Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

... Ah, so why do you continue to post in a very selective and carefully worded manner

Because this thread and this section of MSE has become nothing but a mouthpiece for the solar industry.


'Solar is wonderful', ‘all subsidies are well justified and any cuts are disgraceful.’ etc etc


Any post giving a more balanced view and daring to present a counter view is met with the type of posts, by several members of the club, seen over the past few days. Several posters have simply given up after the onslaught.


My posts that started the latest exchange, were merely links to a reports that gave a different slant on RE. Perhaps predictably this triggered the expected response.


The level of the stupidly pro-PV comments in that response were well demonstrated when it can be written about the late Prof Sir David MacKay formerly Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change:

his work on PV is ridiculed on renewables forums, as it seems designed purely to support his pro-nuclear position. His main failing relates to the efficiency of PV

Not a peep from you or anyone else in the ‘club’; the Guru has pronounced!

Indeed your latest couple of posts illustrate your Modus operandi. You know perfectly well what Monbiot stated, and also my contribution. Yet you quite deliberately tried to introduce a irrelevant set of criteria and resorted to mocking posts to ingratiate yourself with your group.


If you, and others, don't like what I post the answer is simple, put me on 'ignore' and you don't have to read my posts, and the Guru can contact fellow enthusiasts to do the same.Perhaps then other readers might contribute to this section and we can have a more balanced debate.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

My posts that started the latest exchange, were merely links to a reports that gave a different slant on RE. Perhaps predictably this triggered the expected response.

Your links were to old and debunked anti-PV articles.

Clearly you yourself don't even pretend to believe the information in them, otherwise you would happily answer my questions, so they were posted purely to attack PV.

Do you believe that the whole FiT budget will only be paid by poor domestic customers?

Do you believe a technology is invalid for the UK unless it can provide 100% of the UK's energy needs, or even just 100% of the UK's leccy needs?

Do you believe that normal (or 'typical') rooftop PV will never significantly exceed 10% efficiency?

Do you believe that PV consumes more energy in its manufacture than it will ever generate?

If you don't stand by the claims you have posted then how is that not trolling.

You now seem utterly obsessed with attacking green and ethical issues, and show an almost insane level of objection to anyone discussing PV (and RE) in a positive manner. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would take that position.

You may find it useful to take a step back, pause, count to ten and ponder this question:

Is it you, or everyone else?

To help you, may I suggest you look to the 19 public attitude surveys that DECC have carried out over the last 4.5 yrs, you will find:

Do you support or oppose the use of renewable energy for providing our electricity, fuel and heat?

Support 79%
Oppose 4%

Renewable energy industries and developments provide economic benefits to the UK

Agree 70%
Disagree 6%

I would be happy to have a large scale renewable energy development in my area

Agree 56%
Disagree 18%

Renewable energy developments should provide direct benefit to the communities in which they are located

Agree 77%
Disagree 5%

Generally speaking, do you support or oppose the use of the following renewable energy developments:

Solar
Support 82%
Oppose 4%


For comparison

From what you know, or have heard about using nuclear energy for generating electricity in the UK, do you support or oppose its use?

Support 33%
Oppose 26%


Rather than everyone else having to put you on ignore, can't you just ignore folk talking about RE?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

his work on PV is ridiculed on renewables forums, as it seems designed purely to support his pro-nuclear position. His main failing relates to the efficiency of PV

Am I wrong? Can you show that any of those three statements is incorrect?

Perhaps I have you at a slight disadvantage as I've actually read it, and I've been discussing it for many years, though not recently as it is somewhat out of date as it was written well before the costs plummeted and the efficiency rose ...... significantly. The result being that the PV (and RE) v's nuclear issue has been flipped.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Because this thread and this section of MSE has become nothing but a mouthpiece for the solar industry.


'Solar is wonderful', ‘all subsidies are well justified and any cuts are disgraceful.’ etc etc


Any post giving a more balanced view and daring to present a counter view is met with the type of posts, by several members of the club, seen over the past few days. Several posters have simply given up after the onslaught.


My posts that started the latest exchange, were merely links to a reports that gave a different slant on RE. Perhaps predictably this triggered the expected response.


The level of the stupidly pro-PV comments in that response were well demonstrated when it can be written about the late Prof Sir David MacKay formerly Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change:



Not a peep from you or anyone else in the ‘club’; the Guru has pronounced!

Indeed your latest couple of posts illustrate your Modus operandi. You know perfectly well what Monbiot stated, and also my contribution. Yet you quite deliberately tried to introduce a irrelevant set of criteria and resorted to mocking posts to ingratiate yourself with your group.


If you, and others, don't like what I post the answer is simple, put me on 'ignore' and you don't have to read my posts, and the Guru can contact fellow enthusiasts to do the same.Perhaps then other readers might contribute to this section and we can have a more balanced debate.

... as expected, words and little substance ... now when are you going to astound us all by leaving the history book on the shelf and provide some outstanding original thought or even correct analysis of raw data (sources provided) ..... I take it that you do know that the earth isn't flat?, even though there's plenty of authors & articles which could be referenced to support a position that it is ....

Regarding balanced debate, well that's what we tend to get until some self obsessed upstart with a bee in his(?) bonnet lands and pushes into the middle of discussions with no intent other than to create mischief.

I for one have taken great offence and become particularly frustrated with your posting style and argumentative stance, particularly your continual stalking of certain members which frequent these particular boards - it looks intentional, therefore it's reasonable to assume that it is intentional ... You've recently raised 'grown-ups' so take a leaf out of your own book, go away, lick your wounds and don't come back until you've grown-up & learned to accept the concept of self-fallibility & above that, to play nicely ....

Z

Martyn1981

Massachusetts lawmakers propose bill for 100% renewable energy by 2035

I thought this was worth posting for three reasons:
1. They are considering high energy targets, not just leccy.
2. It's in the states and we need all the positive RE news we can get at the moment from there.
3. Always nice to talk about green and ethical energy issues on this thread, especially ones that are current.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Massachusetts lawmakers propose bill for 100% renewable energy by 2035

I thought this was worth posting for three reasons:
1. They are considering high energy targets, not just leccy.
2. It's in the states and we need all the positive RE news we can get at the moment from there.
3. Always nice to talk about green and ethical energy issues on this thread, especially ones that are current.

Interesting in that Massachusetts is fairly far north and is not as sparsely populated as some bits of the US so if they can do it surely it is not impossible for the UK with a similar population density to do likewise?

Martyn1981

Had to post this as it simply ticks so many boxes (but comes in just 2). Well done Ikea.

Why Ikea's flatpack refugee shelter won design of the year

At $1,250, a Better Shelter costs twice as much as a typical emergency tent, but it provides security, insulation and durability, and it lasts for at least three years. Beyond that time, when the plastic panels might degrade, the frame can be reused and clad in whatever local materials are to hand, from mud bricks to corrugated iron.

Since production started in June 2015, over 16,000 have been deployed to crisis locations ranging from Nepal, where M!decins Sans Frontières used them as clinics following the devastating earthquake. Several thousand have been sent to Iraq, and hundreds to Djibouti to house refugees fleeing Yemen.

Martyn1981

This is not green & ethical news, but could have an impact on RE in the UK if our government has to scale back plans for nuclear:

Toshiba meltdown puts nuclear project at risk

Plans for a new nuclear power station in Cumbria are at risk from the financial crisis engulfing the developer, Toshiba, after the Japanese company announced that it was putting its entire overseas nuclear business under review.

Toshiba owns 60 per cent of Nugen, the venture working on plans for a plant at Moorside, near Sellafield. The project would involve three AP1,000 reactors designed by Westinghouse, the US company that Toshiba bought in 2006.

Toshiba scales back nuclear ambitions

Toshiba to withdraw from nuclear plant construction, chairman to quit

Martyn1981

Green movement 'greatest threat to freedom', says Trump adviser

Climate-change denier Myron Ebell says he expects Trump to withdraw the US from the global climate change agreement

The environmental movement is “the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world”, according to an adviser to the US president Donald Trump’s administration.

Myron Ebell, who has denied the dangers of climate change for many years and led Trump’s transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until the president’s recent inauguration, also said he fully expected Trump to keep his promise to withdraw the US from the global agreement to fight global warming.

Ebell said US voters had rejected what he dubbed the “expertariat” and said there was no doubt that Trump thinks that climate change is not a crisis and does not require urgent action.

Martyn1981

UK failing to meet EU’s modest renewable targets, finds European Commission

Policy changes have slowed the U.K.’s progress towards 2020 renewable energy goals as the country wrestles with the forthcoming Brexit turmoil. France and Netherlands also on watchlist, says Commission.

The European Union’s (EU) renewable energy goals have long been criticized as unambitious, but even a pan-union goal to reach 20% of renewable penetration by 2020 looks increasingly beyond the U.K. as the country begins to lose focus, says the European Commission (EC) in a pre-release report on EU member states’ clean energy progress.

The REA urges that the government helps support further renewable electricity deployment in the U.K. to ease the burden on the heat and transport sectors. “This can be quickly and cheaply done by reallowing solar PV and onshore wind to compete in government auctions [Contracts for Difference],” argued Skorupska.