Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

silverwhistle

Martyn does have a point Ken, if you've challenged that other poster I must have missed it.


You only have to see the misleading title of his latest opus at 8.41pm to question his motives. National Grid hasn't yet explained the outage in detail but we certainly know a gas plant was also involved..


Still, lucky it wasn't an unexpected outage of a nuclear power station. I think we can all agree though that the railways should have had a higher priority in the shut down stakes.

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

Martyn does have a point Ken, if you've challenged that other poster I must have missed it.

True. Most of GA’s posts have a technical element to them and usually lots of figures and I have no technical knowledge that would enable me to challenge or confirm them.

The posts from Mart that I tend to challenge usually originate from non technical articles in the media. Inevitably as Mart favours left of centre sources and my politics are right of centre there will be times when we will see things differently.

Hexane

JKenH wrote: »

True. Most of GA’s posts have a technical element to them and usually lots of figures and I have no technical knowledge that would enable me to challenge or confirm them.

You mean you're not an expert? With one degree in each of engineering, architecture, mathematics and environmental science? Well I don't think you should be commenting here then, because all of the rest of us are! Sorry, forget that, just joking...

And yes, GA provides figures from time to time, and I don't have all day to spend pointing out where they are wrong, so I usually pick him up on points where he is obviously wrong. Luckily for me, these are numerous... (also the bear AI is not working well just yet)

JKenH wrote: »

The posts from Mart that I tend to challenge usually originate from non technical articles in the media. Inevitably as Mart favours left of centre sources and my politics are right of centre there will be times when we will see things differently.

I must say I have always read Martyn's posts positively (until very recently) and I never really saw a pattern of your disagreeing with him. Martyn obviously sees things that I do not! On the other hand, I don't particularly fasten onto personalities, it's entirely possible that you made some right-of-centre comment sometime and I just looked at it and thought to myself "oh look, another idiot" and moved on Being able to look at a post and decide not to answer it (ahem Martyn) is a character strength...
A while ago we also had a very complicated situation with joefizz who I vaguely recall has a quite complicated PV/battery/something setup (it did not involve nuclear fusion or even fission, never mind CHP nor HPD nor COP) in Northern Ireland and occasionally Antarctica, and another regular poster here was insistent on denying that any of it could be true and demanding detailed figures about the poster's lifestyle, electricity inputs/outputs etc so that they could all be analysed. And being rather insulting when walls of text were offered instead of the auditing figures that they had been demanding. Can't remember if you were one of the people who kindly pointed out that the interrogation went a bit too far, but it's very possible.

Let's face it folks, there are posters who claim that ICE vehicle pollution has zero or almost zero impact on health, and that the reaction to Fukushima was an "over-reaction" (without even realising the pun involved, I suspect). And then there are those of us who have invested numerous thousands of pounds in renewable power sources in parallel with an intention to make or save money. Let's try to remember that the latter people are not in league with the former people, even if they occasionally question assumptions that we might all agree with.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I can respond to that if you wish, in fact I would quite like to, but we did agree to let you go see what the world of RE had to offer.

That's OK I can multi-task, quite capable of chewing gum and tryping at the same time.

You seem to have the time to respond to me, so I'm still waiting for you to take GA's anti-RE comments to task, or to question the extreme and extremely false claims about coal pollution, ICEV pollution, and Fukushima.

I can't believe that you aren't reading his posts as that would be the only rational explanation as to why you chose (subconsciously) to use the exact same terminolgy as him when throwing insults at me [nice spot P-o-S, thanks.]

You may well not be aware of the pro-FF comments made on the Energy Boards under another account, but during these last few weeks when you've chosen to demand respect for his views, you can not have missed the use (mis-use?) of this board in posting multiple pro-nuclear arguments - arguments that simply don't stack up in any sensible, logical or technical way. And now we see a thread clearly created to knock wind energy, though you may pretend that its purpose is different. [Edit - Wow, I see that yet another 'nuclear' thread has now been opened. M.]

So if opinions count, then you will want to defend mine, to him.
If facts count (I know you have argued the opposite) then you will want to challenge his claims and support those of say Z.
If fairness counts, then you will want to exhibit it, by applying some.

So, tick, tick, tick ......

Martyn1981

Hexane wrote: »

Being able to look at a post and decide not to answer it (ahem Martyn) is a character strength...

That's very true. However, experience on these boards has taught me to treat different posters in different ways.

I have placed GA on ignore as the posts are extreme, and obvious, and receive great criticism. But unfortunately I found that not defending myself (nor RE) with other more subtle posters only seems to lead to 'more of the same'.

Perhaps my concerns will be lifted soon, as we some sort of pushback against GA's comments in an attempt at fairness ...... or not! They are, after all, ripe for picking as you note:

Hexane wrote: »

Let's face it folks, there are posters who claim that ICE vehicle pollution has zero or almost zero impact on health, and that the reaction to Fukushima was an "over-reaction" (without even realising the pun involved, I suspect).

Sorry if I've let you down recently. If it's any consolation I'd much rather chat about RE, than waste time defending my position on GA, or my green'ness or lack of!

Martyn1981

Not green, not ethical, but given the current ongoing assault of the G&E board, I thought this article was timely looking at Australia and it's consideration of new nuclear under the proposal of SMR's.

The article is not exactly favourable, but I hope reasonable and balanced:

Nuclear energy inquiry: is Angus Taylor's move logical or just for the backbench?

In Australia, the last full examination of nuclear power was a 2016 South Australian royal commission that found neither large nor modular nuclear reactors were likely to deliver a commercial return between now and 2050 even if a strong carbon price was introduced, something the government says it has no intention of doing.

My bold - but note that whenever carbon taxes/prices are used to justify/support the economics of nuclear, you must also note that it will boost the economics of RE too.

More recently, an analysis of the cost of electricity generation by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator published in December found modular nuclear power was likely to be far more expensive out to 2050 than all other forms currently used or seriously considered by the government, including solar and wind with storage.

From a global perspective, an assessment by the International Energy Agency in May found nuclear power in the developed world was in decline, with plants closing due to age and little new investment. Only four large-scale plants are under construction in Europe and North America, and all have suffered delays, cost blowouts or both. Construction costs have nearly doubled since 2015.

Despite this, given the depth of emissions cuts needed to meet the goals of the Paris agreement, the agency has urged countries to take action to help nuclear energy. It said that should include a focus on modular generators, which it described as not yet technologically mature but potentially safer and easier to finance than big plants.

A misleading argument, since the nuclear funding could, instead, be directed into even more RE, storage and RE + storage. There are no scaleability issues requiring the addition of nuclear energy.

In essence, if money is tight, then RE is the cheaper option.
If money is freely available, then more RE is the cheaper option.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That's OK I can multi-task, quite capable of chewing gum and tryping at the same time.

:rotfl:
Glad you said that Mart, not me.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

:rotfl:
Glad you said that Mart, not me.

Tick, tick, tick, tock, tock, tock!

Martyn1981

Hopefully a news item to follow, but looks like wind was supplying 50% of demand during part of Friday night / Saturday morning.

Obviously demand at night is lower, so wind %'s will rise, but records keep falling, which is a nice thing.

1961Nick

silverwhistle wrote: »

.............. I think we can all agree though that the railways should have had a higher priority in the shut down stakes.

Is that even possible without massive expenditure on transmission infrastructure that might only ever be needed once in a blue moon.