

Suppliers know that for a given time of the year demand will never fall below a certain threshold, ergo some plants can be run at full power 24/7. This is known as baseload generation and something ideally suited to nuclear. Above that we have dispatchable generation, which can be quickly adjusted to meet demand, and above that there are 'short term peakers', which are only called upon in the event of unexpected transient demands.

Years of monitoring has provided suppliers with enough data and understanding to approximately gauge expected demand. If, however, we now add in a source of generation which is itself randomly variable, load balancing becomes an increasingly complex issue (more plant having to be placed on standby for example), which adds cost.

I would have thought the increased complexity of two random variables interacting a simple concept for a mathematician to understand. It seems I was mistaken.

*

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.

And yet the napkin remains a better judge of the costs than your arithmetic. The wine was quite enjoyable too… hic!

*

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.

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. 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.

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.

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 everyday transmission (electricity does not like to travel).

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 beforehand), 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?

First, you start with a meaningless discussion about the nature and composition of water. This is followed by a pointless debate about the geographical locations of HQ's operations. Which is then followed by a meaningless attempt at comparing the theoretical possibility of zero dispatchable hydro output with the genuine possibility of zero non-dispatchable wind output. In short, you've done nothing other than produce three paragraphs chock-full of philosophical smoke and mirrors in a risible attempt at trying to justify the glaringly obvious contradiction you presented. But then, when it comes to climate, what's new? Inconsistencies from the institutionally gullible are commonplace:

• It's too warm - it must be climate change.


• It's too cold - it must be climate change.


• It's too dry – it must be climate change.


• It's too wet – it must be climate change.


• There's too much flooding – it must be climate change.


• There's too much drought – it must be climate change.


• The fuel suppliers have gone on strike – it must be climate change.


• The Brits have voted for Brexit – it must be climate change.


• I've taken two weeks to respond – it must... No, wait! That was Christmas and I had better things to do.

Climate change. A solution to (almost) any problem, providing one doesn’t trouble oneself to think too much.

*

ii). Your belief in the concept of wind power output ramping again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of its operating principles.

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.

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 needed. If you have 10 turbines and 6 of them are working and you need more electricity you can startup #7 and #8 and #9 to match what is needed and if demand decreases you can take #1 and #2 offline. 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.

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.

Well, congratulations on stating the bleedin' obvious and finally appreciating that there are differences between UK and Quebec operations. Other than that, what you've written is yet another two hundred words or so of complete bunk.

Once again then, since your memory retention appears to be similar to that of a goldfish, UK renewable energy is prioritised: solar first, followed by wind (then other sources depending upon availability). In such circumstances, it makes no financial sense to regulate supply by turning turbines on or off to meet demand. One caveat to this, as I mentioned, is their being turned off in the event of overcapacity, though in such a circumstance, the affected operators are then compensated via the constraints payment mechanism; i.e. they are paid to produce nothing. However, over and above the financial considerations, there is also no practical sense in attempting to regulate a stable supply with a volatile source as the latter's output (sometimes even on a minute to minute basis), cannot be guaranteed.

I appreciate, given your past difficulties in assimilating the complexity of such system interactions, you may struggle with such a concept, but I'm sure that given enough time even your incisive mathematical mind will eventually get there. What I do find surprising though, from such a luminary economics expert, is your inability to recognise wind's true cost.

Even though time and again, your ridiculous assertions have been demonstrably proven incorrect, you persist in believing wind power is cheap. My failure to comply with your nonsense though should hardly come as a surprise when the Government have even admitted to adding a surcharge and thus increasing cost. Indeed, such is your bewildering intransigence I sometimes wonder if I'm dealing with a robot; that would at least explain why the following sentence rambles on into incoherence:

"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)."

Even more amusing are your comments about HQ's risibly small percentage of wind power. The thought of them turning on and off a few unstable MW here and there, to 'regulate' a grid generating GW, would have any engineer rolling on the floor laughing. There may be sound financial and political reasons for HQ's decision to embrace wind, but generating power is almost certainly the least of them.

*

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 subsidizes poor people, "CRC energy efficiency scheme" that goes to corporations that reduce their carbon footprint...

More weasel words, but it's amusing to see you fumbling around in the hole you've dug for yourself.

Of course the issue is where the money comes from, as it affects everyone; including the less well off. The £140 one-off Warm Home Discount you trumpet only offsets the Green Levies increase, not cancel it.

*

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.

And, pray tell, what do you think I believe? I’ll give you a clue – there is no contradiction.

*

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 first mistake is that capital 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 immediately for 750M, it will have a capital 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 anywhere 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 expectancy is 10 years and the 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 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 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-balling naturally comes with the term of depreciation (i.e. if you keep it longer the depreciation cost is 0 going forward and profitability 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)

More smoke and mirrors. Oh, I'm sure that financing a multimillion-pound business venture is a complicated affair, but if there were a need to understand asset accounting and depreciation I'd ask the wife. There isn't.

Nothing you've mentioned above counters the fundamental principle of investing to make money. If the product being sold does not provide enough to recover the initial investment, let alone provide enough to make a profit, then the proposition is simply not viable, and all you've mentioned above becomes moot.

An annual income of circa £39 million on a project investment of £800 million (with a liberal life-expectancy of 20 years) is the very definition of not viable, whereas an annual income of circa £147 million makes it so. Thus…

"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. Not only has this increased bills directly but also indirectly through increased retail prices as suppliers raise them to recover the additional cost. Further costs are also incurred through increasing grid complexity and the need to pay generators to remain on standby to cover for the intermittency of the renewables. In short, renewables increase cost, not decrease them."

As for Tvindkraft, I say congratulations, but preservation societies abound for all sorts of vintage machinery, including Dutch windmill pumps. What you cannot do, though, is compare a mollycoddled 900kW land-based turbine to a commercial 8/10/12MW offshore monster and the rigours they have to endure.

As the GWPF report:

"One of the principal disadvantages of rapid and inorganic technological deployment, such as that required by the European Union's renewable energy targets, is that problems are very widespread by the time they are discovered. The prudent approach is to stay behind the learning curve, so that the consequences of type failure affect only a small number of installations. Dashing ahead of the learning curve is asking for big trouble."

Orsted is in the process of renovating all 324 blades on the 108-turbine, 389 MW, Duddon Sands wind farm in the UK part of the Irish Sea, due to a leading edge erosion problem. This issue is reported to affect some 500 turbines across Europe and has been costed at up to £1 Million per machine.

After suffering a series of well-publicised cable failures, the eighty 5MW turbine EU funded Bard Offshore 1 (owned by Ocean Breeze Energy GmbH & Co. KG.) has for the past two years been undergoing a program of nacelle and rotor replacement, though Ocean Breeze has declined to confirm how many machines are affected.

Such problems would suggest a healthy order book for offshore servicing/maintenance companies, but as the GWPF again reports:

"This has not been enough to prevent Offshore Marine Management Ltd (OMM), a UK-based offshore wind contractor, entering into voluntary liquidation after several years of losses. Interestingly, OMM, a relatively small company though prominent in the UK, cited the increasingly 'competitive nature' of the sector as a factor underlying its failure, and it seems likely that it was unable to survive the efforts of developers determined to reduce both capital and operational and maintenance costs to the bone (and judging from the failures reported, perhaps into the bone itself). With margins pared thin, costly local suppliers may quite simply be forced out of the market, and regardless of their other merits. Related evidence of this phenomenon, which is clearly global, can be found in the fact that the Danish mega-developer Orsted is now grumbling that the Taiwanese government's insistence of a high level of local content for its projected 900MW Changua 1 & 2a offshore wind farms will double the capital cost from approximately £1.6m/MW to about £3m/MW."

German onshore is fairing little better. The last German contract auction was significantly undersubscribed; turbine manufacturer Senivon is in serious financial difficulties and the German tower and foundation maker, Ambau GmbH, has already filed for bankruptcy. Adding to the industry's problems are the tightening of Germany's planning regulations - Enercon has recently been compelled by court order to suspend construction of its 30MW Wulfershausen wind farm because it had, apparently, breached the local authorities' requirement that no dwelling should be within a distance ten times tip height. The stricter planning regulation, declining public acceptance and falling subsidies have also been cited as reasons why 15GW of existing capacity, now over 15 years old, may not be repowered.

The GWPF again:

"Meanwhile, in Norway and in its home territory Sweden, Statkraft, Europe's largest generator of renewable energy, has suspended further onshore wind construction because it would be 'very challenging' to develop profitable projects in these areas. They are concentrating on other less resistant markets, such as the United Kingdom, where it has acquired a 250 MW portfolio of projects from Element Power.

"But as it happens, things in the UK may prove to be no more promising. It has just dawned on the wind industry that government is actually acting on Amber Rudd's landmark energy reset speech when Secretary of State for the Department of Energy & Climate Change in November 2015. In that speech, Rudd remarked that 'we also want intermittent generators to be responsible for the pressures they add to the system'. [My Bold] That of course, was only right, but perhaps the industry hoped the intention would never materialise. If that was their expectation, they were gravely mistaken. Aurora Energy Research has now released analysis of the regulator, Ofgem's proposal to reform network charges, the 'Targeted Charging Review', and believes that the proposed changes 'could set back subsidy-free renewables by up to five years'. When 'unspun' this actually means is that if the regulator removes the hidden subsidy of avoided system costs, imposed by renewables but socialised over all generators, then more of the true cost of renewables will be revealed to the market, making it much less likely that even the most greenwash-thirsty corporate, NGO, or governmental body will sign an extravagant long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a wind or solar farm. In other words, far from hindering the emergence of subsidy-free renewables, Ofgem's reforms threaten to give the lie to the subsidy-free claim and show that it was never anything more than an empty PR gambit."

*

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

Can you tell me the heading of the second to last column?

What does that do to your previous comment?

Oh, for goodness sake!



From my last post:

"ii). As mentioned above, the electricity wholesale price is variable, so there is nothing unusual in seeing differing figures being quoted. The graphic you've used, however, has nothing to do with wholesale price: it is a list of the wind power projects which 'won' the last round of CfD auctions.

Note. These projects are the subject of your link to an article in the Independent newspaper in post 117 and my reply in post 118. Further commentary and links to a more detailed analysis of the problems facing the wind industry can be found in post 138."

For the intellectually challenged, and those incapable of following a link, the short version goes thus:

The ending of unsustainable lavish wind power subsidies has brought turmoil to the wind industry. Competition has become cutthroat with a number of high profile businesses going bust (see above) and others shedding thousands of jobs:

"Enercon, the Mercedes Benz of turbine makers, has just announced 3,000 redundancies in its home town of Magdeburg, and admitted to a $220m loss in 2018, with worse to come in 2019 (“Thousands to lose jobs as German wind crisis hits Enercon” 11.11.2019).

"Indeed, in a measure quite incredible for a flagship German firm, Enercon has explained that it can no longer afford to make wind turbine blades in Germany, and will perforce attempt to preserve its viability by manufacturing overseas, presumably in locations where lower energy costs mean that labour is much cheaper." (Source – GWPF)

Another aspect of this change in fortune has been the eyebrow-raising signing of low price contracts:

"Offshore wind projects, for example, are claiming dramatic (and implausible) capital cost reductions, backing up such claims by signing contracts to supply electricity at surprisingly low prices, even at so-called Zero-Subsidy levels. In the UK the latest instance of this is the Round 3 Allocation of Contracts for Difference, which announced strike prices of £40/MWh for about 4.5 GW of capacity at five gigantic projects. This appears to be below the likely wholesale price, let alone below the fundamental price needed to deliver a return on investment for the wind farms themselves." (Source – GWPF)

Hailed by supporters as the dawn of a new age, these prices are completely unrealistic and are seen within sections of the industry as simply a means to secure market position and inhibit competition: actual construction will likely be conditional on more generous terms being offered in the future. Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University likens this to a game of high stakes poker with the patsy being the UK Government and the hard-pressed British consumer.

In support of his argument, he cites the contrast between two wind farms off the coast of Scotland: Moray East and Beatrice.

"Moray East, currently under construction in northern Scotland, and Beatrice, which came on stream just a few months ago, use very similar turbines and are situated just next door to each other. There is nothing about Beatrice to suggest that costs or performance are out of the ordinary, yet it has a strike price nearly three times that of Moray East.

"They are probably gambling that if they threaten to go bust, the government will be forced to raise carbon taxes sharply. This will push market prices up, and the operators will simply walk away from their agreed contracts and trade at the new prices". (Source – GWPF)

The future for British consumers looks bleak. Wind and solar renewables are not cheap, add cost and unless rethought will lead to increasing levels of fuel poverty and hardship. Trying to deny the plainly obvious, something no amount of accounting wizardry can alter, only continues to make you look pig-headed and stupid.

As previously mentioned, further details and analysis can be found by following the links in post 138.

[Link: sciencenews.org]

No debate on temperatures rising and falling, always been that way.

Debate, as noted in the comments above, is whether CO2 causes it.

And noting the costs to “control climate” are multiples more than can be paid at all.

Whatever.

We're all going to die at the same time. Soon.

Lead the way Gunga Din.