Electric vehicles miles per KWh

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

Below is the thread from GA that I thanked that has so upset you?

With regards to global warming I've already stated my views
I think humans definitely impact the world (at every level) especially through land use
I just don't think it's likely to be anything other than a very slight net movement either positive or negative and the impact will be negligible and that we will have the tech and productivity to geoengineer whole planets let alone nudge a temperature one or two degrees up or down

So I don't worry about it because it's a negligible problem with easy solutions down the line

I also don't like the posturing and nonsense and holiness about it all
I'm pro helping people and you can do this in many ways like helping the poor develop or giving to charities not by patting your back about how great you are because you stuck some Chinese panels on your roof and were paid to do it. Come over here let me pat you on the back....well done Marty well done you


GA is not denying AGW. He simply says humans have had an impact on the planet at every level and especially through land use. I agree entirely with that. Look at what is happening in the Amazon now. That should be a concern to you but you don’t mention even though you are supposedly concerned about AGW. Instead you post childish YouTube videos promoting conspiracy theories about Tesla.

The consensus is that AGW is happening but there is no real consensus as to when and how badly it will impact. In the meantime new technologies develop - carbon capture etc - and with the passage of time more new technologies will develop. We just can’t predict the future any more than Malthus could. It is likely that the end of the world (as we know it) will come from some new as yet undiscovered source. 100 years ago many of the technologies we have today were mere science fiction and they even may be our undoing eventually.

I agree with what GA says about the posturing and holiness when so few of us on here are prepared to give up our everyday comforts that rely on continued burning of !!!!!! but lecture others about morals and ethics.

And I agree with his comments about us all patting ourselves on the back for installing solar panels for which many of us will be paid handsomely many times over.

As Nick said, some of GA’s ideas are a bit way out (for now) but he certainly has made us think with his two most recent threads about wind curtailment and the efficiency of EVs.

So what exactly has upset you so much about me thanking GA that you feel the need to make an issue out of it?

Hi

Ref: "GA is not denying AGW. He simply says humans have had an impact on the planet at every level and especially through land use. I agree entirely with that." .... really?

So to the salient points in the text you yourself posted ... "I just don't think it's likely to be anything other than a very slight net movement either positive or negative and the impact will be negligible" .... looks to be a pretty strong statement of support for a position of AGW denial to me !!! .... :whistle:

Whatever anyone's personal beliefs are regarding climate science and the current overwhelming scientific community consensus that AGW actually does exist, it's pretty interesting that such a statement of support totally misses the context, content & relevance of the salient points made! .... :think: ... maybe the support is more for the belief than the right to convey a belief ?? ... if so, then the obvious conclusions lead to a simple question as to "why ?", apart from mischievous disruption through employing a standard smoke & mirrors strategy with the intent to create - :wall: ... :shhh:

When it comes down to it most of us simply don't care too much whether your ongoing beef with RE as an industry sector is related to a personal position regarding on-shore wind development in your locality or a career heavily influenced by the large petrochemical industry presence in Lincolnshire ... it makes no difference .... but what does come across, whether fully intentional or not, does seem to contain a shedload of thinly veiled hypocrisy regarding renewables!!

:think: .. :idea: .. :silenced:
Z

mmmmikey

JKenH wrote: »

As GA has said, the grid is already solved. We have a mix of generation that works.

1. Do you really think that GA is a reliable source to be quoted given his (to be polite) somewhat bizarre views that humanity is soon going to come to an end when we are overrun by robots, and that the Chernobyl meltdown was no big deal?

2. The grid is still using FF and pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so how can you make the claims that "the grid is already solved" and "we have a mix of generation that works" unless you take the view that AGW isn't an issue and/or electricity generation isn't contributing to this? And if you take the view that AGW isn't an issue surely you must accept the charge that you are an AGW denier?

To be fair about this, I do think you should reasonably expect to come under some fairly fierce criticism when you take such a contrary approach on an RE forum (although please don't take offence at this as I'm not suggesting that this applies to all your posts, and unlike GA your credibility is still intact).

JKenH

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Ref: "GA is not denying AGW. He simply says humans have had an impact on the planet at every level and especially through land use. I agree entirely with that." .... really?

So to the salient points in the text you yourself posted ... "I just don't think it's likely to be anything other than a very slight net movement either positive or negative and the impact will be negligible" .... looks to be a pretty strong statement of support for a position of AGW denial to me !!! .... :whistle:

Whatever anyone's personal beliefs are regarding climate science and the current overwhelming scientific community consensus that AGW actually does exist, it's pretty interesting that such a statement of support totally misses the context, content & relevance of the salient points made! .... :think: ... maybe the support is more for the belief than the right to convey a belief ?? ... if so, then the obvious conclusions lead to a simple question as to "why ?", apart from mischievous disruption through employing a standard smoke & mirrors strategy with the intent to create - :wall: ... :shhh:

When it comes down to it most of us simply don't care too much whether your ongoing beef with RE as an industry sector is related to a personal position regarding on-shore wind development in your locality or a career heavily influenced by the large petrochemical industry presence in Lincolnshire ... it makes no difference .... but what does come across, whether fully intentional or not, does seem to contain a shedload of thinly veiled hypocrisy regarding renewables!!

:think: .. :idea: .. :silenced:
Z

The comment from Mart I was responding to was

If he wants to thank GA’s posts denying AGW then that’s up to him

As I said it was not a post denying AGW. There is a big difference between denying the existence of something and disputing its impact.

What happens in the future is speculation. The experts can’t agree hence the proposal for an international centre for climate modelling - maybe they should ask you or Mart and save a few quid and a few years.

I have posted this link before but just for you here it is again

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-need-an-international-center-for-climate-modeling/


“Earth's climate is changing, and we must decide what to do about it. Existing climate models all predict further warming, but for all we currently know, this trend could range from modest and manageable to an existential threat. In face of such large uncertainty it is difficult to agree on a course of action. For this reason, we propose the formation of an international initiative for high resolution climate models with the aim of providing more reliable long-term predictions.
Understanding whether climate change will be catastrophic for humanity or merely an inconvenience requires that the community takes a much more collaborative approach to climate model development than is currently the case.”

Just to reiterate; the experts don’t know whether climate change will be catastrophic/existential threat (your view presumably) or merely an inconvenience/modest and manageable (GA’s view).

Both points of view are valid and consistent with AGW - take your pick as we just don’t know.

As for my ongoing beef with RE as an industry sector that is purely a construct of Mart’s which you choose to perpetuate as it suits your agenda.

JKenH

mmmmikey wrote: »

1. Do you really think that GA is a reliable source to be quoted given his (to be polite) somewhat bizarre views that humanity is soon going to come to an end when we are overrun by robots, and that the Chernobyl meltdown was no big deal?

2. The grid is still using FF and pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so how can you make the claims that "the grid is already solved" and "we have a mix of generation that works" unless you take the view that AGW isn't an issue and/or electricity generation isn't contributing to this? And if you take the view that AGW isn't an issue surely you must accept the charge that you are an AGW denier?

To be fair about this, I do think you should reasonably expect to come under some fairly fierce criticism when you take such a contrary approach on an RE forum (although please don't take offence at this as I'm not suggesting that this applies to all your posts, and unlike GA your credibility is still intact).

It isn’t just GA who is worried about AI - see link below.
https://observer.com/2015/08/stephen-hawking-elon-musk-and-bill-gates-warn-about-artificial-intelligence/

Does the fact that Bill Gates, Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking were worried about AI devalue everything else they say? I think it is very easy to form a view on someone and thereafter read their posts with a negative bias. I don’t agree with a lot of what GA says and quite a bit of it I don’t understand anyway but that doesn’t mean some of what he says can’t make sense. I thought this current thread was certainly one which made us think a little more about the efficiency of BEVs. (It started off so well but unfortunately the fact we are having this exchange shows how far off topic it has drifted.) Equally, I don’t agree with a lot of what Mart says but some of his posts I do find valuable. I think the same could be said of most posts on here if only we could bring ourselves to read them with an open mind and no preconceptions.



As far as the grid being solved my point is with the contracted capacity of VRE still to come on line we have probably reached the level of VRE the grid can cope with. The next step will be to replace gas with biogas or some alternative but not more VRE. The problem is it may be some considerable time before a viable alternative to gas is found. (Unfortunately some people take the view that I am anti RE when in fact I am just being pragmatic.) I did post a link about this under the wind curtailment thread which I think is worth a read so here it is again.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/24/8837293/economic-limitations-wind-solar

As far as being an AGW denier is concerned please see my response to Zeupater above. We just don’t know what the impact of AGW will be yet but I wouldn’t personally dispute we should err on the side of caution.

We are actually posting under the Electric vehicles miles per kWh thread but I know what you meant when you said RE thread, i.e. the one Mart says is an RE thread but is actually for discussing green, ethical, energy issues not just RE. If we are, though, discussing RE or any other subject then it is reasonable for both sides of any argument to be aired. Unfortunately on this forum not everyone wants both sides to be heard and there is a tendency to try and shout down any alternative to the orthodox view (sometimes deploying big red letters to make the point).

No offence taken from your post, I just wish everyone would post so courteously.

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

The comment from Mart I was responding to was

If he wants to thank GA’s posts denying AGW then that’s up to him

As I said it was not a post denying AGW. There is a big difference between denying the existence of something and disputing its impact.

What happens in the future is speculation. The experts can’t agree hence the proposal for an international centre for climate modelling - maybe they should ask you or Mart and save a few quid and a few years.

I have posted this link before but just for you here it is again

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-need-an-international-center-for-climate-modeling/


“Earth's climate is changing, and we must decide what to do about it. Existing climate models all predict further warming, but for all we currently know, this trend could range from modest and manageable to an existential threat. In face of such large uncertainty it is difficult to agree on a course of action. For this reason, we propose the formation of an international initiative for high resolution climate models with the aim of providing more reliable long-term predictions.
Understanding whether climate change will be catastrophic for humanity or merely an inconvenience requires that the community takes a much more collaborative approach to climate model development than is currently the case.”

Just to reiterate; the experts don’t know whether climate change will be catastrophic/existential threat (your view presumably) or merely an inconvenience/modest and manageable (GA’s view).

Both points of view are valid and consistent with AGW - take your pick as we just don’t know.

As for my ongoing beef with RE as an industry sector that is purely a construct of Mart’s which you choose to perpetuate as it suits your agenda.

Hi

Agenda? .... I don't have one, I simply consider issues and test general postulation through the application of supportable logic before taking a view ...

Regarding a position on AGW denial ... the evidence & reasoning is provided in the previous post & hopefully the logic applied is reasonable ... please review the relevant text (red highlight) which is a direct quotation of your own text made to support what you conveyed to not be an anti-AGW position, yet it so obviously is AGW, because that's what a segmented approach employing boolean logic dictates ... a slight change which could be either beneficial or detrimental which would have negligible climatic impact doesn't really look too much like the scientific consensus from a logical viewpoint, more like a position that the consensus is considered to be wrong ... ie, denial of consensus being correct ... which is what you're supporting through supporting that view and is totally inconsistent with the interpretation you're offering ....

... No agenda, just logic based curiosity!
Z

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

It isn’t just GA who is worried about AI - see link below.
https://observer.com/2015/08/stephen-hawking-elon-musk-and-bill-gates-warn-about-artificial-intelligence/

Does the fact that Bill Gates, Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking were worried about AI devalue everything else they say? I think it is very easy to form a view on someone and thereafter read their posts with a negative bias. I don’t agree with a lot of what GA says and quite a bit of it I don’t understand anyway but that doesn’t mean some of what he says can’t make sense ...

Hi

Maybe that needs to be revisited because they're not even in the same book, let alone being anywhere near being on the same page!

From snippets I've read it seems that you're conflating a position which is extremely pro unrestricted AI in a belief that considerable benefits will inevitably flow with positions taken by some individuals that have considerable experience & influence in that field that are wary of unleashing unrestricted AI without due consideration of the inherent risks and potential mitigation ....

... Just because it feasible doesn't necessarily mean it's desirable ... that's the difference which the individuals you raise have all identified, but seemingly GA has yet to consider ... the huge gaps between narrow AI, simulated emotional intelligence, emotional intelligence & full self consciousness ...

HTH
Z

JKenH

Having had the opportunity to reflect on the matter I now realise the extent of distress caused by the ‘thanks’ I casually gave to a post on this thread. Initially I thought it was only one forum member who was distressed but my subsequent attempts to explain have caused at least one other forum member to show similar symptoms and I have decided therefore not to engage in any further comment or discussion on this matter lest I trigger an outbreak of mass psychogenic illness across the whole forum. I apologise to those affected and wish you all a speedy recovery.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

You can’t do anything to help the environment until the government pays you to do it - really?

But this key argument of yours is nonsense, complete and utter nonsense.

Neither myself, nor anyone else (Team GA aside) on this board is asking to be paid to act. We are celebrating the advances in RE and BEV's, and are passionate that national and international policies are absolutely essential to tackling the problem.

Such policies make RE, storage, BEV's etc affordable to all, and as such they will naturally replace/displace the dirtier existing tech that has done it's job and lifted us to a point where we can retire it.

Your repeated attempts to try to make this personal to me, or to say scientists who want to speak out, because we continue to use FF tech is a nonsense, a complete and total nonsense - we want everyone to be able to move away from FF's.


Let's look at PV FiTs since most of us on here will understand it.

Does paying me around 50p/kWh for my 2011 system solve the problem ... no. My participation in the scheme makes little to no difference, and payments of that amount are not sustainable, and are not a solution ...... long term.

However the government policy of FiTs, and before the UK and other countries, the action in Italy and Germany has worked, it's taken PV from the most expensive RE solution, to the cheapest, and allowed it to be deployed in poorer countries far sooner than it otherwise would have.

The best example, which I've mentioned many times is India. They had a national policy to rollout a vast amount of coal generation to meet the growing leccy demand of their nation. But in teh early 2010's they reversed policy, thanks to the cost of wind and PV generation becoming competitive, and are rolling out vast amounts of RE.

We are far from removing FF generation from the World, and are actually still far from removing new FF capacity from being built, but national and international policies are working, and we should all celebrate that regardless of how 'green' you judge us to be.

Solarchaser

Having had the opportunity to reflect on the matter I now realise the extent of distress caused by the ‘thanks’ I casually gave to a post on this thread. Initially I thought it was only one forum member who was distressed but my subsequent attempts to explain have caused at least one other forum member to show similar symptoms and I have decided therefore not to engage in any further comment or discussion on this matter lest I trigger an outbreak of mass psychogenic illness across the whole forum. I apologise to those affected and wish you all a speedy recovery.

You are just making yourself look silly and petulant now

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But this key argument of yours is nonsense, complete and utter nonsense.

Neither myself, nor anyone else (Team GA aside) on this board is asking to be paid to act. We are celebrating the advances in RE and BEV's, and are passionate that national and international policies are absolutely essential to tackling the problem.

Such policies make RE, storage, BEV's etc affordable to all, and as such they will naturally replace/displace the dirtier existing tech that has done it's job and lifted us to a point where we can retire it.

Your repeated attempts to try to make this personal to me, or to say scientists who want to speak out, because we continue to use FF tech is a nonsense, a complete and total nonsense - we want everyone to be able to move away from FF's.


Let's look at PV FiTs since most of us on here will understand it.

Does paying me around 50p/kWh for my 2011 system solve the problem ... no. My participation in the scheme makes little to no difference, and payments of that amount are not sustainable, and are not a solution ...... long term.

However the government policy of FiTs, and before the UK and other countries, the action in Italy and Germany has worked, it's taken PV from the most expensive RE solution, to the cheapest, and allowed it to be deployed in poorer countries far sooner than it otherwise would have.

The best example, which I've mentioned many times is India. They had a national policy to rollout a vast amount of coal generation to meet the growing leccy demand of their nation. But in teh early 2010's they reversed policy, thanks to the cost of wind and PV generation becoming competitive, and are rolling out vast amounts of RE.

We are far from removing FF generation from the World, and are actually still far from removing new FF capacity from being built, but national and international policies are working, and we should all celebrate that regardless of how 'green' you judge us to be.

Can we park this one now?