Climate Change (Global Warming) 🥶🌍🌞
- Thread starter Exige
- Start date
It’s not useless to someone’s bank balance that’s a certainty.
Fascinating article but I think the title is a tad disingenuous.
Just Stop Oil’s Roger Hallam has called on his supporters to shut down London every day for nearly a month, starting from Monday.
The Extinction Rebellion co-founder, 57, has been inspired by the success of the group’s Dutch arm in forcing MPs to vote on ways to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
The Extinction Rebellion co-founder, 57, has been inspired by the success of the group’s Dutch arm in forcing MPs to vote on ways to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
WTF??
If you tell a Magistrate (the most junior of judicial officers) to "fuck off" in my jurisdiction you will be marched off to the cells without delay. Then, as time allows, you will be back before the magistrate, charged with Contempt of Court and dealt with summarily via either a fine of up to $12000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months.
There is no patience for that shit here, even if the initial charge you were brought up on was trivial.
Could be trouble ahead
www.theguardian.com
Is crisis at Siemens Energy symptom of a wider wind power problem?
Rising construction and financing costs are likely to require fresh policies from the UK and US
The Largest And Most Powerful Wind Turbine Ever Built Is Now Operational
The MySE 16-260 earns its largest-ever tag thanks to its rotor diameter of 260 meters (853 feet) and its swept area of 53,902 square meters (580,196 square feet); it's also the most powerful wind turbine we've seen so far, offering 16 megawatts of power.
The MySE 16-260 earns its largest-ever tag thanks to its rotor diameter of 260 meters (853 feet) and its swept area of 53,902 square meters (580,196 square feet); it's also the most powerful wind turbine we've seen so far, offering 16 megawatts of power.
Last edited:
And all made from eco friendly materials by naked vegans... watts not to like? Wats not to like..
Published in the Torygraph;
Wind is already the cheapest form of power and will save us a fortune in future. We know this because the green energy lobby keeps telling us so. But it is hard to square with the words of Tom Glover, chair of energy company RWE’s UK arm, last week.
No more offshore wind farms will be built, he said, unless the Government hikes the guaranteed long-term prices offered to their operators by as much as 70 per cent.
The energy “market” is not really much of a market at all, not when it comes to green energy. The Government underwrites wind and solar through “contracts for difference” – guaranteeing operators a minimum “strike price”, rising with inflation, for every megawatt-hour of electricity they generate over 15 years.
The trouble is that wind farm developers will no longer accept the strike prices offered. Last time the Government held an auction for the right to build offshore wind farms, in September, it received not a single bid.
The maximum strike price the Government offered was £44 per MWh. According to RWE it won’t receive any bids until this is raised to between £65 and £75.
How come, when the cost of wind energy is supposed to be falling year on year? True, the cost did fall sharply up until 2019. But this then went into reverse thanks to higher commodity prices and interest rates. With renewable energy, most of the costs come upfront – which makes it particularly reliant on cheap debt.
But this is only half the story. If we are going to have a grid based on intermittent renewables, it is no use looking just at the cost of generation. We have to add on the cost of energy storage, or some other kind of back-up – or else build so many wind and solar farms that we have just enough power at the worst of times, and a super-abundance of it at other times.
All are likely to be horrendously expensive. Storing energy in lithium batteries, for example, can cost around six times as much as generating it in the first place. Using gas as back-up – as we do now – means we have gas power stations sitting idle for some periods, pushing up the unit cost of generation when they are needed.
As for super-abundance, we would end up with masses of idle wind turbines and solar panels instead. They would only get built if their owners were bribed with huge compensation for being unable to supply all their power to the grid.
Wind farms already do receive such “constraint payments”, which inevitably end up on our bills. In 2022, energy consumers – unknowingly in most cases – had to pay £215 million to wind farm owners to turn off their turbines. This is a bill that is surely only going to rise as more and more wind farms – and far too few energy storage facilities – are connected to the grid.
Remember how, last summer, the renewables lobby was trying to tell us that wind energy was “nine times cheaper” than gas? It was a blatantly false comparison between long-term strike prices for wind and “day ahead” prices for gas – ie the inflated prices we have to pay the owners of gas power stations to turn them on for a few hours at short notice when wind and solar are in short supply. We are paying more than we need to for gas power because we are using it to balance renewables.
So, no, don’t be fooled by the PR. RWE has let the cat out of the bag. Renewables never were particularly cheap – and they are likely to get a lot more expensive.
Ross Clark is the author of ‘Not Zero’
Wind is already the cheapest form of power and will save us a fortune in future. We know this because the green energy lobby keeps telling us so. But it is hard to square with the words of Tom Glover, chair of energy company RWE’s UK arm, last week.
No more offshore wind farms will be built, he said, unless the Government hikes the guaranteed long-term prices offered to their operators by as much as 70 per cent.
The energy “market” is not really much of a market at all, not when it comes to green energy. The Government underwrites wind and solar through “contracts for difference” – guaranteeing operators a minimum “strike price”, rising with inflation, for every megawatt-hour of electricity they generate over 15 years.
The trouble is that wind farm developers will no longer accept the strike prices offered. Last time the Government held an auction for the right to build offshore wind farms, in September, it received not a single bid.
The maximum strike price the Government offered was £44 per MWh. According to RWE it won’t receive any bids until this is raised to between £65 and £75.
How come, when the cost of wind energy is supposed to be falling year on year? True, the cost did fall sharply up until 2019. But this then went into reverse thanks to higher commodity prices and interest rates. With renewable energy, most of the costs come upfront – which makes it particularly reliant on cheap debt.
But this is only half the story. If we are going to have a grid based on intermittent renewables, it is no use looking just at the cost of generation. We have to add on the cost of energy storage, or some other kind of back-up – or else build so many wind and solar farms that we have just enough power at the worst of times, and a super-abundance of it at other times.
All are likely to be horrendously expensive. Storing energy in lithium batteries, for example, can cost around six times as much as generating it in the first place. Using gas as back-up – as we do now – means we have gas power stations sitting idle for some periods, pushing up the unit cost of generation when they are needed.
As for super-abundance, we would end up with masses of idle wind turbines and solar panels instead. They would only get built if their owners were bribed with huge compensation for being unable to supply all their power to the grid.
Wind farms already do receive such “constraint payments”, which inevitably end up on our bills. In 2022, energy consumers – unknowingly in most cases – had to pay £215 million to wind farm owners to turn off their turbines. This is a bill that is surely only going to rise as more and more wind farms – and far too few energy storage facilities – are connected to the grid.
Remember how, last summer, the renewables lobby was trying to tell us that wind energy was “nine times cheaper” than gas? It was a blatantly false comparison between long-term strike prices for wind and “day ahead” prices for gas – ie the inflated prices we have to pay the owners of gas power stations to turn them on for a few hours at short notice when wind and solar are in short supply. We are paying more than we need to for gas power because we are using it to balance renewables.
So, no, don’t be fooled by the PR. RWE has let the cat out of the bag. Renewables never were particularly cheap – and they are likely to get a lot more expensive.
Ross Clark is the author of ‘Not Zero’
£37 per megawatt hour - bit out of date as the industry are asking for £75 to £80 now before they invest in more windfarms in the UK
It’s a short video but interesting
@Everclear Everard, here's one of your countrymen explaining simple maths and ratios of CO2 content in the atmosphere. I suppose he's one of them consiracy theorist types you scribble about?
Preface: "Everard" - really? Is this primary school? Do I obligatorily commence my response with "BoBThePedo"?? Bit juvenile for my tastes.
In any event, yes I could give you chapter and verse on what a repulsive and disgraced creature ex radio "shock jock" Alan Jones truly is.
But the wider point is that he, like everyone on here, has no background in Science whatsoever. Why is it that on the topic of climate change every man and his dog suddenly becomes a climate scientist? It is pathetic that climate change is just a political football where a layman (like Jones) grabs onto something he read somewhere and regurgitates it as if it was the result of his own scientific research.
It is like Exi posting his favourite graph and thinking that for some reason he should be taken seriously. Climate change is not a matter of public debate like Brexit, it is a matter of scientific research and the scientific method - of setting out hypotheses and trying to disprove them. Gradually building a body of scientific research from which conclusions are drawn.
There is no debate on here on the latest developments in plate tectonics. That is because that area of scientific endeavour does not have public policy implications that people dislike intensely - so much so they become overnight experts. Climate science is what it is - another field of science beyond the grasp of laymen, just as plate tectonics is.
Let those with the appropriate expertise, not the loudest village idiot, inform the growth of scientific knowledge so that well informed decision making and planning can take place on a firm foundation.
Is he wrong though co2 is .04% that is a scientific fact unlike climate chaos
explain why moving c02 emissions to China and the like will save the world because that’s all that is happening
The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.
No doubt you think this guy is unqualified to discuss the subject too eh? Or does the Australian media say he touches kids too? Or do you just believe anything that contradicts the evidence that humans aren't responsible for climate change (which has happened forever).
Last edited: