Climate "Science"
#1
In the FT today:

"Scientists" claim Europe's electricity generation from wind will be blown off course by a drop in wind speeds linked to 'global stilling' and climate change.

BBC 2019:

"Scientists" claim climate change is fuelling a rise in global wind speed to boost green power.

Which scientists should we believe?
Reply
#2
I know who we shouldn't believe, you and Paul Staines.
Reply
#3
The Green lobby, with Cheerleader Boris at its helm, are now fully in charge. And people an surprised that their energy bills are shooting up as we subsidise expensive green energy.
Reply
#4
(10-10-2021, 08:38 AM)Cunninghamismagic Wrote: The Green lobby, with Cheerleader Boris at its helm, are now fully in charge. And people an surprised that their energy bills are shooting up as we subsidise expensive green energy.

Is this a piss take?

Wind is cheap as fuck. As is solar. Blame Thatcher for not investing into nuclear infrastructure in the 80s to replace the Magnox reactors instead having us be reliant on gas for rising energy bills, and this government for selling off storage capacity and leaving the IEM.
Reply
#5
(10-10-2021, 08:51 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 08:38 AM)Cunninghamismagic Wrote: The Green lobby, with Cheerleader Boris at its helm, are now fully in charge. And people an surprised that their energy bills are shooting up as we subsidise expensive green energy.

Is this a piss take?

Wind is cheap as fuck. As is solar. Blame Thatcher for not investing into nuclear infrastructure in the 80s to replace the Magnox reactors instead having us be reliant on gas for rising energy bills, and this government for selling off storage capacity and leaving the IEM.

What has the Mail, Express, Torygraph and GBeebies told CIM to believe?
Reply
#6
(10-10-2021, 08:51 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: Wind is cheap as fuck. 

But what about the 'science' of "global stilling"?
Reply
#7
(10-10-2021, 09:21 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 08:51 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 08:38 AM)Cunninghamismagic Wrote: The Green lobby, with Cheerleader Boris at its helm, are now fully in charge. And people an surprised that their energy bills are shooting up as we subsidise expensive green energy.

Is this a piss take?

Wind is cheap as fuck. As is solar. Blame Thatcher for not investing into nuclear infrastructure in the 80s to replace the Magnox reactors instead having us be reliant on gas for rising energy bills, and this government for selling off storage capacity and leaving the IEM.

What has the Mail, Express, Torygraph and GBeebies told CIM to believe?

Did you copy and paste that from the Guardian again?

The conversation to (less efficient) green energy is costing a fortune. 
Agree not investing in nuclear was a huge mistake. Fracking would have been a useful short term option (as they are finding in the US where energy prices aren't shooting up like here). Unfortunately the green lobby and Russian propaganda put an end to that. So we find ourselves reliant on Putin and Russian gas and green energy. Storing up big future issues
Reply
#8
(10-10-2021, 04:35 PM)Cunninghamismagic Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 09:21 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 08:51 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 08:38 AM)Cunninghamismagic Wrote: The Green lobby, with Cheerleader Boris at its helm, are now fully in charge. And people an surprised that their energy bills are shooting up as we subsidise expensive green energy.

Is this a piss take?

Wind is cheap as fuck. As is solar. Blame Thatcher for not investing into nuclear infrastructure in the 80s to replace the Magnox reactors instead having us be reliant on gas for rising energy bills, and this government for selling off storage capacity and leaving the IEM.

What has the Mail, Express, Torygraph and GBeebies told CIM to believe?

Did you copy and paste that from the Guardian again?

The conversation to (less efficient) green energy is costing a fortune. 
Agree not investing in nuclear was a huge mistake. Fracking would have been a useful short term option (as they are finding in the US where energy prices aren't shooting up like here). Unfortunately the green lobby and Russian propaganda put an end to that. So we find ourselves reliant on Putin and Russian gas and green energy. Storing up big future issues

Fracking is a dead duck. It's impossible to do with our geology and population density, we are not the US. What put an end to it was not the green lobby nor Russia (we buy fuck all gas from Russia it might surprise you to learn, so why would we care? We're not Germany) but the geological effects of it scaling up with larger magnitude tremors, the same thing that killed it in the Netherlands and Denmark though we had the benefit of hindsight unlike them so our limits were rightly more cautious based on their data. Those limits were put into place by review with the government and the iMechE, unless you think that the iMechE is now beholden to Russia.

The only people who support fracking are those with shares in Quadrilla and those who listen to the every word of bullshit merchants who have shares in Quadrilla.

(10-10-2021, 02:51 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 08:51 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: Wind is cheap as fuck. 

But what about the 'science' of "global stilling"?

Did you read the FT article?

10% decrease in wind speeds as an observed trend by 2100 assuming those short term trends are continued, even with that it's cheap as fuck. And the phenomenon isn't uniform, there was a nice graphic that showed the variation in areas close to the sea and areas further south where the recorded wind speeds were not below average.
Reply
#9
(10-10-2021, 05:49 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: Did you read the FT article?

10% decrease in wind speeds as an observed trend by 2100 assuming those short term trends are continued, even with that it's cheap as fuck. And the phenomenon isn't uniform, there was a nice graphic that showed the variation in areas close to the sea and areas further south where the recorded wind speeds were not below average.

Yes I did, and it runs entirely contrary to climate 'science' announced in the BBC article of 2019. 

I prefer my power constant and consistent if it's all the same with you. Nuclear and gas.
Reply
#10
FT article - recorded inland speeds below average in Europe.

BBC article - journal article in Nature says that ocean wind speeds are getting faster.

Where is the contradiction? They're on about two completely different things. If you'd read them properly then you would have noticed that.

Nuclear is now chronically underfunded thanks to the short-sightedness of dear Margaret and the dumb hero worship of her by Tory blowhards that prevent any constructive criticism of her policies from the liberal right, and gas is a dead duck as if you have nuclear acting as the baseline you don't need it, look at France as a perfect example of that. You don't have both Nuclear and gas, you have one or the other and Nuclear is better in every way for the direction we're headed.

Nuclear and renewables, nuclear to manage the baseload and renewables to scale to meet fluctuations. That is what is needed and if the government could get off their lazy arses and invest to offset the capital cost deterrent to Nuclear instead of sitting on their arses for the last 42 years that would be great.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}