Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 9:14:35 GMT
There is talk of the only way the Tories can win is if they abandon net zero. As this has been their manifesto policy in 2019 and they have been pushing it for 4 years, how on earth are they going to dump it?
Are they saying the majority of people will support a non net zero party? Because currently there is not one amongst the major players.
Not intended for discussing climate change, but policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 22, 2023 10:25:09 GMT
Net zero is a key plank in the long term establishment project of disabling democracy and humiliating the serfs back into compliance. They will anger the gods if they abandon it.
The Conservative Party might find itself de-banked if they pursue this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 22, 2023 10:46:45 GMT
There is talk of the only way the Tories can win is if they abandon net zero. As this has been their manifesto policy in 2019 and they have been pushing it for 4 years, how on earth are they going to dump it? Are they saying the majority of people will support a non net zero party? Because currently there is not one amongst the major players. Not intended for discussing climate change, but policies. Two factors are gradually becoming clear to me about net zero. The first is to take a look at all the technology where it will have to be replaced. It is all based on this idea of burning something to get energy out of it and is as old as man inventing fire. The internal combustion engine is 150 years old. I don't know how old the first gas fires were but oil burners were around in Egyptian times. It is the classic pattern that it is something we have always done so we just follow that path. The first lorries were steam driven, but as diesel came in the steam lorries were wiped out. Had that not been invented we would be driving around in computerised steam engines, having refined steam power for a hundred more years. As a technologist you can get stuck in a rut, like the resident pub musician who plays the same tunes each week, cos he knows he will get a clap. Sometimes something forced upon us changes us forever. WW2 focused our minds on mass production techniques which saw a post-war boom and the invention of radar, which has saved so many lives in peacetime. Net zero is one do these things. It's like a war being forced upon us, but as you may say it is wholly destructive, well no actually.
This brings me into point number two. If you are wishing to win you must exploit technology, like the Brits did in WW2. You then not only hit your target of net zero, but you get a post war boom because your new technology beats the crap out of the stuff you had before.
Well I guess you could do that, or say we should do what we are doing and banning the existing technology without a replacement. That is a retrograde step obviously. Welcome to dumb and dumber.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 22, 2023 10:58:46 GMT
We are still burning things to produce power. There is nothing particularly remarkable and new about electricity - we have had that since the genesis of the IC engine.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 22, 2023 11:29:27 GMT
There is talk of the only way the Tories can win is if they abandon net zero. As this has been their manifesto policy in 2019 and they have been pushing it for 4 years, how on earth are they going to dump it? Are they saying the majority of people will support a non net zero party? Because currently there is not one amongst the major players. Not intended for discussing climate change, but policies. Two factors are gradually becoming clear to me about net zero. The first is to take a look at all the technology where it will have to be replaced. It is all based on this idea of burning something to get energy out of it and is as old as man inventing fire. The internal combustion engine is 150 years old. I don't know how old the first gas fires were but oil burners were around in Egyptian times. It is the classic pattern that it is something we have always done so we just follow that path. The first lorries were steam driven, but as diesel came in the steam lorries were wiped out. Had that not been invented we would be driving around in computerised steam engines, having refined steam power for a hundred more years. As a technologist you can get stuck in a rut, like the resident pub musician who plays the same tunes each week, cos he knows he will get a clap. Sometimes something forced upon us changes us forever. WW2 focused our minds on mass production techniques which saw a post-war boom and the invention of radar, which has saved so many lives in peacetime. Net zero is one do these things. It's like a war being forced upon us, but as you may say it is wholly destructive, well no actually.
This brings me into point number two. If you are wishing to win you must exploit technology, like the Brits did in WW2. You then not only hit your target of net zero, but you get a post war boom because your new technology beats the crap out of the stuff you had before.
Well I guess you could do that, or say we should do what we are doing and banning the existing technology without a replacement. That is a retrograde step obviously. Welcome to dumb and dumber.
Why should anyone pay attention to your ideas if you seriously believe man invented fire...? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 22, 2023 11:38:14 GMT
Two factors are gradually becoming clear to me about net zero. The first is to take a look at all the technology where it will have to be replaced. It is all based on this idea of burning something to get energy out of it and is as old as man inventing fire. The internal combustion engine is 150 years old. I don't know how old the first gas fires were but oil burners were around in Egyptian times. It is the classic pattern that it is something we have always done so we just follow that path. The first lorries were steam driven, but as diesel came in the steam lorries were wiped out. Had that not been invented we would be driving around in computerised steam engines, having refined steam power for a hundred more years. As a technologist you can get stuck in a rut, like the resident pub musician who plays the same tunes each week, cos he knows he will get a clap. Sometimes something forced upon us changes us forever. WW2 focused our minds on mass production techniques which saw a post-war boom and the invention of radar, which has saved so many lives in peacetime. Net zero is one do these things. It's like a war being forced upon us, but as you may say it is wholly destructive, well no actually.
This brings me into point number two. If you are wishing to win you must exploit technology, like the Brits did in WW2. You then not only hit your target of net zero, but you get a post war boom because your new technology beats the crap out of the stuff you had before.
Well I guess you could do that, or say we should do what we are doing and banning the existing technology without a replacement. That is a retrograde step obviously. Welcome to dumb and dumber.
Why should anyone pay attention to your ideas if you seriously believe man invented fire...? Yes, and it was so he could cook his food. A lot of food is more nutritious if t is cooked. It kills the bacteria in meat too. In our town you have these people who want to go back to eating raw food. People have said it only takes them a few weeks of this cult diet to become mentally ill. I'm sure your government over in central London will be handing out grants for it as it is beneficial to net zero. What was invented can be uninvented. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 22, 2023 11:49:04 GMT
We are still burning things to produce power. There is nothing particularly remarkable and new about electricity - we have had that since the genesis of the IC engine. Not with hydro, tidal, solar, geothermal we are not. Look, think logically about it.
Plan A:
A power station. It is huge, cost a lot of time and money to build, then it also costs a lot to fuel it and the whole thing is very complicated and needs constant servicing and upkeep.
Plan B:
Find a steep southern facing hillside, ideally 30-40 degree incline, dump a load of solar panels on it lying flat and staked down, rigged up to the grid. It's all plug and play, and as the manager you can just bring up a webpage to see how much power you have generated and how much cash has gone into your account for the next 25 years. You may need to clean once in while perhaps, but virtually minimal upkeep.
Suppose capital investment is cheaper for Plan B for an equivalent amount of energy. suppose solar panels become dirt cheap. These are the things we aught to be thinking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 12:01:06 GMT
OK, man did not invent fire, man learned to start fires and use them.
In any case, Sweden seem to have abandoned the idea that all electricity production can come from renewables.
They are going to base their power production on nuclear plants, supplemented by renewables. Perhaps this is the way the Tories can spin the changes away from unreliable renewables.
It would be interesting to know how many intelligent people actually support "Net Zero", which as a policy, seems to be doomed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 12:05:57 GMT
We are still burning things to produce power. There is nothing particularly remarkable and new about electricity - we have had that since the genesis of the IC engine. Not with hydro, tidal, solar, geothermal we are not. Look, think logically about it.
Plan A:
A power station. It is huge, cost a lot of time and money to build, then it also costs a lot to fuel it and the whole thing is very complicated and needs constant servicing and upkeep.
Plan B:
Find a steep southern facing hillside, ideally 30-40 degree incline, dump a load of solar panels on it lying flat and staked down, rigged up to the grid. It's all plug and play, and as the manager you can just bring up a webpage to see how much power you have generated and how much cash has gone into your account for the next 25 years. You may need to clean once in while perhaps, but virtually minimal upkeep.
Suppose capital investment is cheaper for Plan B for an equivalent amount of energy. suppose solar panels become dirt cheap. These are the things we aught to be thinking about.
As a policy decision for reliable power, it is a disaster. In a cloudy anticyclone in winter, no wind and little sun is a recipe for disaster. The government are encouraging us to become all electric. What happens when it goes off? People die of the cold if they cannot heat their homes. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 22, 2023 12:25:34 GMT
We are still burning things to produce power. There is nothing particularly remarkable and new about electricity - we have had that since the genesis of the IC engine. Not with hydro, tidal, solar, geothermal we are not. Look, think logically about it.
Plan A:
A power station. It is huge, cost a lot of time and money to build, then it also costs a lot to fuel it and the whole thing is very complicated and needs constant servicing and upkeep.
Plan B:
Find a steep southern facing hillside, ideally 30-40 degree incline, dump a load of solar panels on it lying flat and staked down, rigged up to the grid. It's all plug and play, Once you have the correct circumstances, everything is 'plug and play'. If you get the oil out the ground you can burn it and it's all rose gardens. I find it surprising you would attempt to compare by land use when solar has the biggest land footprint. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 22, 2023 13:31:24 GMT
Not with hydro, tidal, solar, geothermal we are not. Look, think logically about it.
Plan A:
A power station. It is huge, cost a lot of time and money to build, then it also costs a lot to fuel it and the whole thing is very complicated and needs constant servicing and upkeep.
Plan B:
Find a steep southern facing hillside, ideally 30-40 degree incline, dump a load of solar panels on it lying flat and staked down, rigged up to the grid. It's all plug and play, Once you have the correct circumstances, everything is 'plug and play'. If you get the oil out the ground you can burn it and it's all rose gardens. I find it surprising you would attempt to compare by land use when solar has the biggest land footprint. You are not thinking like and engineer, but a politician. Have another thing about the point of that post. Get your calculator out and compute it. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 22, 2023 13:33:44 GMT
Not with hydro, tidal, solar, geothermal we are not. Look, think logically about it.
Plan A:
A power station. It is huge, cost a lot of time and money to build, then it also costs a lot to fuel it and the whole thing is very complicated and needs constant servicing and upkeep.
Plan B:
Find a steep southern facing hillside, ideally 30-40 degree incline, dump a load of solar panels on it lying flat and staked down, rigged up to the grid. It's all plug and play, and as the manager you can just bring up a webpage to see how much power you have generated and how much cash has gone into your account for the next 25 years. You may need to clean once in while perhaps, but virtually minimal upkeep.
Suppose capital investment is cheaper for Plan B for an equivalent amount of energy. suppose solar panels become dirt cheap. These are the things we aught to be thinking about.
As a policy decision for reliable power, it is a disaster. In a cloudy anticyclone in winter, no wind and little sun is a recipe for disaster. The government are encouraging us to become all electric. What happens when it goes off? People die of the cold if they cannot heat their homes. Only a disaster if it is badly engineered. How big do you expect this anticyclone to become, as per worst case scenario? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 13:44:59 GMT
This one would do it. I expect you know all about cloudy areas of high pressure.  Perhaps you could explain how the power will stay on without producing CO2, or better, using nuclear power. At the moment we rely heavily on the French, Norwegians and others to supplement our power through ICTs. The French, as everyone knows, have masses of nuclear power. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 22, 2023 13:47:09 GMT
Once you have the correct circumstances, everything is 'plug and play'. If you get the oil out the ground you can burn it and it's all rose gardens. I find it surprising you would attempt to compare by land use when solar has the biggest land footprint. You are not thinking like and engineer, but a politician. Have another thing about the point of that post. Get your calculator out and compute it. You made the comparison with land use - which was daft. On the patronising attitude front, I don't consider you to be domain competent enough to be giving people advice about how to think |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 22, 2023 15:02:42 GMT
It's currently pissing down outside - how many rolling blackouts would we have if we were reliant on solar power...
|
|
