The 2024 Rendezvous

[John Elwin]

Peter Mallett for PM - always the (only?) voice of reason!

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by John Elwin

Peter Mallett for PM - always the (only?) voice of reason!

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/

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

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/

Civitas has withdrawn the report since it was first reported. The report was found to contain “factual errors”.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Civitas has withdrawn the report since it was first reported. The report was found to contain “factual errors”.

Yes , politicians often force organisations to tell lies and change their facts when they are paying them to promote government policy , and they are still trying to push the heat pump insanity .
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

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think because a significant amount of people who claim that it is all a complete con have been discredited on many occasions.

Are there some people looking to profit from the move to 'greener' energy? - Yes
Are some people presenting evidence that is at best ambiguous, and at times false to further their profit/control? - Yes
Does that mean that the entire scientific community that endorses the climate change crisis, the move to greener energy and the need for renewables to form (part of) the solution are wrong? - No

FWIW - I personally think that Nuclear should also form part of the solution. However there are far too many people that have bought into the climate change denial propaganda, and the longer the problem is ignored, the worse it will become in the long run.

You've played the discredited card once again. Discredited by whom exactly? The same people who are paid by the green energy companies? You don't appear to question the intermittent nature of renewables, nor do you pose anything other than "the scientist say such and such". Imperical evidence clearly demonstrates that renewables don't work. Once again look at the National Grid info. Look at the website I quoted previously, whether we accept carbon as the problem or not, it reports that temperatures are going up but so are carbon emissions. And this after installing record amounts of renewables worldwide.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

You've played the discredited card once again. Discredited by whom exactly? The same people who are paid by the green energy companies?

One example would be John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce - who found in 2013 that 97% of 12,000 published peer-reviewed papers 'said that global warming is happening and human-caused, at least in part.'

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'.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

One example would be John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce - who found in 2013 that 97% of 12,000 published peer-reviewed papers 'said that global warming is happening and human-caused, at least in part.'

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'.

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

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

One example would be John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce - who found in 2013 that 97% of 12,000 published peer-reviewed papers 'said that global warming is happening and human-caused, at least in part.'

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'.

And that is exactly the problem, the peers are singing from the same hymnsheet hence they won't disagree.

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.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

And that is exactly the problem, the peers are singing from the same hymnsheet hence they won't disagree.

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.

This is a report on the 97% loads of lies .https://alarmistclaimresearch.files....consensus-.pdf

[Peter Mallett]

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.

[bauble]

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.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by John Elwin

Peter Mallett for PM

He's already PM.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

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 .

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

This is a report on the 97% loads of lies .https://alarmistclaimresearch.files....consensus-.pdf

My falsely presenting what is in the Cook et al paper, the ability to present a valid counter argument is evident.

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.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

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.

At the time of posting, I am unsure what the errors were. I was merely pointing out that the link provided includes a clarification that the report is withdrawn.

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.'

[Peter Mallett]

Here's an example of alarmism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...pcc-report-15/

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

At the time of posting, I am unsure what the errors were. I was merely pointing out that the link provided includes a clarification that the report is withdrawn.

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.'

What is true is that the climate is changing.

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.

[flatlandsman]

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.

[Peter Mallett]

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.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

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?

After a bit more research, the errors in the report are of calculation.

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.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

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 .

How do you reach these figures?

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.

[Peter Mallett]

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.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

How do you reach these figures?

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.

Like most people , you do not seem to understand the difference between power [ MW ] , and energy [ MWh ].
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

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

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.

I think we might be referring to different reports.

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'.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think we might be referring to different reports.

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'.

The Civitas report was probably withdrawn because it told the truth , which is not what the government wanted, they did not want people to know what the cost of the Net Zero insanity would really be .
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

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

And the extra 200GWh needed for heat pumps to work is constant , and therefore about 400 % increase on present generation capacity

This last sentence underlines the flaw in the argument you are presenting, and the lack of understanding in the units used.

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?

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Kilo Watt hour is the rate of energy output at one moment in time , and also the total output after 1 hour

Fundamentally wrong. A Kilo Watt hour is the qty (not rate) of energy used in one hour. If after one hour, a KWh of energy was used, then the rate at a moment in time would have been 1 KW (based on a flat rate).

power*time=energy. 1KW*1hour = 1KWh.