The true cost of wind...

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

As previously explained, that's almost certainly short-term variation. There have been previous lows, for example between about 1952 to 1970, where the mean temperature has remained fairly constant, yet there is no denying that the trend since 1750 has on average been steadily upwards.

Well, that has always been the issue, once you looked past the hype.

I don't agree with everything Harry says or does, but that description fits you better than he.

[Java Jive]

Can you link to any substantive proof of this assertion borne out of paranoid conspiracy theory?

I see no connection at all.

[Java Jive]

Even TNP linked to a source that turned out to agree with it.

The Thames Valley has been suggested as a good place to start.

The number of stations is relevant when the fall at any one spot is relatively limited.

From a previous thread ...

Back to this post ...

No, but neither have you, and no, nuclear fission is not a secure supply into the future.

[Java Jive]

[Tim Streater]

This has been addressed umpty-ump times before by others. You're just choosing to ignore what they say.

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

It was a joke, but you've obviously forgotten the context, so forget it.

But the point is that it's the best that can be done in the given geography.

Scoff all you like, it's a useful thing to do, and we should do it.

We don't have a UK supply of fissile fuel, so in the medium to long term greater than about 10 years, your plan is no more secure than is wind in the sort term of a few minutes or hours.

[Terry Fields]

You're not familiar with how funding for scientific projects is handled, are you?

Here's a Janet-and-John sketch for you, where a prof is interviewing researchers for a CC project:

Prof: I've got £10m to reseach anthropogenic global warming.

Researcher: I don't believe it's happening.

Prof: F--- off and don't darken my doorway again. Next!

Different researcher: I fully believe in AGW and we must do all we can to combat it.

Prof: You'll make a welcome addition to the team. Start on Monday?

In real life, the first researcher won't even bother to apply, so all the prof sees is a line of enthusiastic candidates.

[Tim Streater]

Not much though is it.

I shall continue to scoff at any hand-waving blue-sky b/s that you come up with.

or oil, or gas unless we frack

Untrue.

Yes it is.

[The Other Mike]

Despite all the subsidies wind turbines increasingly pollute the countryside, increase my electricty bill, increase CO2 emissions and consume vast quanties of precious hydrocarbons in the manufacture of their blades.

In addition none of them have any funding in place or arrangements for safe removal and disposal of these structures at the end of their life.

That FoE, Greenpeace and other assorted green fuckwits love them comes as no surprise.

[Terry Fields]

Oh, don't be silly. The security environment is the same for all.

Is it?

'Vast tonnage'? Ships heavier than that pass by endlessly. Some are even recovered having been sunk or stranded.

What do you balk at the mention of such figures?

How much does a nuclear generating plant weigh?

Your 12,000 tons is almost an irrelevancy.

Only today, they have righted a 112,000 ton ship in a one-off operation. An industrialised recovery process will be far cheaper, that's one of the major benefits of industrialisation.

No, because your argument starts on a false premise. The way to demolish them is to find the false premise with which they start.

[The Other Mike]

If I were choosing a power source to connect to an electric chair to fry greens. I'd choose nuclear over wind as I want the job done properly, although I reckon at a push a 2KVA Honda generator, a gallon unleaded and a pair of croc clips would be sufficient.

[Terry Fields]

Climate science might be hunky-dory in itself, but it makes predictions about the future which are based on models. Unfortunately, this has been going on long enough for the results to be plain to anyone - the actual temperature increase is now falling outside the 95%? 99%? lower band. This is bad news for the modellers, and possibly climate science too.

Time for another Mike's Trick or two, perhaps.

[Tim Streater]

All his arguments start from false premises.

[Tim Streater]

Indeed, so where do we apply for our refund then?

Oh and by the way: I observe that wind was over 5GW for most of yesterday. That's the highest I've seen it on gridwatch, so for the (most of the) time when it's producing sod all, I'll be increasing my refund demand appropriately.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Spot on. My conversations with post grads revealed that 'prof X is great at getting funding: he manages to get a climate change angle into anything you want to research:, and suggests what you add in at the end to confirm how its really helping combat it, even if its got sod all to do with climate change'

[The Natural Philosopher]

FFS simply pour the gallon of unleaded OVER the green and strike a match.

And save on the generator, and the croc clips.

[The Natural Philosopher]

following 'hide the decline'

Metro Goldman Sachs presents:

'The rise is hidden' (in the deep dark oceans).

[Java Jive]

It isn't, but I'll let it pass.

Of course.

Because here we're talking about electrical energy generation, and to build all this stuff it and move itself around takes energy, lots of it, probably a good deal of it carbon based, and you haven't calculated how much.

I note that instead of answering the real question you introduce an irrelevancy like the weight of a nuclear generating plant, which is an irrelevancy because noone is planning to move it about every few months, let alone dunk it in the sea for a while, lift it out again, chemically treat the entirety of it twice over, then put it back again.

The energy consumed in manipulating and processing fuel directly subtracts from the bottom line both financially and energetically, and new nuclear is already the most expensive type of baseload generation.

That's certainly true, but you've only got ten years of certain supplies from elsewhere before this has to work as an industrialised process, and that has never been done before. It would certainly be cheaper and easier to recycle all existing nuclear waste than do this, but even that is currently considered too expensive. Carbon capture can not be very much worse than this, if at all, and at least that would allow us to use sources of fuel of which we have significant indigenous supplies, and which are much cheaper than nuclear fission.

Which you have failed to do. Like both the avid pro-nuclear types, as well as the green types you despise, you make exaggerated claims without being able to show with figures how they can be met.