Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Just when I was hoping things were getting a bit more sensible you resurrect the “we” and “they” division. Is that some sort of paranoia?

The title of this thread is “Green, ethical, energy issues in the news” - your commas not mine. The thread is therefore open for discussion of green and/or ethical and/or energy issues in the news; not just green energy or ethical energy.

Inevitably with such wide scope there will be huge potential for differing views and I would consider it extremely unlikely that any two people will hold identical views on green issues, ethical issues and energy issues.

For instance, I consider myself to be green because I plant trees, appreciate the natural environment (without wind farms), preserve habitats on my own land for birds, mammals and wildlife, use renewable energy where it is economic for me to do so, wash out my plastic bags and reuse them, run cars which emit very low levels of CO2 (because it is cheaper road tax than running a dirty car), have solar panels and ASHPs, save energy wherever possible and spend my holidays walking (and riding on steam trains). I don’t burn coal at home but I do burn wood I have grown myself. Yet someone else who is, say, vegan and uses public transport might feel strongly I should not ride on steam trains or eat meat because of AGW and should use public transport but share my views on caring for the natural world, onshore wind farms, using sustainable fuel etc.

So in that situation some things we do agree on and some things we don’t and I think you will find that’s the case even with your wife or best friend not just me or GA or Nick. Harmony at home, in the pub or on a forum depends on our understanding that the other party might see some things differently to you but on others agree.

It doesn’t help to put labels on people as it not only alienates them but locks one into a view of that person that you can never undo without a huge loss of face. It also polarises attitudes and other people who might be largely supportive of you then cannot agree on anything with the other person as they don’t want to offend you. (For “you” read “anybody”). Thus we end up with two sides just as in the Brexit debate that can never come together.

Last year when I first came across this MSE forum I thought it was a wonderful source of information and help., largely because of your contribution. Anyone coming across it now will just see us as a bunch of bickering losers trying to score points off each other.

While I am sure you will see it differently a lot of the divisiveness on here has arisen as a result of a long standing dispute you have perpetuated with GA, and subsequently anyone who agreed with him, which has split the contributors down the middle.

None of us are blameless as it is our choice to post but it is your thread; I don’t think perpetuating divisions as you are wont on doing is the way forward so you might want to consider closing it or getting it back on track with some statesman like leadership.

Ken

Tick, tick, tick, tock, tock, tock.

To repeat, myself (and others) who have over the years engaged with GA (and other his other account) have sadly had to move to ignore.

Since you and others are unable to support, defend, argue for the crazy extreme comments he's made, and even refer to them in responses to me. You yourself said you don't agree with them.

Then demanding I respect those opinions is a pointless argument.

Trying to pretend this is a matter of defending someones right to an opinion is pointless, since I've never said he doesn't have a right to an opinion, so that's a false argument, and as I said the desperation end.

What we know is that he supports coal, fracking and nuclear, and has (whilst you've been desperately, and might I say honourably) opened multiple nuclear threads and an obvious anti-wind thread on the Green and Ethical Board.

Most of his threads should be on the Energy Board where his other account earned ever more ridicule, and led, I suspect to the creation of 'GA'.


I should also add, that the appalling technical side/conclusions are part of the reason some gave up, especially when combined with the repetition of false claims.

On one occasion I gave OFGEM analysis on bill breakdowns to show his claims were entirely false, but like a MAGA hat wearer, he simply dismissed OFGEM as fake news. At some point you have to give up, as I did, and as have many others. P-o-S needs a special mention as he tried hard to play devil's advocate, but eventually had to give up too.


If you can't defend and support his extreme opinions, then please stop demanding I (or others do), it's a hopeless argument you keep pushing. Tick, tick, tick.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

As we've already seen reports of power & storage provision projects involving long term contracts for electricity supplied directly from 400MWp PV at ~$0.02/kWh with an on-cost of $0.013/kWh (3.3cents total!) for supply via storage (200MW supply/800MWh storage) starting to appear, then the cost viability of storage has already been established on a commercial basis ....

Effectively, 1.3cents/kWh for the storage element places the $20/kWh in capital as requiring around 1500cycles over the contracted purchase agreement (25years), which would tend to convey that the amortised capital cost would exceed the $20 mentioned in the article by a considerable degree ... however, wholesale energy supply from storage at anywhere near 3.3cents looks remarkably competitive against USA average nuclear generation costs of ~$0.06/kWh (~$0.04 for capital & fuel plus ~$0.02 for operations) (Source update June 2019) ...

... the alternative way to cost storage relative to (say) nuclear would simply involve base amortised supply cost for each source of (6-2cents), so $40/MWh of the equivalent nuclear supply could be allocated to whatever storage technology is required, which is considerably higher (3x!) than the $13 currently being contracted for batteries in California .... no wonder they're considering the RE solution!

HTH
Z

Yes. This came up on Cleantechnica recently as the incredibly detailed reports on storage costs (Lazards is one) clearly set out how expensive storage is. But the contracts being issued, and the prices we can calculate for ourselves on installed domestic systems, always seem far, far cheaper.

I've never been able to square this, possibly it's because try as I might, I can't get any of the Lazard figures to make sense, especially their quoted battery prices across various technologies. I have to assume the fault lies with me.


Been mulling yesterday's post, and simply have to repeat the news, as I read it, that 95% RE penetration is cost effective based on today's storage costs and technology. That's mind blowingly positive, unless again I've made an error of a full order of magnitude ......... $0.13c ......

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Haven't spent much time looking, but it looks like it's a small fuel cell integrated with a standard gas boiler (various capacities available) ...

HTH
Z

Very poor post to follow, as I can't find the story, but I watched a vid on domestic fuel cell boilers using methane ............... AHHHHHHHHH.

Start again, the key search word was methane!!!!!!!

Right these are CHP fuel cell boilers, and I may have mentioned them before, can't remember.

Anyway, my thought was that this would be a fantastic idea if coupled with PV and batts. Since as you say, time of demand is the issue.

So charge your batts in the early hours, whilst in bed, low leccy demand, but need to warm the house up, and perhaps the same in the evening when leccy demand is falling.

The efficiency (leccy side) is 50%.

Note - simply background info, no idea how the product has got on.

Ceres Power | Fully Charged

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

The differences Mart and I have had recently have been about Big Oil rather than RE except when I told him he is not green enough.

Out of interest, are you now aware of the 30-40yr anti-science campaign that Big Oil ran? I ask since the revelation that their own science confirmed AGW in the 80's/90's would clearly(?) confirm that they put profits above society.

BTW, shame you tried to undermine my opinions with your short campaign against my green'ness. That combined with your post on right v's left (seemed unnecessary) was when, for me, you reveled too much to maintain a faux moral basis for your position, we've previously seen a lot of crocodile tears on this board by those trying to undermine RE ...... for the poor 'poor'. Perhaps I should start a second stopwatch as I wait for you to challenge GA's green'ness.

Oh, and don't take any of this too seriously, time is my friend, especially where GA is concerned, you will, believe me, become ever more strained trying to defend his opinions. So we'll both look back in a few months, or years and laugh at the time wasted. I might even get a 'well you did try to tell me' from you.


Odd question, but going back a bit to your post where you quoted me, but the text changed, and I asked if you'd done anything odd - any thoughts?

I once copied and pasted directly from a friend updating the battery thread on his findings, and on clicking 'preview post' instantly got my IP address banned.

Turns out there are some flaws in the MSE protection software, and how text is handled can trigger false concerns. [MSE unblocked me quite quickly, but said that e-mail text should be copied and pasted to notebook first.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Apparently there have been dangerous drops in frequency over the past few years, so perhaps the latest event will concentrate a few minds. As a technical problem we know it is easy enough to overcome with a bit of will and desire, even if someone writes misleading thread titles on the back of it..

There is a 'thing' called firm frequency response. I know nowt about it, but it exists, and the UK has auctions for its provision.

Lately batteries have done well in those auctions, as we lose big coal powered turbines that help maintain frequency.

Here's an almost random article I found, but I think it covers teh key points:

Latest FFR Auction Results: Limejump Secures 34% of the March FFR Dynamic Tender Auction, Including Contracts for both Balancing and FFR Volume

Martyn1981

Hexane wrote: »

Hey buddy, no need to pin your heart on your sleeve and then wave your arm about... we already knew these are your priorities
Now now young man, what have I told you about being polite to the other children?
That's right! Keep it neural! The bear AI will solve everything, very soon!

I'll probably get told of by Ken or Nick for this, but I do find your little responses to GA hysterical, almost a daily highlight.



I assume most people already know this, and I only post it as she is extremely open and positive about it, but Greta does have a form of autism, which might explain some of her quirks, and she is also an autism advocate, and (I believe) it helps her to focus so strongly on what she believes. So she's a double champion in my book. :T




Apologies to all for too many posts this morning - I'm now off to do some ultra slow bricklaying before the sun gets too high, after a brief scan of other threads.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

J
None of us are blameless as it is our choice to post but it is your thread; I don’t think perpetuating divisions as you are wont on doing is the way forward so you might want to consider closing it or getting it back on track with some statesman like leadership.

Ken

Further apologies for another post, but I'm an ickle bit angry now having read some other posts, so needed to respond.

You seem to think it's 'just me' but I've noted just how many other posts yesterday were challenging GA's comments, and constant pushing of nuclear (on a G&E board?). Then found an extremely false post from Hexane, who mocks GA constantly, but accuses me of operating a second account.

I do wish you guys would stop lecturing me on morals, and begin displaying some. I support RE, not insane nuclear arguments, get over it.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Out of interest, are you now aware of the 30-40yr anti-science campaign that Big Oil ran? I ask since the revelation that their own science confirmed AGW in the 80's/90's would clearly(?) confirm that they put profits above society.

Yes, we had that argument a few months back.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Odd question, but going back a bit to your post where you quoted me, but the text changed, and I asked if you'd done anything odd - any thoughts?

I don’t know which particular posts ou are referring to. Please enlighten me.

JKenH

Great_Ache wrote: »

dont let martin push you around[STRIKE] GreatApe,[/STRIKE] Ken. stand up for yourself man!

your a valuable contributor to this board with your opinions on how rubbish clean energy is and now good and clean nuclearand coal is. we need this sort of clear sky thinking. too many people are afraid of nuclear yet don't realise that we could have high grade pultonium in our houses for heating and would get no more radiation than if we sat in the sarkofogas at chernobil. keep up the good work arguing against this so called green revolution. big business needs people like you. In my small way I also follow your lead and Im arguing for tobacco products to be given to children. tobacco bosses need money too just liek nuclear and fossil fuel boses.

you're a hero [STRIKE]GA,[/STRIKE] Ken.

I am simply overwhelmed by your kind words of support. If only we had more posters like you. I never realised one person could have such insight.