"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes and battery technology is constantly improving, with some more inventive ways of storing energy locally it should be possible to develop a grid that no longer requires "peaking" generators.
In other words, all the electricity generated is consumed or stored, unlike today where a significant amount is wasted due to the fact that it cannot be stored.

Another advantage of a distributed storage system is reduction in line losses due to peak loads.
When EV's become the dominant form of transport, such a distributed storage will be essential to avoid outages and instability in the generating system.
Large scale tidal generating systems would provide an extremely reliable source of renewable energy and when combined with tidal lagoons also provide energy storage.

But the best way forward is to reduce wasteful uses of energy in general, stopping planned obsolescence and reducing perceived obsolescence would have a dramatic reduction in the wasteful uses of energy & resources.
Compelling manufactures of "durable" goods, to label them with their "design life" thus giving consumers the choice to either buy the €300 one that has a 6 year life or pay €450 for the one that has 15 years life expectancy.

In reality it is possible to build such appliances with a 30 year life and make maintenance easy, It used to be the law in East Germany that all domestic appliances were designed to last at lease 30 years.

Completely agree.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Tbh, i'm not even reading these rants anymore. They're completely off topic anyway

Your collective refusal to respond is duly noted.

You and the alarmists push all these rapid and unprecedented "solutions", yet you refuse to elaborate on the impacts that even the IPCC is now acknowledging that these actions will have on society.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Your collective refusal to respond is duly noted.

You and the alarmists push all these rapid and unprecedented "solutions", yet you refuse to elaborate on the impacts that even the IPCC is now acknowledging that these actions will have on society.

What? Collective refusal? What are you on about?

Pa ElGrande

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

We have Turlough hill, interconnection (and more planned including the Celtic interconnector to France, DSM, EVs and battery technology coming onstream.

I was about to refute your argument but I see that you are a misinformed troll.

Dear thread, please ignore misinformation on this topic. Thanks!

In the worst case scenario the pipes at Turlough hill will be frozen, besides the plant can only meet short term predictable demand and once the overnight idling coal and peat plants are gone the economics of running it changes. During major winter weather events demand for energy is highest thankfully none of the the recent events extremities have lasted beyond two weeks, however we are heading into a cooling climate cycle and the probability of a 1946-47 or 1962-63 type event rises which will impose major stress on the system as Eirgrid acknowledged happened ~ 2009/2010.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlylP7tgcXw

Once peat and coal are gone we are dependent on wind, gas and the interconnector(s) for electricity generation during peak demand. The Corrib field output is expected to peak around now if no the next few years, but in the meantime it makes the gas power plants viable, prior to this most of our gas imports came through the Scottish pipeline. In the event of a severe weather emergency we are at the end of the supply line and in recent years severe cold snaps have seen the British gas supplies run extremely low. Any gas left in the system will be rationed or we will be priced out.





As for demand management, there are already peak-shaving schemes in operation available for businesses who use over 4MW for several decades. However in 10 years time electricity demand will have grown, not least because of the datacenter expansion but also EVs. In event of an extreme weather event some of those datacenters are going to need to go down or fall back on their own power generation, others are going to have to close.


The inter-connector to France does not exist yet and it will be an expensive link to maintain, the thinking seems to be carpet the country in as many wind turbines as possible and sell the power to France to offset the cost. The problem with this scheme is obvious you cannot control when the wind blows so when there is surplus supply to sell into the system you may not even get a break even price and the Irish consumer ends up subsidising British and French consumers.

igCorcaigh

Interesting a analytics

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

What? Collective refusal? What are you on about?

You and your co-concerned lefty friends refusal to discuss the unprecedented effects that rapidly implementing your far reaching global plan will have, which will necessitate changing of all aspects of society.


"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

If you simply don't know what all this means for society (but still want to push it anyway) just say so.

If you do know, give some details of the changes that we will be required to agree to make, in order for your shiny new plan to work.

Then outline whether you'd endorse forcing society to make these changes if society does not approve of your plan.

And whether you'd like to try to use force to push the global plan through in that event, using reasoning that violence would be justified given what's at stake.

Peaceful global solutions seem very far off, with France now taking its national sovereignty and autonomy very seriously all of a sudden.

Macron's guys are now warning against interfering or commenting on it's recent climbdown on carbon taxes:


"We do not take domestic American politics into account and we want that to be reciprocated," Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told LCI television.

"I say this to Donald Trump and the French president says it too: leave our nation be."


https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/190594-181209-france-tells-trump-to-stop-interfering-in-its-politics

"Leave our nation be!"
The irony in this is rich for anyone observing calls for the rapid implementation of an unprecedented global solution.

igCorcaigh

But could the sunnier countries ramp up to be great energy powers?

Battery technologies are evolving

igCorcaigh

igCorcaigh wrote: »

But could the sunnier countries ramp up to be great energy powers?

Battery technologies are evolving

Taking that thought to it's logical conclusion, you could have supertankers converted into giant batteries and charged in sunny regions and sailing to less sunnier places to discharge.

d8491prj5boyvg

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

In the event of a severe weather emergency we are at the end of the supply line and in recent years severe cold snaps have seen the British gas supplies run extremely low. Any gas left in the system will be rationed or we will be priced out.

Yes, relying on gas is risky. We should tap into an abundant and indigenous alternative to hedge against his risk.

dense

igCorcaigh wrote: »

But could the sunnier countries ramp up to be great energy powers?

Battery technologies are evolving

Won't be much use if Bill Gates gets his way:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4

Coupled with painting roads white to counteract the effects of installing so many black solar panels, it could be the simplest solution of the lot.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-is-painting-some-of-its-streets-white-and-the-reasons-why-are-pretty-cool/

d8491prj5boyvg

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

As for demand management, there are already peak-shaving schemes in operation available for businesses who use over 4MW for several decades. However in 10 years time electricity demand will have grown, not least because of the datacenter expansion but also EVs. In event of an extreme weather event some of those datacenters are going to need to go down or fall back on their own power generation, others are going to have to close.

Datacentres and EVs are flexible. This flexibility is a form of storage. They are a complement to renewables. I would recommend that you read the following to give an informed opinion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201530

Your arguments are founded on clickbait. Please back up any claims with evidence.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The inter-connector to France does not exist yet and it will be an expensive link to maintain, the thinking seems to be carpet the country in as many wind turbines as possible and sell the power to France to offset the cost. The problem with this scheme is obvious you cannot control when the wind blows so when there is surplus supply to sell into the system you may not even get a break even price and the Irish consumer ends up subsidising British and French consumers.

The interconnector will be paid for by those who use it. It will give access to cheap generation from France if at any moment it is more cost-effective than local generation. If Irish electricity prices are low, it will provide an outlet for irish firms to sell as opposed to ramping up and down. Before we had any wind, this reduces ramping (i.e. start up costs and associated make-whole payments) for fossil fuels. Prices will fall, consumers will benefit. This will give Irish wind an additional revenue stream when our demand can't support it, reducing future subsidy requirements.

I like money and would be in favour of this cost-saving investment.

dense

dense wrote: »

Won't be much use if Bill Gates gets his way:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4

Coupled with painting roads white to counteract the effects of installing so many black solar panels, it could be the simplest solution of the lot.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-is-painting-some-of-its-streets-white-and-the-reasons-why-are-pretty-cool/

Does that mean they're going to divide the lanes up with black lines?

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does that mean they're going to divide the lanes up with black lines?

Word on the street is that the big money is in this area, mini solar panels will form these lines of distinction leading to stable, abundant and cheaper electricity for all. Everyone's a winner.

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Prices will fall, consumers will benefit.

Electricity prices will not fall.

Renewable energy currently supplies just 5% of Irelands energy needs and the price of electrcity has skyrocketed in tandem with the installation of renewable energy sources.

Getting that 5% to 100% will not involve reducing the price of electricity for consumers.

Rationing of electricity via price increases will be a tool used to deter consumption of electricity.

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Prices will fall, consumers will benefit.

Electricity prices will not fall.

Renewable energy currently supplies just 5% of Irelands energy needs and the price of electrcity has skyrocketed in tandem with the installation of renewable energy sources.

Getting that 5% to 100% will not involve reducing the price of electricity for consumers.

Rationing of electricity via price increases will be a tool used to deter consumption of electricity.

My comment was in relation to interconnection.
Interconnection means more options. More competition. Competition reduces prices. Even in a fossil fuel only world, it brings prices down

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

My comment was in relation to interconnection.
Interconnection means more options. More competition. Competition reduces prices. Even in a fossil fuel only world, it brings prices down

Did you read that in a pamphlet someone handed to you?

Competition here coincided with price rises due to the need to make the market more attractive to potential service providers who would then busily "compete" to supply the very same product (electricity) under different and interesting brand names to the consumer.

As a result of competition, carbon tax and subsidising wind and solar farms, the consumer is now benefitting from having some of the most expensive electricity prices in Europe and that is not going to change during any major investment to attempt to transition off of fossil fuels towards a zero carbon economy.

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

Did you read that in a pamphlet someone handed to you?

Competition here coincided with price rises due to the need to make the market more attractive to potential service providers who would then busily "compete" to supply the very same product (electricity) under different and interesting brand names to the consumer.

As a result of competition, carbon tax and subsidising wind and solar farms, the consumer is now benefitting from having some of the most expensive electricity prices in Europe and that is not going to change during any major investment to attempt to transition off of fossil fuels towards a zero carbon economy.

You are confusing the wholesale and retail markets. Wholesale market competition will benefit. More competition reduces prices. Ireland's wholesale market is amongst the most competitive in the world. It works really well and wholesale prices have fallen with wind.

There is peer reviewed research to back this up. Eirgrid say this themselves. Anyone interested please PM and I will direct you to some top work on this.

The retail market suffers because consumers do not switch -switching suppliers is required for effective competition. You or others are probably still with ESB, for example, when you could get a better rate from SSE. What does this mean? It means the wholesale cost reductions haven't been passed on to consumers fully because we are complacent when it comes to changing our supplier for a better deal. Which is understandable, most people have enough things to worry about. Do you remember the ads with Lucy Kennedy, telling us all to switch to Bord Gais when they entered the market? And the 'power of one' campaign? Yeah, they didn't work. We need to pay more attention to our bills and where there is a better deal. Bonkers.ie is a great resource for this. With smart technology this could be automated in the future which would be great - an automatically competitive market!

As above, there is peer reviewed research to back this up. Anyone interested please PM and I will direct you to some top work on this.

I would like to note that this thread is a vehicle for propogating falsehood. I am well aware of the old adage 'don't argue with a fool'. Happy to engage with evidence based argument but not gonna engage with personal jabs or the like

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

Did you read that in a pamphlet someone handed to you?

Competition here coincided with price rises due to the need to make the market more attractive to potential service providers who would then busily "compete" to supply the very same product (electricity) under different and interesting brand names to the consumer.

As a result of competition, carbon tax and subsidising wind and solar farms, the consumer is now benefitting from having some of the most expensive electricity prices in Europe and that is not going to change during any major investment to attempt to transition off of fossil fuels towards a zero carbon economy.

Also, competition when the good is homogeneous like electricity is the best type of competition! All they can compete on is price! Which should drive the price down to marginal cost. More options means the marginal cost will fall. This has happened in the wholesale market. For the reasons explained above it hasn't happened in the retail market.

Water John

According to some posters here, these global asset managers are idiots for warning on climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/10/tackle-climate-or-face-financial-crash-say-worlds-biggest-investors

Money will talk. This is the biggest shift I have seen.

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

You are confusing the wholesale and retail markets. Wholesale market competition will benefit. More competition reduces prices. Ireland's wholesale market is amongst the most competitive in the world. It works really well and wholesale prices have fallen with wind.

There is peer reviewed research to back this up. Eirgrid say this themselves. Anyone interested please PM and I will direct you to some top work on this.

The retail market suffers because consumers do not switch -switching suppliers is required for effective competition. You or others are probably still with ESB, for example, when you could get a better rate from SSE. What does this mean? It means the wholesale cost reductions haven't been passed on to consumers fully because we are complacent when it comes to changing our supplier for a better deal. Which is understandable, most people have enough things to worry about. Do you remember the ads with Lucy Kennedy, telling us all to switch to Bord Gais when they entered the market? And the 'power of one' campaign? Yeah, they didn't work. We need to pay more attention to our bills and where there is a better deal. Bonkers.ie is a great resource for this. With smart technology this could be automated in the future which would be great - an automatically competitive market!

As above, there is peer reviewed research to back this up. Anyone interested please PM and I will direct you to some top work on this.

I would like to note that this thread is a vehicle for propogating falsehood. I am well aware of the old adage 'don't argue with a fool'. Happy to engage with evidence based argument but not gonna engage with personal jabs or the like

Back up a moment.
More competition has not been accompanied by lower prices for the consumer.
This is a fact.
You effectively claiming that Irish retail electricity prices are rising because people are not switching supplier.

That differs substantially to the variety of reasons given by suppliers each time they raise their prices.

If it is a major factor that the CRU has acknowledged when granting price increases it just demonstrates that companies are not competing effectively enough to attract customers who see switching campaigns as rackets designed to get people on board on the strength of introductory offers which soon revert to the same prices.

That they are failing to attract customers is their problem, this is supposed to be a business proposal, instead it is closer to a legal cartel.

If I open a shop and don't get customers I fold.
But this joke of competition in the retail market for electricity is propped up by rising prices to the consumer apparently.

This is why one supplier here is not constantly 30 per cent cheaper than another supplier and why we are presented with the illusion of competition where a lot a lack of subscribers as per your explanation has to be carried by other subscribers.

Please show one supplier who has cited a lack of customers as the reason for them raising prices.

A link to a media report on them raising prices again will suffice, one that I might have missed.

Then I'll show you the company that is failing to compete effectively, being unable to atttact consumers with its offering, and is superfluous to this market.

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

Back up a moment.
More competition has not been accompanied by lower prices for the consumer.
This is a fact.

Let me reiterate.
Wholesale market: Excess capacity (both wind and fossil) has lowered wholesale prices.

Wind depresses wholesale prices
Retail market: A lack of switching has not allowed this to pass through fully to consumers.

dense wrote: »

You effectively claiming that Irish retail electricity prices are rising because people are not switching supplier.

I didn't say that. I am saying the cost reductions are not being fully passed through

dense wrote: »

That differs substantially to the variety of reasons given by suppliers each time they raise their prices.

Suppliers will eke out whatever they can from the consumer. We need to get a good deal. If I pay a fiver for the newspaper every day, even though the shop across the road will sell it for a euro, I can't complain when everyone charges a fiver. Or worse, sees if they can get a bit more money out of me.

dense wrote: »

If it is a major factor that the CRU has acknowledged when granting price increases it just demonstrates that companies are not competing effectively enough to attract customers who see switching campaigns as rackets designed to get people on board on the strength of introductory offers which soon revert to the same prices.

This is not very clear - would be useful if you could rephrase. Companies are doing just fine, too fine, that's the problem! they don't want competition, they want to sell the newspaper for a fiver! We need to shop around so they give us a good price. The introductory tariff thing is a huge problem and I agree, is there to obfuscate and hide the true cost.

dense wrote: »

That they are failing to attract customers is their problem, this is supposed to be a business proposal, instead it is closer to a legal cartel.

Well, it is our problem if we are all paying a fiver for the newspaper. Unless we are happy to pay the fiver. But it is our own fault if the price is high and we didn't go across the road and pay a euro.

dense wrote: »

If I open a shop and don't get customers I fold.
But this joke of competition in the retail market for electricity is propped up by rising prices to the consumer apparently.

That's not how it works. Firms set a price that people will pay. We aren't shopping around, these firms aren't folding as a result. I agree, there is too little competition.

dense wrote: »

This is why one supplier here is not constantly 30 per cent cheaper than another supplier and why we are presented with the illusion of competition where a lot a lack of subscribers as per your explanation has to be carried by other subscribers.

This is because we are all willing to pay the high price. It is a typical oligopoly with a price kink. I drop the price and I lose revenue but people don't switch so I lose more than I gain. If people switched, price per unit would fall but I'd sell more units.

dense wrote: »

Please show one supplier who has cited a lack of customers as the reason for them raising prices.

I hope that my explanations have illustrated that the suppliers raise prices because they can take supernormal profit. We are in agreement - this is a lack of competition issue. They are not going to admit to shafting us.

dense wrote: »

A link to a media report on them raising prices again will suffice, one that I might have missed.

Then I'll show you the company that is failing to compete effectively, being unable to atttact consumers with its offering, and is superfluous to this market.

Would love to hear a reasoning why a firm is superfluous to a market with insufficient competition.

Harry Palmr

Water John wrote: »

According to some posters here, these global asset managers are idiots for warning on climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/10/tackle-climate-or-face-financial-crash-say-worlds-biggest-investors

Money will talk. This is the biggest shift I have seen.

Yep people say capitalists are planet wreckers, when actually its the consumer that's to blame combined political policies (see Ireland as fine example of doing nothing while buying carbon credits) - business knows if it's to keep making money it needs a planet upon which money can be made. When you have 32 trillion USD to move about the globe you can make a point pretty quickly. Hopefully they start by boycotting the USA, Brazil, Australia and Russia.
Not sure if the Saudi's would notice but if they did them as well.

https://theinvestoragenda.org/areas-of-impact/policy-advocacy/

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

We need to shop around so they give us a good price.

We aren't shopping around, these firms aren't folding as a result.

Companies are doing just fine, too fine, that's the problem!

I agree, there is too little competition.
The introductory tariff thing is a huge problem and I agree, is there to obfuscate and hide the true cost.

We are in agreement - this is a lack of competition issue. They are not going to admit to shafting us.

What exactly is it that we're NOT agreeing on again??

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

You and your co-concerned lefty friends refusal to discuss the unprecedented effects that rapidly implementing your far reaching global plan will have, which will necessitate changing of all aspects of society.


"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

If you simply don't know what all this means for society (but still want to push it anyway) just say so.

If you do know, give some details of the changes that we will be required to agree to make, in order for your shiny new plan to work.

Then outline whether you'd endorse forcing society to make these changes if society does not approve of your plan.

And whether you'd like to try to use force to push the global plan through in that event, using reasoning that violence would be justified given what's at stake.

Peaceful global solutions seem very far off, with France now taking its national sovereignty and autonomy very seriously all of a sudden.

Macron's guys are now warning against interfering or commenting on it's recent climbdown on carbon taxes:


"We do not take domestic American politics into account and we want that to be reciprocated," Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told LCI television.

"I say this to Donald Trump and the French president says it too: leave our nation be."


https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/190594-181209-france-tells-trump-to-stop-interfering-in-its-politics

"Leave our nation be!"
The irony in this is rich for anyone observing calls for the rapid implementation of an unprecedented global solution.

When the global economy is based upon wasteful use of resources and generating pollution of our air and oceans that are ridiculously unsustainable and we already are seeing the impacts of such wasteful economic activity, then the choice is to either carry on regardless and end up with an environmental and economic collapse, or recognise that changes need to be made and plan ahead to implement them in the least disruptive way possible while still meeting the goal of creating a sustainable economic system.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Taking that thought to it's logical conclusion, you could have supertankers converted into giant batteries and charged in sunny regions and sailing to less sunnier places to discharge.

Or convert solar power into Hydrogen which can be shipped or piped to provide carbon neutral energy where it's needed

dense

Just to recap, in the last few weeks here the consensus from the warming camp has been to agree with UCD's Earth Institute and say that it is scientifically inaccurate to claim that emissions are causing climate change, instead it is more accurate to say that emissions have been "linked" to climate change.

Also, the concept of global average temperatures rising has similarly now been shelved with Akrasia outlining the inconvenience caused to those pushing the global warming bandwagon by the lack of consensus amongst earth scientists who disagree on what the global average temperature was that we are not supposed to be diverging from, what it is now, or what it should be.

Therefore, discussions about limiting uncerain temperature rises below similarly uncertain baselines instantly become moot.

Couple all of that with the acute reluctance/inability of the climate-concerned here to elaborate on what the IPCC means when its recent report says that the solution to solving their perceived climate problems will require effecting unprecedented changes to all aspects of society thereby causing unkown and unprecedented effects on every aspect of society, and it becomes clear that no one here pushing this agenda understands why they are pushing it, what it is, or what affect it will have on society.

It is nothing other than a bandwagon that they have hitched themselves on to for no other reason except that others have done so, and they feel good in groups that think alike, the very epitome of group think, exposing the group security that comes from an inability to critically analyse what they are being told and being unable to explain why they are endorsing it.

xckjoo

When did recapping become "here's the agenda I've been trying to force down peoples throats despite it being repeatedly and roundly refuted"?

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

When did recapping become "here's the agenda I've been trying to force down peoples throats despite it being repeatedly and roundly refuted"?

Those thanking the posts of the climate alarmed clearly endorse Dr. JimBob's position on the causality issue and everyone also agrees with Akrasia's recent observation regarding the lack of consensus amongst earth scientists regarding the past, present and preferred global average temperature.


Nobody pressing the thanks buttons has challenged these new positions that I have mentioned, so it fallacious to claim that they have been roundly refuted.

As for agendas, their reluctance to discuss the IPPC's latest advice to society about the unprecedented impacts we should prepare to experience should we adopt it's agenda and recommendations to rapidly stop using fossil fuels does not demonstrate any refutation of the IPCC'S recent advice to society.

I thought at least one person might have said it was incumbent upon the IPCC to advise of the consequences, but no, didn't happen either.

Just mute silence and pressing the thanks button.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

Those thanking the posts of the climate alarmed clearly endorse Dr. JimBob's position on the causality issue and everyone also agrees with Akrasia's recent observation regarding the lack of consensus amongst earth scientists regarding the past, present and preferred global average temperature.


Nobody pressing the thanks buttons has challenged these new positions that I have mentioned, so it fallacious to claim that they have been roundly refuted.

As for agendas, their reluctance to discuss the IPPC's latest advice to society about the unprecedented impacts we should prepare to experience should we adopt it's agenda and recommendations to rapidly stop using fossil fuels does not demonstrate any refutation of the IPCC'S recent advice to society.

I thought at least one person might have said it was incumbent upon the IPCC to advise of the consequences, but no, didn't happen either.

Just mute silence and pressing the thanks button.

You're getting very upset about people thanking posts.

Maybe if you stopped intentionally twisting every statement you don't like, people would stop thanking posts that call you out for it.

xckjoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're getting very upset about people thanking posts.

Maybe if you stopped intentionally twisting blatantly lying about every statement you don't like, people would stop thanking posts that call you out for it.

You had a typo there. Hope you don't mind if I fix it for you :pac: