The true cost of wind...

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

[Terry Fields]

You can't read, can you, when it somes to your own writings.

Hint: VC made one statement, you replied to a different one.

[Terry Fields]

It's so obvious that you can't see it, but then we are talking about your own writings - of which I get the impression you believe are perfect and beyond criticism.

[Terry Fields]

Your comprehension of written English is somewhat suspect. I wrote one sentence and you answered with two, both of which have made the same mistake.

[Terry Fields]

Right. We now have established that you see that 'most people want to keep the electricity supply going', so we now need to determine whether you have made this the basis of your position on fuel security. Therefore is it correct to say that the electricity supply is paramount?

[Java Jive]

You've not answered either of my two points above:

1) Nobody is disputing that so far the models have been less than wonderfully useful. By continuing to criticise the models, are you or are you not saying that the whole science of climate is therefore worthless, corrupt, and/or fraudulent?

2) If the answer to 1 is "Yes", are you are you not saying that because geology cannot predict the exact times of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that the whole science of geology is therefore somehow worthless, corrupt, and/or fraudulent?

You've been gassing on about it for days, which of all your vague and worthless insinuations are you trying make me guess that you are referring to this time?

Say precisely what you mean. Put up or shut up.

We know it isn't, because the curve fit shows it isn't.

You did not provide a link.

Probably not, because whatever it is it's not affecting temperature. I did wonder about a few possible explanations, but haven't got any data to check my ideas against, so I'll pass on that for now.

Why would you deliberately choose to use data that you KNOW is bad? Surely that would be even more misleading than what was actually done?

And no-one else seems to agree with you. The Muir Russell Report does not criticise the process of itself, merely the subsequent publication of the graph in WMO WITHOUT the explanation of what had been done. Reporting on Muir Russell, the New Scientist report linked earlier, even though elsewhere not hesitating to go further in criticism than MR, merely passively reports the MR criticism without passing further judgement.

The problem has been known for years in scientific circles and was seen as non-controversial until denialists got hold of it and twisted it out of all recognition, trying to claim that it showed that temperature wasn't increasing, because "Look at the tree-ring data!", whereas we know it was because "Look at the thermometer!" Basically, once denialists had obtained all the private discussions they were bound to be damned whatever they had done. They'd had three choices:

- Do what they did, but ensuring that all requisite explanations were in place on ALL versions of the graph that were published, not just some of them.

- Drop the tree-ring data series entirely, but that too is discarding data.

- Leave it in but with a fainter dotted line since 1960 and a suitable explanation of the known unreliability of the data after this date.

Probably either of the last two courses might have been preferable to the first, but I am certain that denialists would have twisted anything they had done any which way they chose.

And don't forget that the IPCC report, AIUI, contained the full explanation of the tree-ring data problem and discusses it.

See above discussion. What really matters is the actual scientific truth, and that is that at the time the temperature was indeed actually rising, and very fast, though over recent years it has slackened off.

[dennis]

So what can we rely on?

Coal is subject to disruption such as war, strikes, natural disasters...

Gas ditto

Oil ditto.

We can't rely on solar as climate change may render it useless.

wind ditto.

[The Natural Philosopher]

[The Other Mike]

So buy and stockpile the fuel / raw materials for the entire operating period of all the reactors we may conceivably build in the next 50+ years. Let other countries worry about the shortfall when or if it occurs.

[Terry Fields]

By continuing to criticise the models, I am criticising the models, their supporters and advocates, their alarmist messages, and the policies that are built on their output. You might interpet that as a cticism of climate science, but that's your problem, not mine.

Irrelevant.

What I said was perfectly clear, to anyone of normal understanding, and again I refer you to that.

And how does that fit with the geologic record, whereby CO2 has been at higher levels with lower temperatures, and lower with higher temperatures. Another danger for you you is that correlation is not causation.

That's because it has disappered from their site and doesn't appear in their archive.

Oh! That's no argument at all.

But you don't KNOW it's bad. It's only 'bad' because it doesn't fit the current view - this is always a problem when 'the science is settled'.

Funnily enough, most if not all of this might never have come about had the scince not been declared as settled.

That statement makes no sense.

[Terry Fields]

LOL

See it before, but quite some time ago.

It's as incisive as ever.

[The Natural Philosopher]

+1

[bert]

See today's Telegraph Business Section on the state of play in Germany

German Industry in Revolt over Green Dream

[bert]

In message , Java Jive writes

No it doesn't. How many times must I tell you and others like you that the trade body suggests that adequate supplies are available at an economic rate up to 2080 and beyond.

Wonder why you haven't quoted this bit -

International fuel reserves

There have been three major initiatives to set up international reserves of enriched fuel, two of them multilateral ones, with fuel to be available under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices despite any political interruptions which might affect countries needing them. The third is under US auspices, and also to meet needs arising from supply disruptions.

[bert]

In message , Java Jive writes

Exactly what I've been saying - new mines will be required. Just as they said about oil in the 60s, new wells will be required - North Sea Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, Gulf of Mexico, etc. etc.

All covered on WNA Information Library. Suggest you read less selectively.

[bert]

FFS they were given the report and they were asked on their own channel by their own presenter to comment on the report. Ample opportunity to have their minions exam it and refute it or otherwise, but no merely slagged it off because it was from what they branded a "Right Wing " think tank, which was exactly the criticism in the report itself.

[Java Jive]

So, here we go again, teaching our resident claimed 'senior academic' simple logic ...

The exchange was as follows:

So by VC continuing my last sentence with ellipses, that becomes ...

"The country is still picking up the tab for all the nuclear waste produced in the country to date, almost all of which is from the weapons programme."

My reply showed with appropriate figures that his assertion that most of the waste came from the weapons programme was incorrect.

I note that he has not questioned the logic of my reply, so I presume he intended his remarks as I have interpreted them, and further that he accepts my correction.

I note also that it was >

[Java Jive]

How many times must I explain to you the total difference between the total resources available and the rate of their extraction - that is the difference between total resources and supply?

You are wrong. The WNA suggests that there adequate resources to last to 2080, but supplies can only be guaranteed until 2025. Elsewhere I have linked to no less that 4 documents all saying the SAME sort of thing.

That shows how little attention you've been paying, I quoted part of that section several days ago.

Current world demand is 78,438 t U3O8 = 66,512 t U, but by the time demand exceeds supply in 2025-ish it will be over 100,000 t U, which will yield about 10,000 t LEU. Although we do not yet have figures for the IAEA store, the other two total just 350 t LEU. So if such stores have to be used to meet an excess in world demand over world supply, they're unlikely to last long enough to assure supplies.

Further, the Russian store of 120 t LEU is earmarked specifically for "any IAEA member state in good standing which is unable to procure fuel for political reasons", which definition may or may not include the UK, but on the face of it seems rather unlikely to do so, as we are unlikely to be isolated from the wider world supply through the political actions of other nations.

Here in the UK, we cannot RELY on being able to obtain Uranium nuclear fuel after about 2025.

[Java Jive]

By and large, I accept that there may be individual exceptions, the people in this ng who are anti-wind are also pro-nuclear. It is immaterial in this argument what I think about the electricity supply being paramount, what matters in this discussion is what these particular people think about it.

For said people, one of the many reasons they complain about wind is it's short term unreliability, which is perfectly valid. For said people, an oft quoted phrase is along the lines of "Just wait until the lights go out, then the shit'll hit the fan!", from which it can be safely concluded that, for these people, security of the electricity supply is indeed paramount.

The trouble starts when these same people then go on to claim that the answer to the unreliability of wind is to build new nuclear power stations, because, as I have repeatedly shown, supplies of uranium to use as fissionable fuel for them can't be guaranteed as being reliable beyond about 10 years from now, yet the proposed plant has a 60 year lifecycle.

Therefore, to complain about the unreliability of wind but then say we must answer that by building nuclear power stations is inconsistent, there's an inherent and hypocritical self-contradiction in such a claim.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult point to get home, it seems such a perfectly straightforward argument to me that I can only deem the truly extraordinary resistance to it as arising from a very deep bias, so deep that it can only be called bigotry.

To a country without worthwhile >