Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

EVandPV wrote: »

Wrong again .....

I said consumption you posted generation
Consumption in Scotland is significantly less than production because they are a big net exporter another reason every country can't do a Scotland

Eg 2016

Total nuclear generation 19.6TWh
Total electricity consumption 38TWh
~51% nuclear

EVandPV

GreatApe wrote: »

I said consumption you posted generation
Consumption in Scotland is significantly less than production because they are a big net exporter another reason every country can't do a Scotland

Eg 2016

Total nuclear generation 19.6TWh
Total electricity consumption 38TWh
~51% nuclear

Last time I checked, this isn't 2016.
I post consumption figures for 2018-2019, nuclear 29.2%, supplied by the National Grid and you still try and deny it with figures from 3 years ago.
Unbelievable ! :rotfl:

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nearly 90yrs ago:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Perhaps 'man' could also mean nation or Prime Minister?

In Australia, where their 'house' is literally on fire, we have the current PM trying to downplay the link between increased fires and AGW, something that has always been scientifically predicted to happen, and now the ex PM is going 'full denier'.

And what is 'interesting' about Australia and the strong denial position of many senior figures - it employs ~50,000 coal miners, and earns roughly US$30bn pa in coal exports.

Tony Abbott, former Australian PM, tells Israeli radio the world is 'in the grip of a climate cult'


Is it just me that finds it funny when the faith based deniers use projection to hide (from themselves) their insecurities by describing those that accept the scientific facts, as something akin to religous zealots, or cult members?

A term I find really funny is when the deniers describe those that choose to accept the opinion of experts, as 'sheeple'. "You guys are just sheeple, accepting the opinion of the experts and scientists (and evidence) rather than deciding for yourself."

Yeah, what do these 'experts' actually know!

Never fails to make me laugh.

GreatApe

EVandPV wrote: »

Last time I checked, this isn't 2016.
I post consumption figures for 2018-2019, nuclear 29.2%, supplied by the National Grid and you still try and deny it with figures from 3 years ago.
Unbelievable ! :rotfl:

The period you posted May 18 to April 19 half the blooming reactors in Scotland were shut for an extended inspection maintenance and refueling. Cracks were found in the graphite which too a long time to test it was confirmed okay and they are abck in operation now but that delayed start up for a long time. Hardly a typical period of time to use for output

The 2016 figure is a much more normal year for nuclear generation in Scotland similar to the average nuclear generation in Scotland over the last 20 years

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Perhaps 'man' could also mean nation or Prime Minister?

In Australia, where their 'house' is literally on fire, we have the current PM trying to downplay the link between increased fires and AGW, something that has always been scientifically predicted to happen, and now the ex PM is going 'full denier'.

And what is 'interesting' about Australia and the strong denial position of many senior figures - it employs ~50,000 coal miners, and earns roughly US$30bn pa in coal exports.

Tony Abbott, former Australian PM, tells Israeli radio the world is 'in the grip of a climate cult'


Is it just me that finds it funny when the faith based deniers use projection to hide (from themselves) their insecurities by describing those that accept the scientific facts, as something akin to religous zealots, or cult members?

A term I find really funny is when the deniers describe those that choose to accept the opinion of experts, as 'sheeple'. "You guys are just sheeple, accepting the opinion of the experts and scientists (and evidence) rather than deciding for yourself."

Yeah, what do these 'experts' actually know!

Never fails to make me laugh.

Climate change will cause the climate to change

Some locations will see net negatives

Some locations will see net positives

The overall position will be more or less negligible

If humanity had developed 20,000 years sooner, you would be crying that if we didn't maintain the ice age the hotter world would be uninhabitable all sorts of evil and bad would happen and the water level rises would be catastrophic. Fast forward 20,000 years and yes water levels are up the planet is a lot hotter but humans and humanity and the biosphere is just fine

It's such a non issue that even the cheerleaders like you have to invent stuff to be afraid of.... Rice will be less nutritious :rotfl:


And this is without even getting into the debate that there is no good or bad with regards to the biosphere only change. What's the comet that killed the dinosaurs good or bad? Well it killed the dinos so you can say that was bad but it gave rise to the mammals which was good. Who decides which version of history would have been better? For humans the vast death and destruction and climate change that asteroid caused caused was not only fantastic but a requirement for our very subsequent existence

Of every climate event in history. Asteroids to super volcanoes to mass chances in atmospheric oxygen and carbon. Every ice age. Every warming period. All of those 'negative' things were required for your existence so how were they negative they were very positive

Just because !!!! changes your narrow mind automatically sees a negative??

So since there is no net good or bad DNA survives and mutates into new things. The argument should be a purely economic one. Not addressing the problem might cost more than addressing the problem. But even that argument fails because human economic productivity grows exponentially. It means even if there is a problem the most economic way to deal with it is when we are far more productive. Half the world's population doesn't have a decent home they really don't care about fossil fuels and your ideology they might care once they've sorted out their housing situation

EVandPV

GreatApe wrote: »

The period you posted May 18 to April 19 half the blooming reactors in Scotland were shut for an extended inspection maintenance and refueling. Cracks were found in the graphite which too a long time to test it was confirmed okay and they are abck in operation now but that delayed start up for a long time. Hardly a typical period of time to use for output

The 2016 figure is a much more normal year for nuclear generation in Scotland similar to the average nuclear generation in Scotland over the last 20 years

Yeah, whatever.
Just keep digging yourself into that big hole. 👍

GreatApe

EVandPV wrote: »

Yeah, whatever.

:rotfl:

You couldn't make it up

The date range you used almost perfectly coincides with when the reactors were taken offline. Talk about propaganda

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43984040

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

Climate change will cause the climate to change

Some locations will see net negatives

Some locations will see net positives

The overall position will be more or less negligible

If humanity had developed 20,000 years sooner, you would be crying that if we didn't maintain the ice age the hotter world would be uninhabitable all sorts of evil and bad would happen and the water level rises would be catastrophic. Fast forward 20,000 years and yes water levels are up the planet is a lot hotter but humans and humanity and the biosphere is just fine

It's such a non issue that even the cheerleaders like you have to invent stuff to be afraid of.... Rice will be less nutritious :rotfl:


And this is without even getting into the debate that there is no good or bad with regards to the biosphere only change. What's the comet that killed the dinosaurs good or bad? Well it killed the dinos so you can say that was bad but it gave rise to the mammals which was good. Who decides which version of history would have been better? For humans the vast death and destruction and climate change that asteroid caused caused was not only fantastic but a requirement for our very subsequent existence

Of every climate event in history. Asteroids to super volcanoes to mass chances in atmospheric oxygen and carbon. Every ice age. Every warming period. All of those 'negative' things were required for your existence so how were they negative they were very positive

Just because !!!! changes your narrow mind automatically sees a negative??

So since there is no net good or bad DNA survives and mutates into new things. The argument should be a purely economic one. Not addressing the problem might cost more than addressing the problem. But even that argument fails because human economic productivity grows exponentially. It means even if there is a problem the most economic way to deal with it is when we are far more productive. Half the world's population doesn't have a decent home they really don't care about fossil fuels and your ideology they might care once they've sorted out their housing situation

I think this is incorrect. Yes the climate has always changed, however the current rate of change is two orders of magnitude faster than historic experience which makes it impossible for organisms to evolve fast enough to cope.

mmmmikey

Great news - we're saved


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50856275


.....and another success story for Scotland

EVandPV

GreatApe wrote: »

:rotfl:
You couldn't make it up

You seem to manage fine. :whistle: