http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.

Politicians, of course, will be delighted with the advice "Don't bother
to build more nukes". Talk about chosing the consultants who will give
you the results you want.

And JC is faffing on about taxing Facebook to subsidise the BBC.

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that the
Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.


While on the subject of renewables, there's also this interesting MIT
review on use of batteries:

"The $2.5 trillion reason we cant rely on batteries to clean up the
grid" https://tinyurl.com/y7c9vtrw

"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

what's RES?

what's CCS?

what's OCGT?

what's Recip?

tim

newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that the
Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle of
the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and the
myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in authority
do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has been blown
right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 23/08/18 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

Demand side response. Shutting of te telly when te wind aint blowing



what's RES?

Renewable Energy Sources

what's CCS?

Carcon Capture and Storage

what's OCGT?

Open Cycle Gas Turbine

what's Recip?

Reciprocating - i.e. normal diesel

tim





--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle of
the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and the
myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in authority
do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has been blown
right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

The Natural Philosopher used his keyboard to write :
We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

+1 and another!

On 23/08/18 10:40, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle of
the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and the
myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in authority
do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has been blown
right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards


Possibly. I couldn't say.


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 23/08/2018 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

what's RES?

what's CCS?

what's OCGT?

what's Recip?

tim



Fair point, Porter does rather write for "insiders". But it does confirm
that she has a deep understanding of and involvement with the detail, in
contrast to people like Aurora. Fortunately TNP has already stepped in!

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle
of the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and
the myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in
authority do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has
been blown right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented
scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

So good the likes of Turnip comes clean and wants to go back to the law of
the jungle. Forgetting that he wouldn't survive five minutes.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/08/2018 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle
of the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and
the myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in
authority do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has
been blown right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented
scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

So good the likes of Turnip comes clean and wants to go back to the law of
the jungle. Forgetting that he wouldn't survive five minutes.

One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP for
energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely agree with
his analysis that public debate in so many areas is increasingly
dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever show signs of
proper critical thought.

I suppose I would have to concede that I can understand some parts of
the Brexit logic even though I am pretty sure that, overall, the
downsides are worse.

Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.

To me it is sensible to use a variety of ways to generate electricity.

The really sad thing is how the UK - once the workshop of the world -
hasn't benefitted from designing building and selling such (renewables)
technology to parts of the rest of the world where they are keen on them.
And has to go abroad for a nuclear power station too.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/08/18 16:28, newshound wrote:
One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP for
energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely agree with
his analysis that public debate in so many areas is increasingly
dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever show signs of
proper critical thought.

The same people who brought you 'renewable energy' are running the EU.



--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 23/08/2018 18:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.


Not sure this is true. One of the reasons I went into nuclear power was
that, in the 1960's, the "official" view was that oil would run out in
the 1980's.

Being young and foolish, I believed this, but I reasoned that we were
not going to want to give up cars, so would go electric even if we had
to drop range and performance significantly. And electric cars need base
load generation to charge overnight: big win for nuclear.

The official view at the same time was that UK coal reserves were ~ 300
years (this is at the 60's UK consumption of, IIRC, somewhere between 50
and 100 MTon/year).

I see no reason to suppose that the UK and many other countries don't
have large gas reserves provided you frack. The US economy is doing
relatively well on the back of fracking (perhaps the only thing that is
keeping Trump from being booted out).

Oil is cheaper now than it was in the 1950's, in spite of the hike in
the 70's following the Six Days war.

Obviously, resource prices *do* rise as they become scarce; but people
also tend to find more reserves, and more efficient means of recovery.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 16:28, newshound wrote:
One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP for
energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely agree with
his analysis that public debate in so many areas is increasingly
dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever show signs of
proper critical thought.

The same people who brought you 'renewable energy' are running the EU.

Pray tell about the people who are to bring us our next nuclear power
station?

--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/08/18 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

Demand side response. Shutting of te telly when te wind aint blowing



what's RES?

Renewable Energy Sources

Isn't that a bit circular

I.e. We can achieve our 100% renewable energy target by using 100% Renewable
Energy Sources

Well I never would have guessed

tim

"newshound" wrote in message
news
On 23/08/2018 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle
of the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and
the myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in
authority do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has
been blown right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented
scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

So good the likes of Turnip comes clean and wants to go back to the law
of
the jungle. Forgetting that he wouldn't survive five minutes.

One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP for
energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely agree with
his analysis that public debate in so many areas is increasingly dominated
by loonies

Not convinced about that increasingly bit, given
how rabid they were in the runup to ww2 etc.

and that politicians hardly ever show signs of proper critical thought.

Its arguable that anyone into that would ever want to be a politician.

We have had a couple who were, but they were certainly very rare.

Guess you could argue that Attlee was one of those.

I suppose I would have to concede that I can understand some parts of the
Brexit logic even though I am pretty sure that, overall, the downsides are
worse.

Bet you will find that in reality they arent.

Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the loss
of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in real
terms over two or three decades.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
newshound wrote:
Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.

To me it is sensible to use a variety of ways to generate electricity.

The really sad thing is how the UK - once the workshop of the world -
hasn't benefitted from designing building and selling such (renewables)
technology to parts of the rest of the world where they are keen on them.

For the same reason the UK never did very well with
cars, or aircraft, or even diesel electric train engines.

And has to go abroad for a nuclear power station too.

That's more because France ended up building a hell of a lot more of them.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/08/2018 18:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.


Not sure this is true. One of the reasons I went into nuclear power was
that, in the 1960's, the "official" view was that oil would run out in the
1980's.

Being young and foolish, I believed this, but I reasoned that we were not
going to want to give up cars, so would go electric even if we had to drop
range and performance significantly. And electric cars need base load
generation to charge overnight: big win for nuclear.

The official view at the same time was that UK coal reserves were ~ 300
years (this is at the 60's UK consumption of, IIRC, somewhere between 50
and 100 MTon/year).

I see no reason to suppose that the UK and many other countries don't have
large gas reserves provided you frack. The US economy is doing relatively
well on the back of fracking (perhaps the only thing that is keeping Trump
from being booted out).

Not convinced about that. In fact the reason Adolf got elected
was because the **** was hitting the fan and enough decided
that it was worth taking a chance with a loon like that.

Same with Mouseolini.

Oil is cheaper now than it was in the 1950's, in spite of the hike in the
70's following the Six Days war.

Obviously, resource prices *do* rise as they become scarce; but people
also tend to find more reserves, and more efficient means of recovery.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 05:58:34 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

I see no reason to suppose that the UK and many other countries don't have
large gas reserves provided you frack. The US economy is doing relatively
well on the back of fracking (perhaps the only thing that is keeping Trump
from being booted out).

Not convinced about that. In fact the reason Adolf got elected
was because the **** was hitting the fan and enough decided
that it was worth taking a chance with a loon like that.

Same with Mouseolini.

You just HAVE to open your senile gob ...regardless of what **** comes out
of it, eh, senile Rot? BG

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 05:29:25 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile ****

Like I said already: you just HAVE to open your senile gob, regardless of
what **** comes out of it, eh, senile Rot? BG

--
pamela about Rot Speed:
"His off the cuff expertise demonstrates how little he knows..."
MID:

Peeler wrote:

Rot Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile ****

Like I said already: you just HAVE to open your senile gob, regardless of
what **** comes out of it, eh, senile Rot? BG

Tim Peeler NC Bigfoot sighting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru5TvcrjoGo

by Sasquatch Central
Published on Feb 13, 2011

On Thursday, 23 August 2018 16:28:04 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 23/08/2018 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle
of the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and
the myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in
authority do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has
been blown right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented
scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

So good the likes of Turnip comes clean and wants to go back to the law of
the jungle. Forgetting that he wouldn't survive five minutes.

One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP for
energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely agree with
his analysis that public debate in so many areas is increasingly
dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever show signs of
proper critical thought.

I suppose I would have to concede that I can understand some parts of
the Brexit logic even though I am pretty sure that, overall, the
downsides are worse.

Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

You really are a ****-fer-brains. As fossil fuels run out their prices will increase.
There will be no price increase for renewables because the energy source is free.
in fact the cost of renewable energy is falling and will continue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...sposal_c osts

In article , harry
wrote:
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 16:28:04 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 23/08/2018 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start
to show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I
suspect that the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal
timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out
battle of the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable
energy, Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle
going on and the myth that politicians and people in power, in the
media and in authority do not deliberately lie, but are merely
'just mistaken' has been blown right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented
scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

So good the likes of Turnip comes clean and wants to go back to the
law of the jungle. Forgetting that he wouldn't survive five minutes.

One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP
for energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely
agree with his analysis that public debate in so many areas is
increasingly dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever
show signs of proper critical thought.

I suppose I would have to concede that I can understand some parts of
the Brexit logic even though I am pretty sure that, overall, the
downsides are worse.

Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you
look at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with
the loss of standard of living associated with energy prices
quadrupling in real terms over two or three decades.

You really are a ****-fer-brains. As fossil fuels run out their prices
will increase. There will be no price increase for renewables because the
energy source is free. in fact the cost of renewable energy is falling
and will continue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...sposal_c osts

whilst the energy source may be free, the costs of capturing that energy
are not - nor are the cosst of storing it.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 16:28:04 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 23/08/2018 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect
that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle
of the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and
the myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in
authority do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has
been blown right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented
scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

So good the likes of Turnip comes clean and wants to go back to the law
of
the jungle. Forgetting that he wouldn't survive five minutes.

One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP for
energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely agree with
his analysis that public debate in so many areas is increasingly
dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever show signs of
proper critical thought.

I suppose I would have to concede that I can understand some parts of
the Brexit logic even though I am pretty sure that, overall, the
downsides are worse.

Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

You really are a ****-fer-brains.

We'll see...

As fossil fuels run out their prices will increase.

But coal and gas wont run out any time soon and it remains
to be seen whether we will move to nukes before that happens.

There will be no price increase for renewables because the energy source
is free.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something,
particularly as suitable locations for renewables run out.

in fact the cost of renewable energy is falling and will continue.

Bit that isnt true of viable locations for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...sposal_c osts

On 23/08/2018 16:28, newshound wrote:

Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

I think there is a perception amongst many people that "renewable"
energy is cheap, after all the wind and sun are free. This is possibly
reinforced by people who have solar panels on their roofs saving on
their energy bills but with the media failing to point out it's at the
expense of everyone else who doesn't have these installations.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 24/08/2018 07:03, harry wrote:

You really are a ****-fer-brains. As fossil fuels run out their prices will increase.
There will be no price increase for renewables because the energy source is free.
in fact the cost of renewable energy is falling and will continue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...sposal_c osts


Green **** for brains harry taking BS as usual.

If being green was so much cheaper and better he would have gone off grid..

but no he relies on cheap non renewable energy to keep his house going
while milking the system for cash to pay for his intermittent solar
energy and his polluting wood fire.

Typical green, everyone should do as he says not what he does.

The reality is that if non renewable energy runs out then the true cost
of making renewables non intermittent will have to be added into the
costs and energy prices will go through the roof, ATM they are heavily
subsidised by non renewable and nukes whether harry cares or not. He
does as it where he makes his cash if he didn't he would go off grid and
find solutions to the problems.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/08/2018 18:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.


Not sure this is true.

it might not be imminent, but we are bound to run out of oil at some point

they aren't making any more of it

tim

In article ,
Josh Nack wrote:
For the same reason the UK never did very well with
cars, or aircraft, or even diesel electric train engines.

I'd suggest you worry about your lack of stable government rather than
posting about things you obviously know nothing about on here, Wodney.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
But also by then the myth that we can rely solely on renewables will
have long since been exposed.

Has anyone sensible ever claimed that for the UK?

The likes of Turnip keep on saying it seems to be some sort of only option.

What is wrong with having a variety of ways of generating power? Ie, eggs
in one basket.

As we already do with 'conventional generation' A mixture of coal, gas,
nuclear, hydro. So why not add in wind and solar etc too?

It's very odd Brexiteers seem to be able to predict the future as regards
that - but have no concept about developments in wind, tide solar and
storage that *will* come. Just look at how far mobile phone batteries and
life have improved in a relatively short time.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
I think there is a perception amongst many people that "renewable"
energy is cheap, after all the wind and sun are free.

Yes - there are idiots in all walks of life. Sadly we seem to have elected
rather too many of them.

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24/08/2018 13:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/08/2018 18:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* newshound wrote:
Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you
look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices
quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal
oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.

Not sure this is true.

it might not be imminent, but we are bound to run out of oil at some
point

they aren't making any more of it

Well they are, but not in a timely fashion. There's still oil from
shale, too, one of these days.

TimS: agreed

Tim: disagree. In fact I can't think of any natural mineral resouce
which has actually *run out*. As it becomes scarce, the price goes up,
we find alternatives and the demand goes down. You might approach zero
oil assymptotically at t=infinity. This was one of the glaring errors in
the Club of Rome models in "Limits to growth". Plenty of graphs showing
resources collapsing to zero because they left out the feedback factor.

Similarly all the panic about running out of lithium for batteries, and
exotic metals for electronics. Once your mobile phone needs (say) £50
worth of tantalum there will be a healthy argument for recycling.

On 23/08/2018 18:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 16:28, newshound wrote:
One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP for
energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely agree with
his analysis that public debate in so many areas is increasingly
dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever show signs of
proper critical thought.

The same people who brought you 'renewable energy' are running the EU.

Pray tell about the people who are to bring us our next nuclear power
station?

In the long run it will be China (and perhaps Korea). Just as, once upon
a time, the UK supplied a very high proportion of the world's ironmongery.

On 24/08/2018 14:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
But also by then the myth that we can rely solely on renewables will
have long since been exposed.

Has anyone sensible ever claimed that for the UK?

The likes of Turnip keep on saying it seems to be some sort of only option.

What is wrong with having a variety of ways of generating power? Ie, eggs
in one basket.

As we already do with 'conventional generation' A mixture of coal, gas,
nuclear, hydro. So why not add in wind and solar etc too?

It's very odd Brexiteers seem to be able to predict the future as regards
that - but have no concept about developments in wind, tide solar and
storage that *will* come. Just look at how far mobile phone batteries and
life have improved in a relatively short time.


Oh renewables have their place. Windmills on the Shetlands make perfect
sense when your only other source is a diesel generator. Hydro has been
the cheapest source since generation started and we will always use this
to the limit. Similarly pumped storage, as long as there is a decent
head and storage volume. But the energy densities in other renewables
are low compared to "conventional" sources like fossil and nuclear.
There are some special cases, for example Las Vegas has max demand for
aircon which coincides exactly with the available solar, and it is
surrounded by desert.

On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.


Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I can
see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.

One of my rare sunny moments :-0


--
Cheers, Rob

On 23/08/2018 18:56, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/08/18 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

Demand side response. Shutting of te telly when te wind aint blowing



what's RES?

Renewable Energy Sources

Isn't that a bit circular

I.e. We can achieve our 100% renewable energy target by using 100%
Renewable Energy Sources

Well I never would have guessed

tim



Plus, of course, a whole shed load of stored energy capacity to cover
intermittency.

On Friday, 24 August 2018 14:37:24 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 24/08/2018 13:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/08/2018 18:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* newshound wrote:
Whereas the renewables argument doesn't hold water at all, once you
look
at it more closely. Unless, of course, people agree to live with the
loss of standard of living associated with energy prices
quadrupling in
real terms over two or three decades.

Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal
oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.

Not sure this is true.

it might not be imminent, but we are bound to run out of oil at some
point

they aren't making any more of it

Well they are, but not in a timely fashion. There's still oil from
shale, too, one of these days.

TimS: agreed

Tim: disagree. In fact I can't think of any natural mineral resouce
which has actually *run out*. As it becomes scarce, the price goes up,
we find alternatives and the demand goes down. You might approach zero
oil assymptotically at t=infinity. This was one of the glaring errors in
the Club of Rome models in "Limits to growth". Plenty of graphs showing
resources collapsing to zero because they left out the feedback factor.

Similarly all the panic about running out of lithium for batteries, and
exotic metals for electronics. Once your mobile phone needs (say) £50
worth of tantalum there will be a healthy argument for recycling.

They are starting landfill mining, then we'll go to asteroids.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 23/08/2018 18:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 16:28, newshound wrote:
One of the things I find amusing is that I'm on the same side as TNP
for energy but the opposite side for Brexit. And yet I completely
agree with his analysis that public debate in so many areas is
increasingly dominated by loonies and that politicians hardly ever
show signs of proper critical thought.

The same people who brought you 'renewable energy' are running the EU.

Pray tell about the people who are to bring us our next nuclear power
station?

In the long run it will be China (and perhaps Korea). Just as, once upon
a time, the UK supplied a very high proportion of the world's
ironmongery.

True. And made a living from it. As opposed to importing most things now.

Problem being imports have to be paid for. And how much can you trust a
country like China for something as critical as power generation?

--
*I want it all and I want it delivered

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
As we already do with 'conventional generation' A mixture of coal, gas,
nuclear, hydro. So why not add in wind and solar etc too?

What is the point of that?

No surprise you don't see the point. Best to go back to coal, like your
pal Trump seems to think a good idea. We still have vast supplies of that.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.