Kurt Barlow Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 who pays for these plants, when they sit idle and do not produce any value? surely it will increase the investment costs by a high margin? Not really. You need to keep a bit of spare generating capacity and RO units depreciate in linear fashion with hours used. Idling the system and selling on the electricity at peak time rates probably reduces cost margins. Similar plant is planned in Saudi Arabia using Solar (and possibly wind at some suitable red sea locations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 agreed. but if you have nuclear as the base there is no point to build the wind mills. you would just increase the nuclear base by another 20%. and you have a benefit of super cheap night electricity for storage heating and electric cars French have 80% nuclear electricity and the highest % of electric heating in the world - their electricity is cheap and not dependent on Russia or Middle East As kurt said, there is the issue of getting nuclear built fast enough. Even then, demand management is useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 you can simply stock up nuclear fuel for next 50 years; you need to remember that the nuclear fuel price is only 1% of the nuclear electricity price the biggest game changer in nuclear industry will be current development of small 200/400MWs units, which will be standartised and mass produced. and you will plug them into the grid like a lego one by one. it will kill the current nuclear high investment costs something like a pre-fab houses: http://inhabitat.com/200-chinese-workers-erect-a-30-storey-prefabricated-hotel-in-just-15-days-video/ Biggest game changer in the nuclear industry would be science-based evaluations of the costs and benefits of various power sources. Turns out that basing energy policy on a combination of the spoutings of assorted VIs, anti-nuclear fearmongering, anti-renewable fearmongering and a 5 year time horizion is not a winning strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 you can simply stock up nuclear fuel for next 50 years; you need to remember that the nuclear fuel price is only 1% of the nuclear electricity price the biggest game changer in nuclear industry will be current development of small 200/400MWs units, which will be standartised and mass produced. and you will plug them into the grid like a lego one by one. it will kill the current nuclear high investment costs something like a pre-fab houses: http://inhabitat.com/200-chinese-workers-erect-a-30-storey-prefabricated-hotel-in-just-15-days-video/ Given the appalling quality and control and build standards that I have seen first hand and seem to be the norm for Chinese Contractors, that Video fills me with a sense of horror if they start building Nukes in the UK or Europe I pray to god the UK still has a Nuclear Inspectorate with teeth if / when they start building nukes in 15 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Peter Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Here in Western Australia we have a great example of wind power being coupled to a dispatchable consumer. The Kwinana Desalination plant is powered by the 80MW Emu Downs wind farm near Cervantes. During periods of high electricity demand the Desal plant can be idled freeing up electricity from the wind farm to support the Perth Metro Grid and reduce coal & gas burn. Ok Desal is not the best example for the UK but there are plenty of other dispatchable demand sources that could work in a similar way. I believe that a couple of water companies in the UK are looking at desalination as an answer to the water problems in the South East, Peter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Biggest game changer in the nuclear industry would be science-based evaluations of the costs and benefits of various power sources. Turns out that basing energy policy on a combination of the spoutings of assorted VIs, anti-nuclear fearmongering, anti-renewable fearmongering and a 5 year time horizion is not a winning strategy. Agreed. Given the fact that primary energy demand in the UK is in the region of 2500TWH I see no conflict between developing both renewable and nuclear power in tandem. If the strategic aims are energy independence and lowering carbon emissions both technologies are appropriate and I would add that neither in the short to medium term need to be in the position of competing with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Given the appalling quality and control and build standards that I have seen first hand and seem to be the norm for Chinese Contractors, that Video fills me with a sense of horror if they start building Nukes in the UK or Europe I pray to god the UK still has a Nuclear Inspectorate with teeth if / when they start building nukes in 15 days. And, of course, accidents in countries with lax standards are then used as an argument against nukes in countries with higher standards.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 That's just it though - neither the article nor many of the charts refer to global temperatures. As I stated, the article relates to U.S. temperatures (but fails to say so explicitly), and the historical graphs mostly relate to temperature of Greenland (which is known to be particularly variable). Most of the historical graphs also stop before the period of recent warming over the last few decades, which means that they cannot be used to compare recent and ancient temperatures. It should be quite obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the author of this piece is intentionally trying to deceive the reader through his omissions of relevant data and information. He just holds a view different from yours and the 'consensus'. And as I keep repeating, history shows that the 'consensus' is more often than not, wrong. If you do not appreciate the significance of MMGW being relabeled Climate Change - which is undeniable, as the climate always has and always will change, then that is your problem. At the end of the day the argument is becoming irrelevant because the political drivers that created the cult are changing. We are now entering an era where no one, anywhere, will be able to pursue anything other than the cheapest option, regardless of unproven scientific theories. Germany which is one of the richest countries in the World has lots of cheap coal so is now building coal fired power stations, India and China are building hundreds, so why we should force millions in the UK into fuel poverty and make our industries even more uncompetitive is beyond my understanding. Lets face it - it ain't going to happen And MMGW will be quietly airbrushed out of history. At least you will be able to look back and say you read it here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) He just holds a view different from yours and the 'consensus'. And as I keep repeating, history shows that the 'consensus' is more often than not, wrong. If you do not appreciate the significance of MMGW being relabeled Climate Change - which is undeniable, as the climate always has and always will change, then that is your problem. At the end of the day the argument is becoming irrelevant because the political drivers that created the cult are changing. We are now entering an era where no one, anywhere, will be able to pursue anything other than the cheapest option, regardless of unproven scientific theories. Germany which is one of the richest countries in the World has lots of cheap coal so is now building coal fired power stations, India and China are building hundreds, so why we should force millions in the UK into fuel poverty and make our industries even more uncompetitive is beyond my understanding. Lets face it - it ain't going to happen And MMGW will be quietly airbrushed out of history. At least you will be able to look back and say you read it here first. I've already explained in the simplest possible terms why the article you quoted is deliberately misleading due to its omissions. If real climatologists presented work in such a fashion, they would be justifiably pilloried for incompetence or deceit. Yet you insist on accepting it without question, merely because it supports your idealogical position. That is simply not rational, so I don't see much point in further discussion with you. It's like talking to one of those old "Eliza" AI programs. Edited November 2, 2012 by snowflux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I've already explained in the simplest possible terms why the article you quoted is deliberately misleading due to its omissions. If real climatologists presented work in such a fashion, they would be justifiably pilloried for incompetence or deceit. Yet you insist on accepting it without question, merely because it supports your idealogical position. That is simply not rational, so I don't see much point in further discussion with you. It's like talking to one of those old "Eliza" AI programs. I don't have an ideological position I have 50+ years experience of being told the World was going to end. I also have first hand experience of the widespread cheating and fabrication of scientific data in academia. If anyone is interested the main driver of scientific research is not the pursuit of truth It is the pursuit of funding. The thing that amuses me the most though, is the fact that one day you will realise I was right and when you do, you are going to be really, really p*ssed off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 If anyone is interested the main driver of scientific research is not the pursuit of truth It is the pursuit of funding. Always been so! I actually like the windmills! Subsidised now, but maybe not in the future! Governments always have to be seen "doing something", and now they did "something"! Does anyone have the extra money to pay these bills for these (partially) follies! Not now they don't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Always been so! I actually like the windmills! Subsidised now, but maybe not in the future! Governments always have to be seen "doing something", and now they did "something"! Does anyone have the extra money to pay these bills for these (partially) follies! Not now they don't! It's got worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't have an ideological position I have 50+ years experience of being told the World was going to end. I also have first hand experience of the widespread cheating and fabrication of scientific data in academia. If anyone is interested the main driver of scientific research is not the pursuit of truth It is the pursuit of funding. The thing that amuses me the most though, is the fact that one day you will realise I was right and when you do, you are going to be really, really p*ssed off. Yeah, what has science ever achieved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yeah, what has science ever achieved? Newton was just after a grant. If you look closely enough, you can see mini pixies flying the apples down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Newton was just after a grant. If you look closely enough, you can see mini pixies flying the apples down. That was then, this is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Science is the fruit of an enquiring mind. Its integrity is an answer to lies. Its research institutes a haven for discussion and dissent. Its applications are the way to a healthier environment and a fuller life. Margaret Thatcher - 1993. Edited November 2, 2012 by (Blizzard) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 That was then, this is now. There you go with the inverse-square dogma again. You'll learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Newton was just after a grant. If you look closely enough, you can see mini pixies flying the apples down. fluffy, are you aware that the science evolves and that new theories replace the disputed one ??? we still do not have a good grip about the universe, human mind and believe or not the climate: http://en.wikipedia....logical_schools The psychological schools are the great classical theories of psychology. Each has been highly influential, however most psychologists hold eclectic viewpoints that combine aspects of each school. http://en.wikipedia....eory#Criticisms Some critics of string theory say that it is a failure as a theory of everything.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Notable critics include Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, Philip Warren Anderson,[56] Sheldon Glashow,[57] Lawrence Krauss,[58] and Carlo Rovelli.[59] Some common criticisms include: Very high energies needed to test quantum gravity. Lack of uniqueness of predictions due to the large number of solutions. Lack of background independence. http://en.wikipedia....ate_sensitivity Idso (1998)[22] calculated based on eight natural experiments a λ of 0.1 °C/(Wm−2) resulting in a climate sensitivity of only 0.4 °C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Forest, et al. (2002)[24] using patterns of change and the MIT EMIC estimated a 95% confidence interval of 1.4–7.7 °C for the climate sensitivity, and a 30% probability that sensitivity was outside the 1.5 to 4.5 °C range. Gregory, et al. (2002)[25] estimated a lower bound of 1.6 °C by estimating the change in Earth's radiation budget and comparing it to the global warming observed over the 20th century. Frame, et al. (2005)[27] noted that the range of the confidence limits is dependent on the nature of the prior assumptions made.Forster and Gregory (2006)[29] presented a new independent estimate based on the slope of a plot of calculated greenhouse gas forcing minus top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance, as measured by satellite borne radiometers, versus global mean surface temperature. In the triad notation of Annan and Hargreaves their estimate of sensitivity was (1.0, 1.6, 4.1)°C. Royer, et al. (2007)[30] determined climate sensitivity within a major part of the Phanerozoic. The range of values—1.5 °C minimum, 2.8 °C best estimate, and 6.2 °C maximum—is, given various uncertainties, consistent with sensitivities of current climate models and with other determinations.[31] Edited November 3, 2012 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 fluffy, are you aware that the science evolves and that new theories replace the disputed one ??? we still do not have a good grip about the universe, human mind and believe or not the climate: http://en.wikipedia....logical_schools The psychological schools are the great classical theories of psychology. Each has been highly influential, however most psychologists hold eclectic viewpoints that combine aspects of each school. http://en.wikipedia....eory#Criticisms Some critics of string theory say that it is a failure as a theory of everything.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Notable critics include Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, Philip Warren Anderson,[56] Sheldon Glashow,[57] Lawrence Krauss,[58] and Carlo Rovelli.[59] Some common criticisms include: Very high energies needed to test quantum gravity. Lack of uniqueness of predictions due to the large number of solutions. Lack of background independence. http://en.wikipedia....ate_sensitivity Idso (1998)[22] calculated based on eight natural experiments a λ of 0.1 °C/(Wm−2) resulting in a climate sensitivity of only 0.4 °C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Forest, et al. (2002)[24] using patterns of change and the MIT EMIC estimated a 95% confidence interval of 1.4–7.7 °C for the climate sensitivity, and a 30% probability that sensitivity was outside the 1.5 to 4.5 °C range. Gregory, et al. (2002)[25] estimated a lower bound of 1.6 °C by estimating the change in Earth's radiation budget and comparing it to the global warming observed over the 20th century. Frame, et al. (2005)[27] noted that the range of the confidence limits is dependent on the nature of the prior assumptions made.Forster and Gregory (2006)[29] presented a new independent estimate based on the slope of a plot of calculated greenhouse gas forcing minus top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance, as measured by satellite borne radiometers, versus global mean surface temperature. In the triad notation of Annan and Hargreaves their estimate of sensitivity was (1.0, 1.6, 4.1)°C. Royer, et al. (2007)[30] determined climate sensitivity within a major part of the Phanerozoic. The range of values—1.5 °C minimum, 2.8 °C best estimate, and 6.2 °C maximum—is, given various uncertainties, consistent with sensitivities of current climate models and with other determinations.[31] If you don't agree with him, you are an idiot This is how science works apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) If you don't agree with him, you are an idiot This is how science works apparently. so to respond to the claims that the "climate science is settled" let's see the latest (Oct 2012) Briffa's peer reviewed paper. His older work was used for the famous "Hockey stick" by Mann. So surprise surprise the MWP is back with the similar temperature as the latter half of the 20th century. It seems that everybody is now leaving Mann and his Hockey stick. Another peer reviewed white paper, which disputes the unprecedented warming in the 20th century. http://hol.sagepub.c...460791.abstract Potential bias in 'updating' tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. http://wattsupwithth...s-in-ther-data/ http://www.thegwpf.o...eriod-restored/ Whoo boy, I suspect this paper will be called in the Mann -vs- Steyn trial (if it ever makes it that far; the judge may throw it out because the legal pleading makes a false claim by Mann). What is most curious here is that it was Briffa (in the Climategate emails) who was arguing that some claims about his post 1960 MXD series data as used in other papers might not be valid. It set the stage for “Mikes Nature trick” and “hide the decline“. Steve McIntyre wrote about it all the way back in 2005: A Strange Truncation of the Briffa MXD Series Post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series are deleted from the IPCC TAR multiproxy spaghetti graph. These values trend downward in the original citation (Briffa [2000], see Figure 5), where post-1960 values are shown. The effect of deleting the post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series is to make the reconstructions more “similar”. The truncation is not documented in IPCC TAR. Edited November 4, 2012 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If you don't agree with him, you are an idiot This is how science works apparently. A casual glance over Damiks post would tell anyone with half a brain (ie someone with the ability to click on the Wiki page) that he has Cherry picked the studies with the lowest estimates for C02 radiative forcing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If you don't agree with him, you are an idiot This is how science works apparently. That's how it works with fluffy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) A casual glance over Damiks post would tell anyone with half a brain (ie someone with the ability to click on the Wiki page) that he has Cherry picked the studies with the lowest estimates for C02 radiative forcing Kurt, again you miss the point. I am not saying which one is correct one. I am just educating you that the climate science in this area is not settled yet and the scientific discussion is still ongoing ... and you can also see that even the core AGW alarmists such as Briffa are changing the mind ... Edited November 4, 2012 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Kurt, again you miss the point. I am not saying which one is correct one. I am just educating you that the climate science in this area is not settled yet and the scientific discussion is still ongoing ... and you can also see that even the core AGW alarmists such as Briffa are changing the mind ... So on the same basis if 10 epidemiologists tell you through their studies that smoking 20 ciggies a day for 40 years will increase your risk of developing lung cancer by 23, 25,30,32,35,65,85,86,88, and 90% respectively, by virtue of the spread of their collective estimates they must all be wrong and smoking isn't a major cause of lung cancer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 So on the same basis if 10 epidemiologists tell you through their studies that smoking 20 ciggies a day for 40 years will increase your risk of developing lung cancer by 23, 25,30,32,35,65,85,86,88, and 90% respectively, by virtue of the spread of their collective estimates they must all be wrong and smoking isn't a major cause of lung cancer? Kurt, I do not know where is your example coming from, but it clearly shows that in this area the research method must be examined as it does not show any meaningful results and same for the climate sensitivity; still a lot of work must be done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.