|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 20:08:53 GMT
The UK does not really, IMO, lend itself to Solar Power being the "golden bullet" solution. We excel at Wave Power, but that is hellish expensive to put in place. We are OK at Wind Power, but it can (pardon the pun) blow hot and cold. Meaning sandypine is correct - we need a fallback failsafe. We have been way too slow to invest in new generation nuclear, and have not been maintaining our Coal Fired Power Stations at a suitable level. What we could, arguably should, be looking at is small-scale (ie at the individual dwelling level) Geo-Thermal Power. You don't need to go deep to tap into enough heat to a) heat all the hot water you could need, and use that hot water (or steam if you go a bit deeper) to drive turbines to generate electricity. I saw a program on this a good few years back, it may have been Horizon or Panorama, and the big energy companies were so against it they had wrung concessions from the government that even if a person were to independently pay for and install such a system so as to be wholly off-grid they would still be required to pay an annual subsidy (couched as a "license") to Big Energy to ensure Big Energy got it's share of the pie, even for doing nothing. All The Best A friend of mine who has a small workshop with no running water and has to go a hundred yards to use a portacabin toilet is still charged water rates. When he pointed this out to Southwest water their reply was that rain water was still landing on the roof of his workshop...Duh? Yup. Funny how the Water Companies own that shit when they want to charge you for it, but when it bursts their under-maintained pipes and they have to dump it in our rivers and seas it is "an act of god". Thatcher's Tories were the ONLY government in the history of the world fucking stupid enough to fully privatise the Water supply system. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 20:12:51 GMT
The UK does not really, IMO, lend itself to Solar Power being the "golden bullet" solution. We excel at Wave Power, but that is hellish expensive to put in place. We are OK at Wind Power, but it can (pardon the pun) blow hot and cold. Meaning sandypine is correct - we need a fallback failsafe. We have been way too slow to invest in new generation nuclear, and have not been maintaining our Coal Fired Power Stations at a suitable level. What we could, arguably should, be looking at is small-scale (ie at the individual dwelling level) Geo-Thermal Power. You don't need to go deep to tap into enough heat to a) heat all the hot water you could need, and use that hot water (or steam if you go a bit deeper) to drive turbines to generate electricity. I saw a program on this a good few years back, it may have been Horizon or Panorama, and the big energy companies were so against it they had wrung concessions from the government that even if a person were to independently pay for and install such a system so as to be wholly off-grid they would still be required to pay an annual subsidy (couched as a "license") to Big Energy to ensure Big Energy got it's share of the pie, even for doing nothing. All The Best A friend of mine who has a small workshop with no running water and has to go a hundred yards to use a portacabin toilet is still charged water rates. When he pointed this out to Southwest water their reply was that rain water was still landing on the roof of his workshop...Duh? He is unlucky as it sounds like the same company is responsible for surface water disposal and sewage and fresh water. Sometimes a separate company supplies drinking water and the water charges are split. When I lived in Hampshire I paid Portsmouth Water Company for potable water and Southern water for surface water disposal and sewage. He should have separate charges as if he has no potable water it should be split. I have a septic tank so I pay to get it emptied but I do not pay sewage charges but I pay for fresh water. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2024 21:04:54 GMT
The thing was when electricity was being sold at over 30p/kWh the panels were twice the price. Also just recently the cost of lithium batteries has plummeted along with the lithium commodity price. It's one of those markets developing so fast that your panels will probably look very outdated and expensive in comparison to new ones in five years.
Anyway, I'm fully satisfied this new technology now will replace hydrocarbons just on price and performance alone. It really is dumb of this country. Everywhere you look you see global warming being used to cost you more money and be a real pain for a million reasons. Over in China you get the diametric opposite, since as they develop solar and wind so energy gets cheaper and as they build EVs their cars get cheaper. Everything they do is cheaper and better than it was a few years back, so there is no need to barrage the public with reams of crap about global warming. Instead every new development is a better deal than that what goes before, so the whole thing is market-driven. We see costs go up instead of down because those good-for-nothing government people are PR-trained. They are not trained as engineers, who solve problems for living. Indeed I bought the Lithium ion batteries coming up two years ago and they are about 50% now of what I paid. I also bought a battery bank of AGM batteries just over a year ago and they are now 75% of what I paid. Sometimes education and experience are bought at a heavy cost.. The future may indeed belong to the green power but currently we need that fail safe of background fossil fuel/nuclear. The thing is nuclear is far more expensive per unit of energy, but it is needed to cover the gaps. What we can do is shift demand electronically so we take as much advantage of the cheap energy as possible. The problem with nuclear though is you can't shut it down realistically. Well what happened when you do is you must cool it very very slowly since any rapid change in temperature reduces its operational life, which is extremely expensive. What I think we will find is more use of thermal storage. Those large users of electricity, like steel producers can store the energy as thermal energy to account for the variations. The electricity is sold to them at a real-time market price, so if you have the local storage you can cut your bills. I suppose the last resort in the freak weather conditions may be to use hydrogen powered generators that you can fire up as as when needed. It will cost you more to produce in that way, but it would keep the lights on. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 2, 2024 21:32:46 GMT
Indeed I bought the Lithium ion batteries coming up two years ago and they are about 50% now of what I paid. I also bought a battery bank of AGM batteries just over a year ago and they are now 75% of what I paid. Sometimes education and experience are bought at a heavy cost.. The future may indeed belong to the green power but currently we need that fail safe of background fossil fuel/nuclear. The thing is nuclear is far more expensive per unit of energy, but it is needed to cover the gaps. What we can do is shift demand electronically so we take as much advantage of the cheap energy as possible. That sounds ominous. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2024 22:04:47 GMT
The thing is nuclear is far more expensive per unit of energy, but it is needed to cover the gaps. What we can do is shift demand electronically so we take as much advantage of the cheap energy as possible. That sounds ominous. Not really. it is the old idea of economy 7 but done much more frequently. The most electricity in industry is to generate heat, and you don't necessarily need to put the heater on all the time, rather you can control it to switch on when the price dips. Say you have a system that gives you warm water. You have a hot water tank and a cold supply. You don't need to keep the hot water at a constant temperature because you just vary the mix. The beauty of such a system is it is only a chip, so the cost of materials and price of the controller is tiny compared the money it could save. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on May 3, 2024 7:03:49 GMT
There's lies, damned lies and statistics. The result of any statistical analysis is only ever as good as the questions asked. However, I will also say that science is NOT a matter of consensus, it is a matter of fact. There was a time when 97% of experts thought the world was flat, of that the sun revolved around the earth - they were wrong. I am willing to bet that at one time there was around 0.5% of experts who believed the earth revolved around the sun - they were right. All The Best Science isn't about "fact" - it's about working theories. And working theories are based on observations, which may or may not be fact. But working theories are not fact - even the most accurate, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They will all prove to be wrong eventually, just as all the earlier theories proved to be wrong. The climate change models have already proved to be wrong in that all their predictions have been wrong. But your main point is right. Whether 97% of scientists agree with a statement is irrelevant. Unfortunately the vast majority of the public think that "the science" is what the majority of scientists think, even though it's rubbish. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 3, 2024 7:31:15 GMT
There's lies, damned lies and statistics. The result of any statistical analysis is only ever as good as the questions asked. However, I will also say that science is NOT a matter of consensus, it is a matter of fact. There was a time when 97% of experts thought the world was flat, of that the sun revolved around the earth - they were wrong. I am willing to bet that at one time there was around 0.5% of experts who believed the earth revolved around the sun - they were right. All The Best Science isn't about "fact" - it's about working theories. And working theories are based on observations, which may or may not be fact. But working theories are not fact - even the most accurate, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They will all prove to be wrong eventually, just as all the earlier theories proved to be wrong. The climate change models have already proved to be wrong in that all their predictions have been wrong. But your main point is right. Whether 97% of scientists agree with a statement is irrelevant. Unfortunately the vast majority of the public think that "the science" is what the majority of scientists think, even though it's rubbish. I would only add that the public are led to think what the majority of scientists think and that political pressure ensures that that applecart is not upset too much. Any loose apples that tumble out are quickly squashed. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on May 3, 2024 7:40:40 GMT
The In-depth Story Behind the 97% of Scientists Climate Myth. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/The whole is a quite long but enlightening read so I expect teh alarmist to give it a wide berth. Extract Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring. John But here again, appearances were deceiving. Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus. Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low. The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”. They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect. So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know. Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200. I am astounded to see there is a transcipt. I shall read that, which will take far less time than i would need to watch te video, and thereby hear what they have to say... |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on May 3, 2024 7:48:02 GMT
The UK does not really, IMO, lend itself to Solar Power being the "golden bullet" solution. We excel at Wave Power, but that is hellish expensive to put in place. We are OK at Wind Power, but it can (pardon the pun) blow hot and cold. Meaning sandypine is correct - we need a fallback failsafe. We have been way too slow to invest in new generation nuclear, and have not been maintaining our Coal Fired Power Stations at a suitable level. What we could, arguably should, be looking at is small-scale (ie at the individual dwelling level) Geo-Thermal Power. You don't need to go deep to tap into enough heat to a) heat all the hot water you could need, and use that hot water (or steam if you go a bit deeper) to drive turbines to generate electricity. I saw a program on this a good few years back, it may have been Horizon or Panorama, and the big energy companies were so against it they had wrung concessions from the government that even if a person were to independently pay for and install such a system so as to be wholly off-grid they would still be required to pay an annual subsidy (couched as a "license") to Big Energy to ensure Big Energy got it's share of the pie, even for doing nothing. All The Best A friend of mine who has a small workshop with no running water and has to go a hundred yards to use a portacabin toilet is still charged water rates. When he pointed this out to Southwest water their reply was that rain water was still landing on the roof of his workshop...Duh? Our bill, from what was once Welsh Water but now i don't know after their adventure into non water business killed them, always declared, and still does declare, two separate amounts, one where water is supplied to the property, and a second arising from rainwater and foul draining discharging to their sewers. The first can only be charged if they pipe water to your home (but if you do not have that, the council will evict you on health grounds as the law since about 1930 requires a supply of piped mains water without which your hone will be condemned as unfit for human habitation) and the second comes in two parts, one part only if you have mains sewerage not a cesspit, and the other only if rainwater drains to the sewers not a soakaway |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on May 3, 2024 7:56:06 GMT
The In-depth Story Behind the 97% of Scientists Climate Myth. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/The whole is a quite long but enlightening read so I expect teh alarmist to give it a wide berth. Extract Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring. John But here again, appearances were deceiving. Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus. Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low. The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”. They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect. So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know. Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200. I am astounded to see there is a transcipt. I shall read that, which will take far less time than i would need to watch te video, and thereby hear what they have to say... OK I read it I particularly like the fact that they pick 77 climate scientists 75 of whom say there is a man made crisis and from that say "97% of climate scientists agree" when in fact those 77 were less than 2% of the recipients.
But does this surprise me ? No. I was taught to dismantle research papers very early on in my career because it was assumed, and rightly so, that anyone remaining in the profession would, eventually, be asked to referee a research paper as part of the peer review process, and the first thing you learn is to dismantle percentages and curve and straight line graphs. This cheery picking is nothing new, what is new is the way the media and politicians jump on it to press their bullshit upon the untrained unwashed
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 3, 2024 14:40:21 GMT
There's lies, damned lies and statistics. The result of any statistical analysis is only ever as good as the questions asked. However, I will also say that science is NOT a matter of consensus, it is a matter of fact. There was a time when 97% of experts thought the world was flat, of that the sun revolved around the earth - they were wrong. I am willing to bet that at one time there was around 0.5% of experts who believed the earth revolved around the sun - they were right. All The Best Science isn't about "fact" - it's about working theories. And working theories are based on observations, which may or may not be fact. But working theories are not fact - even the most accurate, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They will all prove to be wrong eventually, just as all the earlier theories proved to be wrong. The climate change models have already proved to be wrong in that all their predictions have been wrong. But your main point is right. Whether 97% of scientists agree with a statement is irrelevant. Unfortunately the vast majority of the public think that "the science" is what the majority of scientists think, even though it's rubbish. Renormalization in QFT is one place where we take a leap of faith and say, supposing this was the way to do it, then how does that work out in the wider theories. It breaks the chain of hard logical deduction. It's not something particularly easy to understand since the derivation of QFT is a book's worth of maths. Willis Lamb freaked out about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2024 6:20:08 GMT
Not really. it is the old idea of economy 7 but done much more frequently. The most electricity in industry is to generate heat, and you don't necessarily need to put the heater on all the time, rather you can control it to switch on when the price dips. Say you have a system that gives you warm water. You have a hot water tank and a cold supply . You don't need to keep the hot water at a constant temperature because you just vary the mix. The beauty of such a system is it is only a chip, so the cost of materials and price of the controller is tiny compared the money it could save. So how do you unexpectedly get hot water should you so desire it? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 4, 2024 10:17:35 GMT
Not really. it is the old idea of economy 7 but done much more frequently. The most electricity in industry is to generate heat, and you don't necessarily need to put the heater on all the time, rather you can control it to switch on when the price dips. Say you have a system that gives you warm water. You have a hot water tank and a cold supply . You don't need to keep the hot water at a constant temperature because you just vary the mix. The beauty of such a system is it is only a chip, so the cost of materials and price of the controller is tiny compared the money it could save. So how do you unexpectedly get hot water should you so desire it? On a production line you would only need the same temperature for each widget. It won't be suitable for everyone, but where it is, it will save money and flatten out electricity demand. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious and it does not need me to explain it. |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Oct 7, 2024 0:23:38 GMT
|
|
