Author Topic: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide  (Read 8405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #100 on: March 13, 2019, 12:45:19 am »

Well I have been a big skeptic of all this climate change stuff but the more I think about it from my own perspective, the more I'm having 2nd thoughts.  Forgetting about all fear mongering and profiteering and the fact you can't read a thing now without the mention of climate change or C02, it's my own observations that are swaying me.

Looking at some pictures, I remember it was really cold here about 9 months ago. There was Ice on the bird bath in the mornings. Now, it's like 21oC at the same time and where it was only 20 in the middle of the day, it's hit 30 here now for weeks.  Something is going on for sure.

Now it's starting to cool off again, it's like this cycle of cooler and warmer, cooler and warmer.
Another thing I noticed, leaves are starting to fall off the trees. It did that last year too but then they recovered and grew back but now they are all starting to Die again. And same thing with my lawn.... Didn't grow for months there for a while then all the sudden, i went from not mowing it for a month to having to trim it every 3 days but now it's slowed down again.

When I think about it, it's like the climate changes every few months!

I thought it was just hoax but now I'm not so sure. I'm still skeptical but if it gets cold them warms up again by Christmas, I know this climate change thing is real and i'll have to see what expensive green products I can spend lot of money on because that will stop it, everything I read keeps telling me.   ^-^
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1612
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #101 on: March 13, 2019, 02:52:38 am »
How does that add up to saying something about how the ocean level has varied over the period the graph covers?

A "base elevation used as a reference from which to reckon heights" + the sea heights. How does it not?

The predictions are based on facts. The text discuss both historical evidence as well as predictions for the future.

You can't say "If someone is more interested in facts" and put a link to lots of ifs + mights. The 2007 IPCC AR4 was also full of (catastrophic) predictions, all wrong. Your lobby is a fraud. What they know best is how to keep the billions coming.
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 
The following users thanked this post: george80

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #102 on: March 13, 2019, 03:23:15 am »
You can't say "If someone is more interested in facts" and put a link to lots of ifs + mights. The 2007 IPCC AR4 was also full of (catastrophic) predictions, all wrong. Your lobby is a fraud. What they know best is how to keep the billions coming.
I posted a link to a summary of the science by some of the experts in this field, which also happens to include predictions (since it's pretty important to have a good understanding of what to expect in the future). What you call "my lobby" is more commonly known as science which is all I care about, i.e. the truth. Science is not a fraud.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1612
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #103 on: March 13, 2019, 03:36:09 am »
What the IPCC does is a fraud, not science.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 08:46:55 am by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #104 on: March 13, 2019, 03:48:56 am »
If you think IPCC is fraudulent then all the worlds governments and the major universities around the world are all in on it. They coordinate the work with e.g. the assessment reports on climate change, but the reports themselves, like the one I linked to above, is written by scientists, the best experts in the field from around the globe.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Several science academies have referred to and/or reiterated some of the conclusions of AR4. These include:

Joint-statements made in 2007,[67] 2008[68] and 2009[69] by the science academies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and the G8 nations (the "G8+5").
Publications by the Australian Academy of Science.[70]
A joint-statement made in 2007 by the Network of African Science Academies.[71]
A statement made in 2010 by the Inter Academy Medical Panel[72] This statement has been signed by 43 scientific academies.[a]
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL, et al., 2009;[73] 2010)[74] has carried out two reviews of AR4. These reviews are generally supportive of AR4's conclusions.[75][76] PBL (2010)[76] make some recommendations to improve the IPCC process. A literature assessment by the US National Research Council (US NRC, 2010)[77] concludes:

Quote from: US National Research Council
Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems [emphasis in original text]. [...] This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program [...], the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report [...], and other assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change.
Source
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 04:13:30 am by apis »
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4170
  • Country: nl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2019, 05:13:10 am »
Its a graph of the local relative sea rise compared to the average level of all the oceans.

At a specific point  in time, so linear stays linear. If you want less processed gauge data there is psmsl.org ... for now, gauge data is an inconvenient truth. They try to hide behind systemic bias of northern hemisphere stations, but then you look at something like Argentine islands or Australia and the acceleration is still nowhere to be found.

The sneaky water hides from tidal gauges, you need satellites to sneak up on it.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1612
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #106 on: March 13, 2019, 05:41:15 am »
If you think IPCC is fraudulent then all the worlds governments and the major universities around the world are all in on it. They coordinate the work with e.g. the assessment reports on climate change, but the reports themselves, like the one I linked to above, is written by scientists, the best experts in the field from around the globe.

I know how do the Universities work. Geologists and paleoclimatologists in particular, I know a few. If you want funds for a research project, just put climate change somewhere in the title or in the project abstract. That's how it works. A big pie of tens of billions of climatedollars yearly, worldwide, they say.

int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #107 on: March 13, 2019, 08:27:00 am »
If you think IPCC is fraudulent then all the worlds governments and the major universities around the world are all in on it.

You Forgot big business as well.
Just follow the money. Of course University's are in on it. Billions for them in research grants coming up with the results the people paying them want them to and they are always subsidized by gubbermints. I'd be talking the same shit too if I were paid. There are so many suckers out there that believe in it i'd be cashing in on it too!
I'll also bet bet if I had million dollar cheques to write I could go to these Universitys and get them to do a complete 180 and say it was all a hoax as long as there was enough $$ in it for them and their " Scientists".



Quote
They coordinate the work with e.g. the assessment reports on climate change, but the reports themselves, like the one I linked to above, is written by scientists, the best experts in the field from around the globe.

What you mean is they collude with each other so as to keep the lie going and the bucks coming in.  The fiction is written by the best PAID  scientists out there that couldn't get a better gig doing anything else. Just follow the money. 


This isn't science at all, that's a complete Crock.  You can't do an experiment to show a repeatable result, there are no laws of physics or other scientific  principals in play here, It's no better than looking at a crystal ball and having your fortune told  and the fortune teller is wearing a shirt and tie not beads and a scarf on their head and is making $500 an hour not $10.

Guessing ( and getting it wrong more often than not) is not science at all, it's Bullshit and lies.
They knew the planet had heated and cooled when I was a kid going to school. That was the way the planet worked.  In the last 10 or so years, they came up with a better scam than Y2K and called it Globull warming but even the name was floored when that didn't work out and we had a period or record cold so they had to change the lie to get it somewhat in touch with reality.

There is NO science in this garbage. It's all based on profits and marketing.

Wasn't the science Departments at the unis that came up with this crap, was the business and finance departments when they saw how well 'ol  Al Bore was doing out of the crock.

Science! Bwahahahahah!
Only science in it is the human science of how gullible and easily lead stupid human beings can be and how they will believe any garbage you tell them if you repeat it enough.

 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #108 on: March 13, 2019, 09:10:06 am »
Right, it's a big conspiracy. If people want to know what those lying and scheming scientists are saying anyway, ;) they can read it in the IPCC report, the latest one is AR5 I believe:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
It's available for download free of charge.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2019, 06:04:10 pm »

There should be a world wide " Position" register.
You sign up if you believe in something or want to protest it or what ever.

For the Globull Bullshit register you put down if you believe it or not.
If it turns out true in years to come, the those against it, Ie, ME, get their house sold up and everything they own to pay for the mistake. If it turns out to be bullshit, then all the supporters being private and companies get sold up and their assets go to pay the ones that said it was bullshit all along for having the crap bored out of them with it and what it cost them in all these garbage initiatives.

The scientists, business leaders and politicians go to jail if thee is a shadow of doubt that they knew about it all along and were cashing in on it.  I'm putting everything I own on the bullshit side.  Wonder how many of the GreenKooalaide drinkers would have the guts to do the same?

Not many I reckon despite their crying and screaming.

We can do a fe other things this way too.
You want to protest an airport  or a road or some other needed development being built. Please sign here and well make sure you never are permitted to use that airport or road once it's been built in case you forget to stand by your convictions.

Want to vote against some Gubbermint initiative that turns out to be a while elephant and then scrapped? Great. Politicians whom approved it and the companies they colluded with get sold up and the money put back to pay for what they wasted.

Lest see how that improves the decision making processes and benefits the general public instead of the the vested interests of the few.
 
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14847
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2019, 06:10:15 pm »
What ? Accountability ?  :scared:

Nah that would be too unkind.....but good !  :-+
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #111 on: March 13, 2019, 11:14:24 pm »
Yeah, accountability would be nice, unfortunately there is no way to implement it. Who would be the judge to decide what is happening and what is not? Right now we know for a fact (from overwhelming scientific evidence) that climate change is happening. Yet there are people who stick their head in the sand and pretend the scientists are all lying and that they know better. Just like there are people who insist the earth is flat despite that you can fairly easily determine it is not with your own eyes and a it of deduction. To some people truth is relative (to what benefits themselves the most).
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1612
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #112 on: March 13, 2019, 11:43:37 pm »
And you just keep parroting the official AGW lobby propaganda. Read the infamous AR4 for gods sake.

Quote
accountability would be nice, unfortunately there is no way to implement it

Or rather, fortunately you should say. But look, you've just seen a few posts above a perfectly valid chart of sea levels at NYC, and even that you can't trust because... it shows no acceleration as you would have liked, lol.
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #113 on: March 14, 2019, 12:19:36 am »
you've just seen a few posts above a perfectly valid chart of sea levels at NYC, and even that you can't trust because... it shows no acceleration as you would have liked, lol.
I've never said there was anything wrong with the NOAA graph, or that it can't be trusted? It looks perfectly in agreement with global warming to me, it looks like the sea level is rising. Just like in this graph which shows the global average over a longer time period (and naturally, the curves after about 2010 are projections):

Source: IPCC AR5 Fig. 13.27

In general though, you can't expect a single measurement station to perfectly agree with the global average, as is explained in the AR5 report I linked.

And if you trust NOAA, here you can read what NOAA says about climate change:
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate-education-resources/climate-change-impacts
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 12:30:00 am by apis »
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1612
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #114 on: March 14, 2019, 12:40:55 am »
That's a projection not the real world data, it's just another Mann-made hockey stick. There's no acceleration in the true, real world data.
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #115 on: March 14, 2019, 03:09:18 am »

Right now we know for a fact (from overwhelming scientific evidence) that climate change is happening.
:-DD :-DD

Fact????  Scientific Evidence???   Since when did lies and bullshit become scientific evidence??  Oh, yeah, that's thats right, when Al bore and friends conjured it up, made Millions and the whole damn world either got on board so they could cash in on it too or got played for suckers.  |O

Quote
Yet there are people who stick their head in the sand and pretend the scientists are all lying and that they know better.

Not falling for a scam that other weak minded fools fall for is not sticking ones head in the sand no matter how much the gullible want to make out there is only one correct way to think.

Sea levels are Rising?  So Effing what?
Again, when I went to school, they said the moutains were under the sea at one stage  and you can find sea shells in the rock.
Was that Globull warming back then too.... when as far as I know there were no humans on the planet at all?

Do I think some scientists are Lying? You bet your arse I do!
Why?  To keep their job in places that have decided they want to push this agenda. It's a big money spinner and if they don't play along, no more jobs for you and you can bet they will never get one again.  Doesn't  pay to be a whistle blower in this day and age. 


 
Quote
Just like there are people who insist the earth is flat despite that you can fairly easily determine it is not with your own eyes and a it of deduction.
I can see with my own eyes and a bit of simple logic and deduction by following the mo0ney the whole thing is a lie?
Why are so many things that could have a real benifit at no cost always ignored yet everything in the prescribed mantra has a HUGE Cost?  Don't need to be Einstein to work out this is a laughable crock.


Quote
To some people truth is relative (to what benefits themselves the most).

YOU SAID IT!!

And I could not agree more.
THATS the reason scientists, university's, big biz and gubbermints  are so into this scam.  It benefits them HUGELY.

Now tell me how calling it for the crock of shit it is benefits the man in the street in any way? He's not the one making billions out of it so who has the greater incentive to lie?

You were right, twice!
It just takes a bit of deduction to work out the globull scamming bullshit.  :-DD
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #116 on: March 14, 2019, 05:32:38 am »
That's a projection not the real world data, it's just another Mann-made hockey stick. There's no acceleration in the true, real world data.
You are wrong (as can be seen by anyone who reads the source). It's real world data up until about 2010, then from 2010 the red and blue lines are projections. The solid purple curve is from tidal gauge data, the lighter purple dots and bars are proxy data.

Sea levels are Rising?  So Effing what?
It's kind of hard to explain if not because of climate change. It also matters directly because most people live near the sea and if the sea is rising it will engulf buildings, infrastructure and a lot of land area. Kind of important to know for city planers for example.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 06:03:19 am by apis »
 

Offline boffin

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Country: ca
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #117 on: March 14, 2019, 07:09:10 am »
Plot Idea:

97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.


 
The following users thanked this post: HackedFridgeMagnet, hammy, apis, GeoffreyF, Mr. Scram

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1805
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #118 on: March 17, 2019, 04:29:58 am »
IPCC digest a reasonable amount of reasonable science, mix in a fair quantity of political rhetoric and BS, put it through the spin wash a few times and deficate it out again.  Politics and science never mix well.

The media take the IPCC output sensationalise it, hype it, dramatise it, miss represent it and drive public opinion into a frenzy.  Science and the popular media don't mix well.

Normal people suddenly believe they know all about climate issues and global energy demands and demand their government do something, "Would someone please think of the children!".  Hell it IS the children making the demands now!  Normal people don't do maths and science very well. 

Scientists and engineers feedback saying, "WAIT!  Don't over-react and go off half cocked we need to think this through!"

The public then call these scientists climate skeptics and believe they work for the oil companies!  :palm:

They say they don't want nuclear, the say they don't want wind or solar or hydro, they don't want fracking, they don't want coal or gas, but they all want CARBON FREE, CHEAP BILLS!  They still haven't woken up that the only current thing that does that is nuclear which they don't want.  Shouting and demanding it louder and louder and skipping out of school to demand it in the streets will not make it happen either.

No, renewables will not fix the worlds energy problems, but we have to do something right?  No, reducing the amount we use will not fix our problems unless we all reduce our life styles closer to something seen in Victorian times or akin to sub-Saharan Africa, but still avoiding wasting energy is wise, no?   No, fusion will not be ready in time, but shouldn't we continue to invest lots into it.   No next gen reactors will not be ready in time, but lets keep funding them!  Yes, over population is the primary factor here, but... no there are no real non politically suicidal solutions.

The net is we are in for a bumpy century, if we don't have a world war again first. 
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  3 Channel Audio mixer with DAC, BT, pre-amps and h/phone amp, WS281x LED controller Version 2 5V/5A w/Atmega328, FY6600 Power supply, 5A DC Load (Still!)
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle, bd139, george80

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #119 on: March 17, 2019, 06:27:37 am »

The public then call these scientists climate skeptics and believe they work for the oil companies!  :palm:

No, renewables will not fix the worlds energy problems, but we have to do something right?  No, reducing the amount we use will not fix our problems unless we all reduce our life styles closer to something seen in Victorian times or akin to sub-Saharan Africa, but still avoiding wasting energy is wise, no?   No, fusion will not be ready in time, but shouldn't we continue to invest lots into it.   No next gen reactors will not be ready in time, but lets keep funding them!  Yes, over population is the primary factor here, but... no there are no real non politically suicidal solutions.

Careful, You start making too much sense against what some of the powers that be here want pushed and this thread will be closed down too.

As usual, only one correct way to think here so please confine yourself to thinking in the approved manner!   ::)
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1805
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #120 on: March 17, 2019, 11:05:19 pm »
Careful, You start making too much sense against what some of the powers that be here want pushed and this thread will be closed down too.

As usual, only one correct way to think here so please confine yourself to thinking in the approved manner!   ::)

I spotted the that.  Felt it was a bit off.  I agree the first thread had gone through many a BS cycle, but the later one got locked for someone posting a video the mod didn't agree with.

Judging by talking with the average Joe/Jill and popular media, education on energy is some what lacking.  How many times have you seen things like:

A TV on stand-by consumes 20W a day.

When it comes to understanding energy demands and generation this is what we are up against.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  3 Channel Audio mixer with DAC, BT, pre-amps and h/phone amp, WS281x LED controller Version 2 5V/5A w/Atmega328, FY6600 Power supply, 5A DC Load (Still!)
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #121 on: March 18, 2019, 10:51:56 am »

 but the later one got locked for someone posting a video the mod didn't agree with.

Probably the only thing I would agree with him on is our mutual dislike for Nukes but using ones power for personal agendas is just wrong.  It's wrong on a personal level and it's wrong by the forum and it's owner to close down ongoing discussions when the real goal of a forum  should to make it as active as possible and encourage postings. 
Shutting something down because you don't like it is typical lefties thinking and nothing is much worse than that.


Quote
Judging by talking with the average Joe/Jill and popular media, education on energy is some what lacking.

Most people don't know Beans about electricity in general.  I know mechanics that have been in the Trade for years that are hopeless with electrics and even more hopeless when it comes to AC.  Most people couldn't tell you the difference between a volt, an amp or a watt or the  relationship.
The sheeple tend to believe any crap they see on TV and still hold ingrained beliefs that things they have seen on movies are true. This is what the leftist propaganda is based on when they deliberately lie or tell untruths by omission or exaggeration.

Loads of people out there think they will be able tio charge their EV from panels on their roof not having the first clue about the output of their home system or the capacity of the ev.... or that the sun doesn't tend to shine very bright at night when they will be home from work.


 
Quote
When it comes to understanding energy demands and generation this is what we are up against.

And things like turning lights off to save power without the faintest clue that Boiling the kettle once would use more power than their LED lights in the whole house could use all night.   

People have NO concept of energy what so ever.
As them how much power is in a car battery, how much is in a liter of petrol or diesel, what a KWh and what a KW are.  yet so many as I have embarrassed before will talk about this and that and the need to do whatever but cannot answer the simplest of questions to show they have the faintest inkling of what they are talking about.

I could tell them I'd sell them 250Kwh worth of energy storage for $5000 and they would trip over themselves to get it yet probably whinge when I handed over a 25L drum of Diesel that actually had a bit more than the advertised 250Kwh. They might change their mind about a battery when they realized  that a traditional 250 Kwh battery is going to arrive on a semi trailer... or more than one.
 

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1805
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #122 on: March 18, 2019, 04:57:01 pm »
We agree that people don't understand energy.

I don't agree shutting down people's views is "leftism".  It's facism, always has been.  It's just that the new age left, while believing they are being socialist and inclusive fail to see the irony in ostracising people for their non-inclusive or non-conformant views.  But this is a slippery slope to politics.

We disagree on nukes.  Nukes have got a bad rep for historic reasons.  Mostly the wrong technologies from the wrong political drivers and a few accidents allowing peoples fear of what they don't understand to go melt down. (sorry for the pun).  With different technologies and properly thinking it through it might be different.  The realists in the world are already realising, if we are to go as carbon free as we really need to, there isn't really an option but to go nuclear.  Renewables will play their part but unless we work out how to store GWh's of energy, something else has to power us while it's dark and calm and it needs to be available in 10 years, not 100 (when hopefully fusion might be working).  It's all about getting through this century without completely messing up the planet.

Even including the accidents when stacked against coal, oil and gas nuclear is still statistically safer by orders of magnitude.  Of course figures can and have been spun the other way by the likes of Greenpeace, but they are completely unable to back up their figures without using extremely controversial 'science'.  Without going to the extreme's of accidents, coal plants and gas/oil extraction produce higher radiation than nuclear plants.  Coal is radioactive, believe it or not and most of it stays in the ash which is happily dumped in the open.  Both mining coal and oil release pockets of radon gas.  If either the coal or oil industry had to meet the strict radiation standards that the nuclear industry had to then almost all the mines would be shut down instantly.  No it's not 100% safe and accidental releases cause environmental damage, but nothing is safe and the alternatives are as damaging or more damaging.

Currently my country is facing the decision for the UK to dump radioactive waste here.  My issues with this are not directly related to the waste, but rather the choice of location.  Northern Ireland does not have any reactors, thus, in my view we should not be burdened with the waste.  It just feels wrong for a country with several nuclear reactors that has made about 0 effort to deal with it sensibly, even when offered alternatives just decide to dump it across the sea in another country, out of sight, out of mind.

And while we are on the topic of radiation and people failing to understand things, consider that people believe microwaves "irradiate" their food and cell phones irradiate their brains.  No amount of explaining the term radiation and the different types of it or what the actual risks are can steer them clear of madness.  The BBC had a competition winning photo the other day called "Radiation Fog", they had to try and calm their readers by stating, completely incorrectly, that the fog "had nothing to do with radiation", it was just the heat emitting from the warm ground causing the fog....  :palm:.  The heat emitting from the ground IS radiating!  I was tempted to email them to remind them to not tout BS to satisfy the stupid.

As another prime example of how "people" completely fail to think things through I seen a startup pitch the other day touting a "human generator".  Basically a range of gym exercise gear that charged batteries which could be used to power their house.  Of course humans are fairly efficient at converting chemical energy to motion and that is where most people stop calculating and celebrate the new carbon free energy source we should all have!  Of course the trouble is the carbon density and efficiency of our food production, compared to it's calorific content is horrendous.  Every 1 Kwh of energy in our food very likely took 2 or 3 KWh to produce, store and transport.  This figure is rising rapidly now people are being told that LOW calories foods are better for them.  Carbon emissions come in order:  Energy production, Transport, Agriculture.  Not to mention that even an athlete could barely put out 1 horse power for 15 minutes, let along an hour and an hour would only generate 0.75Kwh.

Back on energy one thing seems to be coming to consensus.  While it is still cheap to dig up coal, oil, gas and burn it to make profit nothing will change on the grand scales.  On nuclear, while it's cheaper to build another PWR or BWR because the licenses already exist for the "proven" tech and it's still cheap to mine Uranium nothing will change.  The trouble for the planet is, that cheapness will outlive the climate stability.  There may be a lot of noise from people on what energy sources they don't want, they all want cheap bills and the energy companies want profit, so we continue to burn fossil fuels.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  3 Channel Audio mixer with DAC, BT, pre-amps and h/phone amp, WS281x LED controller Version 2 5V/5A w/Atmega328, FY6600 Power supply, 5A DC Load (Still!)
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1612
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #123 on: March 18, 2019, 06:21:41 pm »
The trouble for the planet is, that cheapness will outlive the climate stability.  There may be a lot of noise from people on what energy sources they don't want, they all want cheap bills and the energy companies want profit, so we continue to burn fossil fuels.

No, no, the reason why we continue to burn fossil fuels is simply that we have no way, we have nothing, neither cheap nor expensive, with which to replace them. Keep in mind that electricity is less than 15% of the energy we consume (*), and only a small % of that comes from renewables. Look at this chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption


See oil+coal+gas? See how huge is the gap with renewables? Tell me what on earth, no matter its price, do you think can serve to replace FF?

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_energy_consumption#World_electricity_consumption_(2012)
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 06:25:16 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #124 on: March 18, 2019, 07:56:03 pm »

I don't agree shutting down people's views is "leftism".  It's facism, always has been. 


Please forgive me. I'm not as up on my " issims" as I should be.   :-\
I was actualy looking them up last night to make sure my understanding was correct but there are some I'm still not sure I am clear on or the implications/ practical application thereof.


Quote
We disagree on nukes.
With different technologies and properly thinking it through it might be different.


Yes we disagree but perhaps not why you think.
The technology to me is irrelevant. The problem has and always will be with humans and Human nature.
Whatever you design into these things, you will always have the flaws in humanity in greed, laziness, pride, sloth and a bunch of other things undermining and tech or safety device you build in.

The money factors of cost and profit will always be at play and over ride all else.  That has been the problem with nuke and a lot of other things all along and won't change because human nature and especially corporate greed won't either. 

The power of nuke Fkups on the people and planet as has already been demonstrated with horrific effect, is far too great to entrust to humans and their weaknesses.

Quote
The realists in the world are already realising, if we are to go as carbon free as we really need to,


Well there is our other point of disagreement. I do not believe the carbon/ co2 Globall warming ideology is anything more than a profit making scam and distraction for humanity to take our attention from real issues like how pathetic all our leaders have become and how screwed up they are letting the world get.

Quote
Even including the accidents when stacked against coal, oil and gas nuclear is still statistically safer by orders of magnitude.


You can make statistics say anything you want them or pay for them to.
Tell me where any areas or citys have been wiped out by coal emissions. They don't exist like the areas around Chernoybl and the city of pripiyat , Fukshima and so many others in those areas.

Quote
Coal is radioactive, believe it or not and most of it stays in the ash which is happily dumped in the open.

 So are bananas. The levels are too low to cause any harm however and they contain no hot particles like escape and settle hundreds/ thousands of miles away from accident sites. have you seen the vids or are aware of how much radioactive particles were dumped in Tokyo after the Fukushima Disaster? ?

The ash is also used in building materials of a concrete type nature, roads and for other uses such as fertilizer.   It's not glow in the dark stuff as you seem to suggest.
In any case, if one is to propose that the infinitely more radioactive Nuke waste can be handled and stored/ disposed of safely then it is only logical that a much less radioactive material can be handled even more easily.

 
Quote
  Northern Ireland does not have any reactors, thus, in my view we should not be burdened with the waste.


If there is no problem with it and it is safe / clean as you say, what is the problem? No doubt your country will be paid a lot of money to take the stuff which could benefit your people a great deal. if there is no problem with the stuff, you should take the money and the material and celebrate getting a great deal!
 
I'm afraid you have given away the tell.  You don't want it, understandably, because you know this is a very dangerous material and comes with great risks. Even if it does get tucked away without a problem, sooner or later it IS going to have to be dealt with and at that time, who knows what the cost might be monetarily, environmentally or otherwise?

I agree with you that those the create it ought to deal with it but unfortunately it's not as easy as keeping a dog in your back yard. It gets out, it infects everyone not just stays in your borders.
 

Quote
And while we are on the topic of radiation and people failing to understand things, consider that people believe microwaves "irradiate" their food and cell phones irradiate their brains.  No amount of explaining the term radiation and the different types of it or what the actual risks are can steer them clear of madness. 


I think this applies to the coal radiation argument as well. It's completely and utterly different to nuke waste radiation. It is magnitudes weaker, far less concentrated and nothing like the the risk.  It also seems that the problem with coal ash is not it's radioactivity but the fact it's a fine dust containing a whole range of minerals and elements.

I was recently reading of initiatives to process the ash and get all the valuable minerals and metals out of it, including the radioactive components.  It was said to be a cash positive process and could aid power stations revenue substantially.
Spose we'll have to wait another 20 years to see if that one flies at all.  Always something new and wonderful about to happen in the future. very few ever seem to come to fruition though.


Quote
As another prime example of how "people" completely fail to think things through I seen a startup pitch the other day touting a "human generator".


Got to admit, had that idea myself before. Not for the house but for a gym.
I have seen how many people there are in places and particularly on treadmills and exercise bikes.  Never did understand why people PAY to come to do something they could do for free running up and down the street but anyway.  The thing is one person is irrelevant, 20-30..... Now we have something to work with!

Often the bikes and rowing machine use a fan for resistance.  Change the fan for a not too big motor and you have a generator.  Other resistance gear may be able to be converted with linear motors.

Of course the next thought was would it be worth it? What's the cost of the machine going to increase in comparisons to the power it as a group could produce?

I spose that's silly thinking now. If we look at the stupidity and cost of Solar roadways and the compulsion people have to be seen to be doing something, cost Vs return is a very out dated and old fashioned way of looking at things.  Just quote the impressive sounding numbers and forget about ROI.

It's the ILLUSION that's important not the real returns.


 
Quote
While it is still cheap to dig up coal, oil, gas and burn it to make profit nothing will change on the grand scales.


Exactly the way I see it.
Profits of big biz and gubbermint will always out weight anything else.

I'm not against looking after the environment even though I think the Globull warming thing is a crock. The problem is there are so many effective, cost free things that could be implemented but won't be bothered with because there isn't a buck in it for gubbermints and big biz and anything that might cost them a buck or a bit of lose revenue is even worse.

We could offset a lot of power generation costs and blight on the landscape from whatever method with rooftop solar.
Here we have shitloads of sunshine and roofs for miles but we are limited ( and there is talk of more limits still) on the amount of PV we can install.  It's bullshitted as being for technical reasons which means they don't want to eat into the $2.7BN a year profits the electricity sector makes here by upgrading all the transformers that are 50 years old to newer units that can handle the back feed for localised generation and distribution.

While ever the mentality is profit over all else, you are right, nothing will change for the better of the planet, only better for the bottom line of companies and revenue for gubbermints.
the people can argue and jump up and down all they like but the only result will be the powers that be may have to spin doctor what they intend to do all along a bit more cleverly.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 07:58:01 pm by george80 »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf