|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
10 Apr 2024, 08:19 (Ref:4204437) | #476 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,886
|
Peter Mallett for PM - always the (only?) voice of reason!
|
||
|
10 Apr 2024, 09:11 (Ref:4204442) | #477 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,062
|
Yes , Peter does talk a lot of common sense .
One of his estimates is a bit low though . In 2016 a Government committee concluded that electric home heating would need an extra 200 GWh of generation capacity , and was therefore impossible . And that was without counting EVs , which would also need an extra generation increase . All of that would need a massive upgrade of the whole power grid and the total would run into £ trillions , which of course the public would have to pay for . https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/...-zero-by-2050/ |
|
|
10 Apr 2024, 09:59 (Ref:4204448) | #478 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Apr 2024, 10:14 (Ref:4204453) | #479 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,062
|
Quote:
But something like nearly 30 million homes using heat pumps would still need an extra 200GWh of generation capacity , which means the whole country would need a grid which could cope with a 400% to 500 % increase in loading . So the cost to everybody would still run into £Trillions |
||
|
10 Apr 2024, 10:28 (Ref:4204456) | #480 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Apr 2024, 11:00 (Ref:4204459) | #481 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
Or Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry - who found that in 2021 that there is now a 'Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in [...] peer-reviewed scientific literature'. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
10 Apr 2024, 11:36 (Ref:4204465) | #482 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,062
|
Quote:
The John Cook Et Al paper is one of the most ridiculous load of lies that they have ever come out with . https://www.econlib.org/archives/201..._97_agree.html Of 12000 scientific papers there was only about 40 which said what they wanted . Like the earlier Doran Zimmerman 97% paper , they have all been totally discredited , but are still often quoted by the ECO loons in the hope that someone will believe it . This site has loads of facts about how the Global Warming fraud is nearly all a load of lies .http://icecap.us/index.php |
||
|
10 Apr 2024, 11:46 (Ref:4204466) | #483 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Quote:
And what "factual errors" were in that report? Please identify. Was it the increase in Carbon and or the increased installation of renewables, or was it the increased temperatures? And if possible identify what organisation the identifiers are employed by. Again all you are doing is shutting down debate. Your post doesn't offer an argument. |
|||
|
10 Apr 2024, 11:52 (Ref:4204467) | #484 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,062
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Apr 2024, 12:30 (Ref:4204470) | #485 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Incidentally, I suggested Italy is unlikely to suffer what we are suffering in the UK because I, along with a few thousand others built the Southern Gas Corridor bringing Natural Gas from the Caspian to Italy (Bari to be precise) via Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Greece and Albania.
|
||
|
10 Apr 2024, 13:50 (Ref:4204479) | #486 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,891
|
If hot air is responsible for Global Warming, no wonder there are so many 'natural disasters'
I don't eat white bread, my wife triumphantly read me an article from the Daily Telegraph, espousing the cause of eating white bread. I asked her why would a journalist decide to write such a piece? Because he's been paid to? I am a born cynic. Global Warming gives a lot of 'experts' a very good living, Golden Goose, comes to mind. NB; I can provide no independent evidence to substantiate my claims. Professor Bauble, S.o.F, with bells on. |
||
__________________
When asking; "Is he joking?" Best assume yes! |
10 Apr 2024, 14:05 (Ref:4204481) | #487 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,814
|
|||
|
10 Apr 2024, 14:12 (Ref:4204483) | #488 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
Quote:
Henderson falsely claims that 'John Cook’s statement that 97% of climate scientists who stated a position believe that humans are the main cause of global warming'. And the 'alarmist' link (there's a clue in the name that indicates the agenda) is laughable in the way it represents the paper. The consensus is that human activity is a contributing factor, not the main source. |
||||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
10 Apr 2024, 14:20 (Ref:4204487) | #489 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
I'm sure many will point out that is part of the hidden agenda and the long con that resulted in the report being withdrawn. The problem with looking for information to back up your position is that you will usually find it (on both sides of the debate). And increasingly people are unwilling to subject scientific rigour to the rhetoric the subscribe to. In one of the links kindly provided by Tel, we are reminded that 'Almost nobody has the expertise and time needed to evaluate any significant fraction of the evidence for himself. Different people trust different sources, with the result that different people have different confident beliefs about what the evidence is. If you are sure the evidence unambiguously supports your view, it’s natural to interpret anyone who disagrees as a fool or a rogue—and if you watch the arguments, that’s what routinely happens in both directions.' This is precisely what has happened in this thread (again) and both sides of the debate become . 'Participants in online discussions of this issue and probably most others, on both sides, are mostly cheering their team not trying to figure what’s true.' |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
10 Apr 2024, 14:29 (Ref:4204489) | #490 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Here's an example of alarmism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...pcc-report-15/
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
10 Apr 2024, 14:39 (Ref:4204490) | #491 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Quote:
Instead of mitigating the effects by improving infrastructure someone decided to turn back the clock and build windmills. What is patently clear, is that renewables do not work without some form of back up and keeping that back up running is costing people an absolute fortune. Other fun scams are Carbon Credits, what a terrific wheeze. What you do is you shut down your factory (say a steelworks in Wales) and get your product from another country, somewhere like India would be good, where they pay lip service to the environment. Your factory owner who may well be an indian company, pockets millions for not making any steel in the UK (carbon credits), then pockets further millions by making the steel in (possibly) India and shipping it at vast expense to the UK. I'm afraid the entire green agenda is a con. As to showing people how it's done by leading the world in carbon reduction, who cares? China, Russia, India, Africa, the Arab world, none of them care. |
|||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
10 Apr 2024, 17:08 (Ref:4204500) | #492 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 560
|
Sadly the people that can afford these useless trucks are the ones that like to talk about how great EV's are, when the vast majority of them are doing so via tax beneficial company lease schemes.
Hardly changing the world is it. To counter the China don't care argument, well their EV cars are going to change the world as they skipped the high tech ICE market as they could not make the damn things so started making EV's early, they also own the vast majority of the raw materials sites in the world, so whether you like it or not EV;s will make China a fortune and also add weight to their argument that though they contribute masses of fossil fuel pollution they also are going to revolutionise the worldwide EV market by doing what the greedy sods making them now cant do, and that is make them cheap. |
||
|
10 Apr 2024, 17:30 (Ref:4204507) | #493 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
My point about not caring, was about the daft moral high ground thing. I agree though, China is leading the world on EVs and stuff, and thus doing to "security" exactly what Putin and his mates are doing to energy.
|
||
|
11 Apr 2024, 06:05 (Ref:4204563) | #494 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
For example - the author of the report mixed up MW and MWh. This resulted in the report presenting a figure of £1.3m per MWh as the cost of onshore wind power, when the actual figure would be about £50 to £70 per MWh. The author also mixed up billions with trillions when calculating the overall cost. They started with an incorrect £1.3m (instead of £70) and then multiplied this by 623 (the predicted demand in TWh, not MWh) to reach a figure of £810,000 billion, then presented the result of this calculation as £810 billion. If the units of MWh, MW, TWh, billion and trillion were not mixed - and you accept the validity of the method, then the overall cost would be £70 million, not £810 billion. There are too many issues with the report to use it as an argument for or against the cost of onshore wind power as being credible. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
11 Apr 2024, 06:39 (Ref:4204569) | #495 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
In 2022, the UK generated 325.3TWh, of which 135TWh was from renewables. An extra 200GWh is a 0.65% increase. Maybe more reliable figures would be those found in 'Predicting future GB heat pump electricity demand' published here? In a typical year in the 2050s the heat pump electricity demand was calculated to be 80 TWh, of which 34% will be used to provide DHW, and the total GB electricity demand was 400 TWh. In a cold year the demand increased, but only to 412 TWh, which is a 29% increase on the total GB electricity demand in a cold year in the 2020s. The calculated peak heat pump electricity demand in a cold year in the 2050s was 37 GW. The peak GB electricity demand was 89 GW which is 46% greater than the current 2020s cold year peak. In a cold year in the 2050s, the annual load factor of heat pumps alone was around 28%, whilst the annual load factor of the total GB electricity demand was 53%. This is a reduction of nine percentage points compared to the annual load factor for the current GB demand in a cold year. Which indicates that, yes there is a requirement to increase the capacity for peak and annual demands - but only 46% and 29% respectively. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
11 Apr 2024, 06:42 (Ref:4204570) | #496 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Indeed you are correct but the facts concerning temperature and quantity of renewables installed are repeated in other reports. Likewise the point that the Earth has had many heat cycles is also repeated in other publications, and those were the points I used. I just used that report because the points were all in one place. I did find it humorous when it pointed out that climate had caused extinction events previously. Presumably this was in reference to dinosaurs, who had no means of mitigating the effects of climate.
|
||
|
11 Apr 2024, 08:14 (Ref:4204577) | #497 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,062
|
Quote:
A generator turns Kinetic energy into Electrical energy .https://www.generatorsource.com/How_...tors_Work.aspx and no power is produced until that energy is used at the end of the line / grid . So the correct term for a generator output is KWh . And just like Miles Per Hour , which is a rate of travel at one moment in time , Kilo Watt hour is the rate of energy output at one moment in time , and also the total output after 1 hour . So the correct term for generation capacity is in KWh, although very few people understand it . And the extra 200GWh needed for heat pumps to work is constant , and therefore about 400 % increase on present generation capacity |
||
|
11 Apr 2024, 08:18 (Ref:4204580) | #498 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
The report that I was referring to as being withdrawn was the Civitas report that resulted in the claims 'Brits face £6,000 annual bill to reach net zero by 2050'. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
11 Apr 2024, 08:36 (Ref:4204583) | #499 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,062
|
Quote:
Just like when UCL did a report the the London LEZ did not make the air cleaner , Khan threatened to stop their money unless they withdrew it . But it is not only Civitas who stated what Net Zero would cost , here is another one which puts the price at up to £8000 per family per year .https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...ng?format=750w Last edited by Tel 911S; 11 Apr 2024 at 08:37. Reason: spelling |
||
|
11 Apr 2024, 08:48 (Ref:4204585) | #500 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
The previous link provided by Peter - https://grid.iamkate.com/ - shows that the grid capacity is measure in GW - not GWh. And in the past year, the peak demand has been 37.7GW (as an instantaneous measure). Now if you are claiming that the continuous demand of 30 million heat pumps is 200GW, then yes this would be a >500% increase in demand. However, the largest domestic heatpumps require 5000 Watts to run. On average, you are looking at pumps of 3000 Watts. If you had 30 million of these all running at peak capacity, the demand would be (3000W * 30mill) 90GW. Or an increase in peak demand of the grid of 150%. So I think it needs asking again. If there are 30 million heat pumps in use in the UK, what is the instaneous power demand, or what is the energy demand per year? Quote:
power*time=energy. 1KW*1hour = 1KWh. |
||||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[DVD/Video] Rendezvous | adstubbs | Armchair Enthusiast | 42 | 20 Jul 2011 18:30 |
[DVD/Video] C'etait Un Rendezvous | Alfaholic | Armchair Enthusiast | 19 | 5 Apr 2003 19:55 |
[LM24] Le Mans Rendezvous | Aysedasi | 24 Heures du Mans | 8 | 25 Mar 2002 00:54 |