Gridwatch Down?

[pamela]

Is observing electric power output & consumption connected with the global warming debates which goes on here (which I don't read)?

[Chris Hogg]

Of course. Global warming / climate change is claimed to be due to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, caused by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) to generate power, both electrical and mechanical. The remedy proposed by environmentalists is to generate more electricity from renewable sources such as wind, sunshine and tides, rather than from nuclear reactors which they abhor, mainly because of the problems that they insist exist in handling the waste, AIUI.

Gridwatch shows the scale of the problem in terms of the amount of electrical power the country uses throughout the day and throughout the year, and how small is the proportion contributed by renewable energy, getting close to zero at times, thus emphasising the importance of a consistent, uninterruptible supply that only nuclear can provide if targets for CO2 reduction are to be met.

Unfortunately most environmentalists turn a blind eye to such problems, arguing that all we need is more wind turbines, more solar panels, more tidal barrages, more tidal stream turbines and more interconnects to the Continent, Norway, Iceland, North Africa, etc.

As somebody here said recently, environmentalists don't do sums.

[Robin]

...which requires scripts enabled and has an (admittedly modest) ad

[pamela]

Thanks for the explanation. I take it the majority of contibutors to the debates about this in uk.d-i-y are climate sceptics or is there strong environmentalist representation?

(I know it's important topic for our times but I don't really hold a view on this, so I'm neutral and don't bother to work through these threads.)

[charles]

Climate Sceptics is a strange expression. Do you mean people who are sceptical about whether the climate is changing because of human intervention or just naturally?

[Roger Hayter]

I suspect it is more the "Why haven't successive governments arranged for us to have a reliable public electricity supply during the next couple of decades?" debate. Historically the climate change issue may have affected decision making, but is no excuse for us to be in our present state. Dereliction of duty by governments over several decades comes to mind. That's just a personal view, I don't know what the proponents of gridwatch think.

[Vir Campestris]

I think opinion is split.

But I think there is a substantial majority who think that solar power won't keep the lights on, and wind won't help when there isn't any.

Andy

[pamela]

Isn't "climate sceptic" used to describe was someone who doesn't believe man is mostly responsible for global warming?

[Roger Hayter]

One can be broadly in favour of reducing CO2 production but still rather keen on a reliable public electricity supply. Unfortunately if one also chooses to dislke nuclear power one has an uphill struggle to afford sufficient gas powered overprovision and several-fold renewable over-provision so that both preferences are met.

My personal view is that we need nuclear power, even though it is really not as foolproof as some might claim. If one doubts that the production of fools is getting ever more sophisticated one only has to look at Brexit and Trump.

[Chris Hogg]

I would say that the sceptics are definitely in the majority. Those who believe in anthropogenic global warming (i.e. the burning of fossil fuels releasing CO2) and favour environmental solutions get pretty short shrift here, and are either very thick skinned and ignore the abuse that gets heaped on them, or they keep a low profile.

But I don't think that many here would deny that some warming has taken place, only that it isn't by any means proven that it's due to anthropogenic CO2, nor is it obviously continuing, as would be predicted if anthropogenic CO2 were the cause.

With the exception of 2016, the global temperatures have remained more-or-less constant since about 2000, while CO2 levels have continued to rise. The high temperatures of 2016 were due to an exceptionally strong El Nino, probably not exceeded since 1878. But there are those who say that's too short a period from which to draw any conclusions, which begs the question as to whether the warming period from 1975 to 2000 was also significant.

I'm happy to accept that both periods are significant, and that the equations that are used by climatologists to predict global temperatures from a wide range of poorly understood parameters, are woefully inadequate. There are also other theories that tend to be overlooked, mostly connected to cycles in solar activity, which predict a fall in global temperatures over the next few decades and beyond. I guess time will tell who's right.

[Tim Watts]

Yes. In particular the hopeless shift to attempt to use wind generation, which a quick look at the graphs will tell you is uselessly unpredictable.

[Tim Streater]

In the first instance it allows those of us who are interested (and that is not everybody) to see how close we are to large scale power cuts, and those of us who insist that "renewables" are a fraud can indicate why we think so. Looking just now, for example, wind is providing less than 1.5% of demand (which is anyway lower at night), and has been in that state for several days due to the weather pattern.

Why here? Well I for one enjoy a good rant :-)

[pamela]

I don't follow it closely but the whole climate debate in recent decades has provided outsiders with a fascinating insight into the reality of modern scientific method.

The wrong headed self-assuredness, the falsification of data, the internecine struggles, behind the scenes manoeuvring, the duplicity, the false logic, the hidden agendas, etc are all worthy of Machiavelli. No doubt, just like Machiavelli, the participants in this genuinely feel they do what they do for the common good.

From what little I see, the dodgy dealings are not all taking place only on one side of the debate.

I gave up trying to follow this long ago!

[Tim Streater]

I'd agree with this.

[pamela]

How is it that people with such a keen interest in this topic all came here to uk.d-i-y to discuss it?

I mean, why not alt.physics, an environmentalist newsgroup or something like that?

It's easy enough to avoid the climate threads so I don't have a major objection to the discussion being here. However it surprises me that it's here at all.

[Chris Hogg]

It's human nature, witness the debate on Brexit, for and against.

[Huge]

[29 lines snipped]

Spot on.

[Huge]

Until the intermittency problem is solved at an industrial level, wind power is a joke.

[Tim Streater]

What I'm most sceptical about is the extent to which it is science at all. Last year the global temperature rise was supposed to be 0.01C, but with an error or plus/minus 0.1C. Which renders the rise figure meaningless.

[Huge]

[40 lines snipped]

Because there are lots of people here who can read, write and count on their fingers?

Usenet is dying - we make the best of what there is.