Best summary of our Energy Crisis I have read so far

[ywindythesecond]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9078561/the-real-energy-scandal

You should be very worried about this and if you are in any doubt, watch Ed Davey on Question Time last night.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03hztph/Question_Time_14_11_2013/

[Neil Howie]

Hmmmm... David Rose again.

After the Ooops (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?212620-Ooops!) thread, best summed up below,

should I bother reading?



If you're interested in how misinformation makes its way into the public dialogue on important issues like war in the Middle East or climate change, then you should get to know David Rose (http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/david-rose/b/499/b0a), a "special investigations writer" for the UK's ultra-conservative Mail on Sunday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mail_on_Sunday) tabloid.



Rose is making headlines this week for all the wrong reasons. But his path to this latest controvery started many years ago.

A 2010 article by Guardian columnist George Monbiot (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science) sums up the history of Rose's many errors, where the "special investigations writer" first gets it wrong on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and goes on to get it wrong on the consensus of the science on climate change. As Monbiot tells us, in Rose's previous stint at the Observer, Rose wrote:

"... uncritically the claims made by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the second invasion of Iraq."

[ywindythesecond]

Hmmmm... David Rose again.

After the Ooops (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?212620-Ooops!) thread, best summed up below,

should I bother reading?

Probably not Neil, your mind is obviously closed.

[Rheghead]

“Due to the continuing boom in solar energy, many power stations throughout the sector and across Europe are no longer profitable to operate,” RWE said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the real facts are that Germany is not only closing nuclear power stations but also gas and coal power stations due to the flourishing renewable energy industry.

http://positivenews.org.uk/2013/environment/renewable_energy/14200/germany-shuts-coal-power-stations-renewables-shoulder-energy-demands/

[RagnarRocks]

Yes well they will shut everything else in a slaveish desire to play the green card but my gut feeling is, it won't be to many years until you see the green revolution faulter and nuclear gas oil and coal come back into favour. Japan has already set aside the targets it set at Kyoto and is veering back toward conventional energy sources.The costs of these renewables is just becoming transparent in this country and the general public don't seem keen on astronomical power prices .

[Rheghead]

Yes well they will shut everything else in a slaveish desire to play the green card but my gut feeling is, it won't be to many years until you see the green revolution faulter and nuclear gas oil and coal come back into favour. Japan has already set aside the targets it set at Kyoto and is veering back toward conventional energy sources.The costs of these renewables is just becoming transparent in this country and the general public don't seem keen on astronomical power prices .

Not exactly.


This is what happens when a country confronts the real costs of nuclear and fossil fuels.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/12/kyocera_solar_power_plant_after_fukushima_japan_fi nds_beauty_in_renewable/1384269982.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/12/kyocera_solar_power_plant_after_fukushima_japan_fi nds_beauty_in_renewable.html?wpsrc=upworthy

[RagnarRocks]

Very pretty picture but doesn't mean an awful lot unless contextualised.http://blogs.channel4.com/tom-clarke-on-science/japan-decision-abandon-emissions-targets/656

[Rheghead]

Very pretty picture but doesn't mean an awful lot unless contextualised.http://blogs.channel4.com/tom-clarke-on-science/japan-decision-abandon-emissions-targets/656

There is a huge difference to abandoning Kyoto targets and not reducing emissions. Your link did not say Japan was abandoning except on a blog, but the link in the blog said nothing.

America is not part of Kyoto but it has the second largest wind energy capacity of any nation.

What is important is that we fulfill our side of the bargain, we cannot reduce CO2 emissions for other countries.

[RagnarRocks]

So if everyone else abandons CO2 emissions targets you'd still consider it important that we fulfil ours even though doing so would commit hundreds of thousands of families to fuel poverty and a vast increase in the deaths of oaps, and that's before we talk about our ability to remain competitive with our few remaining manufacturing industries.With much respect to your obvious passions but that sounds like madness to me

[ywindythesecond]

Meanwhile, the real facts are that Germany is not only closing nuclear power stations but also gas and coal power stations due to the flourishing renewable energy industry.

http://positivenews.org.uk/2013/environment/renewable_energy/14200/germany-shuts-coal-power-stations-renewables-shoulder-energy-demands/

This is how the article starts:

Germany shuts down coal power stations as renewables shoulder more energy demands
"Power companies in Germany are shutting down gas and coal-fired power stations due to the growth in renewable energy.

E.ON announced in August that it has closed or left idle 6,500 megawatts (MW) of conventional generating capacity. Days later, RWE said it would disconnect 3,100MW with “further power stations being assessed” for suspension or closure.

“Due to the continuing boom in solar energy, many power stations throughout the sector and across Europe are no longer profitable to operate,” RWE said in a statement."

All perfectly true. Renewables are shouldering gas and coal out of the market, just the same as here in Britain. But it is not because they are better, how can they be if you get nothing from wind if there is no wind, and nothing from solar at night and we can't store mass electricity?

The reason renewables are used more is that they have an artificial advantageous position in the market. I don't know how it works in Germany, but here in UK, National Grid has to balance the grid by paying generators to curb their output to meet demand, and because wind gets a ROC worth £50ish for every MWh it generates (and is therefore much more expensive to turn off), National Grid allows wind and solar on the grid in preference to gas and coal when there is a conflict of supply and demand.
This results in a lower turnover for gas and coal plant with less income and lower profit so to avoid bankruptcy, it is commercially necessary to close down or mothball plant that is simply a drain on finances.

This has already led to a point where the commercial wolves come in. Masses of diesel generators paid way over the top to stand by and more to step in when wind and solar are AWOL and the good old cheap and reliable gas and coal plants are mothballed.

You couldn't invent such a mess in a novel, but that is the result of our Governments' policies.

[Rheghead]

Hmmmm... David Rose again.

After the Ooops (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?212620-Ooops!) thread, best summed up below,

should I bother reading?

No you shouldn't bother reading it. It is just the usual nonsense from the usual climate deniers. Climate deniers are becoming increasingly isolated as their ridiculous theories get more more wackier than ever.

http://grist.org/news/americans-just-arent-buying-that-climate-denial-crap-anymore/#.UoU9NlC0UmM.twitter

[Rheghead]

[/I]All perfectly true. Renewables are shouldering gas and coal out of the market, just the same as here in Britain. But it is not because they are better, how can they be if you get nothing from wind if there is no wind, and nothing from solar at night and we can't store mass electricity?

We'd be doing it already if renewables were better to manage on the grid. Erm, that is why going green is called a challenge. It really takes no further explanation....:roll:

[RagnarRocks]

[QUOTE=Rheghead;1056806]No you shouldn't bother reading it. It is just the usual nonsense from the usual climate deniers. Climate deniers are becoming increasingly isolated as their ridiculous theories get more more wackier than ever.These would be the same climate deniers who didn't think global warming was real but oh the clever little green lobby cottoned on to that so changed it to climate change. Well the problem with that is the climate has been constantly changing since the planet was formed and it depends on the time frame you want to put on climate change,a couple of hundred even thousands of years is small change in the big picture. Weve had a couple of mini ice ages in the last millenniums. About 40000 yrs ago we had massive sea rise changes. It's not that people deny climate change they just don't believe all the scare mongering and name calling from the supporters.

[Rheghead]

It's not that people deny climate change they just don't believe all the scare mongering and name calling from the supporters.

Current estimates are that the Earth is warming up about 0.2 degrees per decade. Proxy data seems to support that preindustial warming was ~0.01 degrees per decade. It is up to you decide whether a 20-fold increase in the rate of warming is scary or not.

I could list a whole lot of predictions that our ancestors will see in a warming world. Some of them are quite scary like a extinction level event for over a third of known species. I could dismiss this as I am in my late 40s and I'll never see the worst of it so should I really care? Or do we have a duty to preserve the Earth's ecosystem by offering a low carbon energy policy to our grandchildren?

If we continue to be influenced by the right wing media's obsession with climate denialism who have vested interests in the status quo then we'll never succeed.

[RagnarRocks]

Small problem is there have been a few mass extinction episodes no doubt the human race will succumb to one at some stage so I shouldn't worry about it too much we will all be long gone before the sun decides to go red dwarf.

[Neil Howie]

Probably not Neil, your mind is obviously closed.

It was more about standards of journalism of David Rose.

“It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.”
― René Descartes,

If it's any consolation I like your pieces on wind farm subsidy.

[ywindythesecond]

It was more about standards of journalism of David Rose.

“It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.”
― René Descartes,

If it's any consolation I like your pieces on wind farm subsidy.

Thanks Neil.

As far as I know, I have never read anything before by David Rose, but what he says in the article matches my knowledge and experience exactly.

I don’t need to be consoled, but if you understand the magnitude of the wind farm and renewables subsidy scam, please help me to pass the message around so ordinary folk don’t get robbed.
Stuart Young

[Rheghead]

Thanks Neil.

As far as I know, I have never read anything before by David Rose, but what he says in the article matches my knowledge and experience exactly.

I don’t need to be consoled, but if you understand the magnitude of the wind farm and renewables subsidy scam, please help me to pass the message around so ordinary folk don’t get robbed.
Stuart Young

Subsidies? If you are against subsidies then you should be against nuclear power or you are just being hypocritical.