Climate Change & Global Warming

[Ghostrider]

^ There should be no tax to pay for any electricity generation, the concept to my mind is insane. Whatever the actual cost of producing it should be borne by the consumer, and any "new" generation methods should be a straightforward capital business investment by commercial entities involved in the industry. Other industries manage it quite succesfully, who not electricity production?

 

Yes, I'm a capitalist, so what.....

 

Apparently, or so I'm led to believe, all, or almost all electricity generation is subsidised in some way. Where is the sense in that, what does it achieve, and who the hell does anybody think they're kidding? The end user pays whatever, when everything is subsidised, no end user gains.

 

By all means introduce a tax on "dirty" generation methods based on the actual provable damage they do, and let the free market do its work from there. The "dirty" methods will soon be phased out due to lower profitability and reserch and development of realistically viable "green" methods will occur when they are adjuged to be ready, not, as subsidies enocourage, throw all sorts of weird and wonderful creations out there just so as to be able to grab a slice of the subsidy cake.

 

Some of us have experienced and lived with the chaos and destruction politically motivated subsidies have created in agriculture, letting politicians effectively dictate what product you have to produce to remain viable and what the price of everything shall be, is the quickest way to make any industry a disfunctional, inadequate and overpriced nightmare where the consumer pays far more than the market value of any given product, the producer is paid less than is fair, and teh vast majority of the money swirling around teh system is pocketed by freeloaders performing monkey tasks along the convoluted route the politicians have un-necessarily created in the whole chain.

 

As for democratic, that's one that will be argued til the cows come home. VE was conceived and created by SIC councillors (probably with a word in the ear and a little push from behind) who had never stood for election mentioning any such thing in their manifestoes, then they quietly hedged it off to the CT, the trustees of which have never been elected by anyone, ever. It may be one form of democracy, but its not one I am familiar with.

 

The nearest we're likely to get to a democratic decision, as I understand democracy, is that now that VE is known to be a possible goer, what comes out of the ballot box in a month will be very,very telling. Just because a few token puppet Scots have given it the nod (like it ever was in doubt) doesn't mean its a done deal, not by a long shot. What happens is down to who finds their arses in SIC and SCT seats after May, and who has most balls.

[paulb]

how much is the decommisioning of the old nuclar power sttions costing us.

[ArabiaTerra]

Start talking seriously about harnessing the tide and I'll listen, its constant, reliable and predicable. Wind and wave, where all the moola is ending up, is fickle, and is nothing but an exercise in throwing money around to shut certain people up, and keep the rest of the great unwashed bouncing off walls in a low level of fear and panic to keep them controlled.

 

Ghosty, have you ever actually sat down and seriously thought about the logistics of deploying tidal power on a large scale? Sure, it's constant, reliable and predictable, but it is also expensive, difficult to maintain and has a theoretical maximum efficiency of 50%. This means you actually need to install at least twice as much capacity as you need, underwater.

 

Secondly, while tidal power can provide a constant, base-load, source of power, demand is not constant. It varies through the day. So you still need some sort of storage for your tidal power in order to match it to demand.

 

And that storage capacity will work just as well for wind and solar, which are much cheaper than tidal in the first place.

 

Now I'm not saying that tidal power doesn't have a place in the energy mix, I'm saying that that place is in addition to solar and wind, not instead of. Right now, tidal is not ready for full scale commercial deployment. Wind and solar are. That's why we need to concentrate on wind and solar at the moment. In 5-10 years, when tidal is ready, then we can go wild with it.

 

We need to tackle the low hanging fruit first. The easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to get rid of coal burning. That means deploying as much solar and wind as we can, with gas as backup/load balancing. The next step will be transport, switching it to electric. This is where tidal will come in. The constant power supply from tidal will be ideal for charging electric vehicles most of which spend most of their time stationary, connected to charging points. Tidal has a place, but that place is in the future, not now.

[shetlandpeat]

It seems that the two will go hand in hand. All the doom and gloom, woe are we.

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2012/04/05/wave-power-developers-hail-boost-to-scheme-from-viking-approval

 

Noo den, they would not build an interconnection for 10mW would they, or even 15, (2/3rds of capacity), no capitalist gain in that.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Well, good luck to them, but I remain extremely dubious of this ever making it to commercial viability.

[shetlandpeat]

All we need now is the man with the thermal magic boats. He may complement the ducks, of course once he can navigate around them.

In a few years time, there may be a better way, but for now, they are huge and a danger to shipping if they ever were to break free.

[Ghostrider]

@ AT: Yes, I believe I have given tidal a reasonable amount of thought. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you claiming somewhere on here that VE would only have a theoretical 50% output too, so on that score it would seem VE vs. tidal would be evens.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your second paragraph. Of course demand fluctuates, but with tidal that is your only headache, supply can be known days, weeks, or longer ahead of time, and with careful siting of generation points, supply can be constant. With wind, wave or solar supply can only ever be an educated guess ahead of time, which,in my mind at least, leaves you juggling several variables at once constantly, rather than just the one. Storage, or back up supply is going to be needed with all options, that is unavoidable, with tidal as I see it, you have the ability to keep your storage/backup to the smallest size, and only have need of it the least amount of time.Which, logic would tend to dictate, should ensure the most reliable supply.

 

Why waste so much money now on low efficiency systems such as wind, if they're going to be rendered obsolete in 5-10 years by tidal. If we've been doing the "damage" its alleged we have done for decades from emissions, is holding off until tidal is ready really going to make a meaningful difference to anything, and mor epointedly can what little difference wind might make justify a price tag of an estimated (probably minimum cost) of £5.4 Million per turbine?

 

Tidal may well be unready right now, and expensive, but as I see that has more to do with the concept of tidal that has been popularised in the media than reality. How and why the only image of tidal people have is that of a turbine submerged in a tide race, I can't possibly know. But I would sincerely hope that experts in the field are smart enough to accept that that is most certainly not the only option for harnessing the power of the tide. It is undoubtedly the most productive one, but also the most expensive and difficult one, and the fact it is virtually the only one placed in people's heads, tends to lead me to suspect it has more to do with disinformation to make the masses think a certain way, than anything to do with the truth.

 

Tides are not complex mechanisms, they are simply the movement of a body of water from one point to another, harnessing the energy contained within those movements isn't rocket science either. If, as we would seem to be being led to believe by the media, only maximum output tidal sites are in the running, using on site generation, then of course the whole concept of developing tidal is an absurdly expensive, civil engineering and logistical nightmare. Its not the only way though,the tide's effects are everywhere, the vast majority, I believe, of the works required could be land based, and of tried and tested engineering techniques. All it takes is a little lateral thinking, and an acceptance that having multiple lower output generation points readily attainable from current tested technology is equal to having one high output difficult to create difficult to maintain generation point using untested technology. The ironic thing being, as I see it at least, is that Shetland due to its geography has so many potential sites where moderate output tidal generation points could possibly be sited, yet they'reallbeing ignored in favour of throwing a scary sum of money at inefficent towers on hilltops.

[unlinkedstudent]

The overwhelming majority of people want David Cameron to end the energy bill rip-off and force the Big Six to invest in clean power from our wind, waves and sun.

 

!!!!NEWS FLASH !!!!!!

ShetlandPeat is unwell - he failed to mention that he has it on good authority from his comrades working at Labour HQ that the Government intend to privatise "our" wind, waves and sun".

 

Apparently, the sun is going to be forcibly taken as soon as Richard Branson's space thingy zooms by it, with a James Bond style net provided by the Russians.

[shetlandpeat]

There are no local plans like that. Planning represent the views of th commitee.

You really need to get some sorta life. You seem to be living in another dimetion.

Sadly you have continued on a personal ventetta. I am sure one of your past emplloyments would cover this.

I will continue to post as I seee fit.

 

I wouls suggest that Paul is right.

 

Oh, to save the edit

 

Big kin yawn

[Ghostrider]

^ Peat, old man, any chance of posting in English at least once in a while, this Peat-speak is bordering on double-dutch to the mere mortals as well as us undead types. Cheers.

[ArabiaTerra]

@ AT: Yes, I believe I have given tidal a reasonable amount of thought. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you claiming somewhere on here that VE would only have a theoretical 50% output too, so on that score it would seem VE vs. tidal would be evens.

 

Ah, but tidal will be 2-3 times as expensive as wind to install in the first place, and much more expensive to maintain.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your second paragraph. Of course demand fluctuates, but with tidal that is your only headache, supply can be known days, weeks, or longer ahead of time, and with careful siting of generation points, supply can be constant. With wind, wave or solar supply can only ever be an educated guess ahead of time, which,in my mind at least, leaves you juggling several variables at once constantly, rather than just the one. Storage, or back up supply is going to be needed with all options, that is unavoidable, with tidal as I see it, you have the ability to keep your storage/backup to the smallest size, and only have need of it the least amount of time.Which, logic would tend to dictate, should ensure the most reliable supply.

 

What I was trying to get across was: Tidal cannot match demand, therefore, storage is necessary.

 

That storage will do just as well for Wind.

 

Wind is cheaper, therefore it makes sense to build wind first and the needed storage, then you can add tidal if and when it becomes economically viable.

 

Why waste so much money now on low efficiency systems such as wind, if they're going to be rendered obsolete in 5-10 years by tidal.

 

They won't be rendered obsolete. Tidal will always be more expensive than onshore wind and probably even off-shore wind simply due to the fact that it works underwater. Tidal has it's place in addition to wind, not instead of.

 

If we've been doing the "damage" its alleged we have done for decades from emissions, is holding off until tidal is ready really going to make a meaningful difference to anything,

 

Yes. Right now we are getting dangerously close to breaching the 2 degree C limit by the end of the century. Whether or not we make this target will be decided this decade. If we go much above 2 degrees then we risk the natural carbon sinks such as forests, the oceans, tundra, peat bogs etc, turning from carbon absorbers to carbon emitters. If this happens in any significant way then feedbacks from these natural carbon sinks will set in motion a process of runaway global warming which we will be unable to stop by any means.

 

We don't have time to wait for some better technology to come along and save us. We have to act now (Well acting 20 years ago would have been better, the problem would have been solved by now without all the panic, but the fossil fuel industry decided to throw millions of dollars at confusing the issue, so here we are)

 

...and more pointedly can what little difference wind might make justify a price tag of an estimated (probably minimum cost) of £5.4 Million per turbine?

 

It's getting to the point that the economics are becoming irrelevant. The choice we have is deploy the technology we have now as quickly as possible, or switch the lights out, or hello runaway global warming and the end of civilisation.

 

How do you put a price on the end of civilisation?

 

Tidal may well be unready right now, and expensive, but as I see that has more to do with the concept of tidal that has been popularised in the media than reality. How and why the only image of tidal people have is that of a turbine submerged in a tide race, I can't possibly know. But I would sincerely hope that experts in the field are smart enough to accept that that is most certainly not the only option for harnessing the power of the tide. It is undoubtedly the most productive one, but also the most expensive and difficult one, and the fact it is virtually the only one placed in people's heads, tends to lead me to suspect it has more to do with disinformation to make the masses think a certain way, than anything to do with the truth.

 

Tides are not complex mechanisms, they are simply the movement of a body of water from one point to another, harnessing the energy contained within those movements isn't rocket science either. If, as we would seem to be being led to believe by the media, only maximum output tidal sites are in the running, using on site generation, then of course the whole concept of developing tidal is an absurdly expensive, civil engineering and logistical nightmare. Its not the only way though,the tide's effects are everywhere, the vast majority, I believe, of the works required could be land based, and of tried and tested engineering techniques. All it takes is a little lateral thinking, and an acceptance that having multiple lower output generation points readily attainable from current tested technology is equal to having one high output difficult to create difficult to maintain generation point using untested technology. The ironic thing being, as I see it at least, is that Shetland due to its geography has so many potential sites where moderate output tidal generation points could possibly be sited, yet they'reallbeing ignored in favour of throwing a scary sum of money at inefficent towers on hilltops.

 

If you have a tidal solution that can be developed in the next 5 years and deployed on a huge scale before 2020, for less money than on-shore wind or solar, then I'm sure there are quite a few venture capitalists who would like to talk to you.

 

If not, then you are engaging in wishful thinking, hoping a better solution will come along. We've wasted 20 years thinking wishfully. We don't have time for that any more.

[derick]

"we consider release of up to 50Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time".

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-methane-outgassing-e-siberian-shelf-part2.html

[Dratsy]

then we risk the natural carbon sinks such as forests, the oceans, tundra, peat bogs etc, turning from carbon absorbers to carbon emitters.

 

exactly what VE plan to do by digging up peat bogs

 

How do you put a price on the end of civilisation?

 

If it puts an end to you posting crap on here then bring it on.

 

fact is it is not going to be the end of the world as we know it even if I do feel fine. worst case scenario is we won't be able to afford free loaders an if you ask me that's not such a bad thing. not so good for you though AT

[derick]

No, the worst case scenario is runaway warming as happened in the Permian-Emian Thermal Maximum, with the end of industrial civilization and a mass extinction.

 

i.e. not just 'slightly better weather'

[shetlandpeat]

Freeloaders are great things. Using the sun to charge small electrical devices.

 

Mine looks like this

 

http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/04/20/solar_freeloader_pico_2.jpg

 

I guess the freeloader you are thinking about may not apply. From ATs posts, he seems to do quite a bit of research. Which is a benefit to all of us as it gives us food for thought.

I may suggest that many of your posts (and a few of mine according to some) could be the end result of mastication and digestion and onto the final push, but we feel the pinch I guess. Yours seem to be generally nasty all the time. Eh dratsy? I am still not finding the Nazi link you suggested either.