Thousands of activists block London roads to demand action on climate change

[Chomper Higgot]

52 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

yes, and you can claim to be more intelligent or informed than those who disagree with you.

and yet you constantly berate others and tell them you have an understanding of science they do not possess while

you have no engineering or science experience or even  a trades background.

 

amazing

I guess given that I have (in chronological order) a trades, engineering and science background I could argue on those grounds.

 

I prepare to point to the scientific consensus.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

2 countries with lots of sunlight.

When your post includes rainy Britain I'll be impressed.

That’s not an argument for Solar cells providing a partial solution as one of many renewable energy sources.

 

No body on either side of the energy debate is proposing a single source of energy.

 

 

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I have exhaustively cited links showing that actual prices being paid for solar are undercutting coal and beginning to push out natural gas. Not predictions, not theories but actual market activity. And here's a little tidbit for you:

Solar-Plus-Storage Beats Combined-Cycle Gas in Jordan and Morocco

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-storage-beats-combined-cycle-gas-in-jordan-and-morocco#gs.5tj8bz

sorry, a few countries and an opinion article by a renewable energy company don't cut it, and they certainly do not change the laws of physics.

 

 

Battery storage and its cost/lifespan and most importantly its ability to react to large Peak loads are not

anywhere near cost effective, not to mention the massive footprints required to have the facilities.

factor in the lower reliability, their inability to react to large power demands, there simply is no comparison.

 

add to that an average 10 year battery lifespan, it gets even more inefficient.

 

add to that the CCGT design that reclaims the exhaust heat to run a boiler to drive a steam turbine for even more efficiency

and there is no solar system that can compete with that level of efficiency and power generation capacity.

[elmrfudd]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I guess given that I have (in chronological order) a trades, engineering and science background I could argue on those grounds.

 

I prepare to point to the scientific consensus.

you could try, at least better than a google keyboard warrior.

 

I also have all 3 backgrounds

 

but you can't deny the amount of scientists being ignored by the IPCC and those that question their

assumptions and methods being ignored and ridiculed to feed an agenda.

[MickeyDelux]

some people probably actually still believe the climate change hoax. very sad indeed.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, the CO2 is already in the ocean, and lacking any means to remove it or change the Ph, what can be done to rectify the situation? Even if zero CO2 was released by humans from NOW, how long would it take to make any significant change in ocean Ph?

Let's always remember that CO2 is being released from all sorts of other sources than human created.

 

IMO the die is cast and nothing is going to change the outcome. 

Good job everyone doesn't have the same philosophy then.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Good job everyone doesn't have the same philosophy then.

Sooooo, what is the solution then? I have no idea as no one actually says what it is.

All they do is tell us the sky is falling.

 

What would you do? Ban air travel, ban cars in cities, reduce populations, other? Do tell, please.

[bristolboy]

I just skimmed that piece from Cadbury and found this huge falsehood:

"There have been lower temperatures globally "

(And what is so hard to understand about the thaivisa rules about copying? why is it so difficult to use a link?)

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fberkeleyearth.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F01%2FLongtermTrend2017.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fberkeleyearth.org%2Fglobal-temperatures-2017%2F&docid=ZJ30yFU6Sl6OMM&tbnid=L6h6I-_aSoPx0M%3A&vet=1&w=1596&h=907&bih=646&biw=1280&ved=0ahUKEwib1_LfmdnhAhUYOisKHWj5A70QMwhXKAEwAQ&iact=c&ictx=1

[BobBKK]

So they hold up cars and trains that then have to spend extra fuel to get home 5 hours late?

[Chomper Higgot]

49 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

you could try, at least better than a google keyboard warrior.

 

I also have all 3 backgrounds

 

but you can't deny the amount of scientists being ignored by the IPCC and those that question their

assumptions and methods being ignored and ridiculed to feed an agenda.

I don't see any evidence of your science of engineering backgrounds. 

 

I would expect an engineer or scientist to understand the contribution a number of power sources make in a mixed power source energy supply system and discuss the whole. 

 

What you are actually doing is trotting out 'low level' observations on drawbacks and presenting that as if it's game over. 

 

Again, nobody on either side of the energy debate is suggesting any single source of power. 

 

During the years I worked in the electrical power industry there was never a time when a single source was used to provide power. Power supplies have always been from mixed sources and always will be from mixed sources. 

 

Each source brings pros and cons regardless of whether it is fossil fuel based or renewable. 

 

[nauseus]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, what is the solution then? I have no idea as no one actually says what it is.

All they do is tell us the sky is falling.

 

What would you do? Ban air travel, ban cars in cities, reduce populations, other? Do tell, please.

We were talking about the problem not the solution. Yes CO₂, all other emissions, pollution, food and water supply problems etc could be reduced if the world could agree to a sensible reduction in the population. I already said that in post #10. 

[tlandtday]

No one is denying increased CO2 levels the problem is there is not conclusive evidence it causes warming....

[elmrfudd]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don't see any evidence of your science of engineering backgrounds. 

 

I would expect an engineer or scientist to understand the contribution a number of power sources make in a mixed power source energy supply system and discuss the whole. 

 

What you are actually doing is trotting out 'low level' observations on drawbacks and presenting that as if it's game over. 

 

Again, nobody on either side of the energy debate is suggesting any single source of power. 

 

During the years I worked in the electrical power industry there was never a time when a single source was used to provide power. Power supplies have always been from mixed sources and always will be from mixed sources. 

 

Each source brings pros and cons regardless of whether it is fossil fuel based or renewable. 

 

well thanks for the assumptions and condescension

 

where did I say that using different power sources (where they make sense) is not acceptable?

 

I merely pointed out the obvious physics behind the power generating capabilities of a gas turbine

versus solar, when bristolboy was trying to say they are going to be more cost effective and replace them.

physics say otherwise.

 

then you go with the arrogant comment "low level" nonsense.

 

I have done a waste incineration power plant, CCGT and geothermal, besides all the oil and gas facility

GGT's. almost always on the automation and control side. I really don't need your lecture.

 

we use solar for lighting in remote areas, I never said they did not have their uses.

 

All I did was comment on the absurd notion of replacing fossil fuels and the psuedo science 

behind the claims as well as the ridiculous "denier" mantra being spouted about.

 

perhaps it is it time to get off the high horse. 

 

but history has shown that is unlikely.

 

 

[Cadbury]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You can believe it or not but CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. It's not most common nor not necessarily the most dangerous GG but since the Industrial Revolution levels have gone up from about 280 to 400 ppm, with global average temperatures rising about 1 degree Celsius at the same time. The natural sinks that were previously able to balance the carbon cycle cannot keep pace with this increase or have been decimated or removed by man: this also evident by more acidification in the oceans.  

To qualify what you say in more easily understood terms then CO2 has risen from 0.028% to 0.040% of the earth's atmosphere.

So is the other 99.960%, or (999,600 ppm) of earth's atmosphere blameless in global warming? Why is 400 copping all the flack? Just a question.

[nauseus]

36 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I just skimmed that piece from Cadbury and found this huge falsehood:

"There have been lower temperatures globally "

(And what is so hard to understand about the thaivisa rules about copying? why is it so difficult to use a link?)

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fberkeleyearth.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F01%2FLongtermTrend2017.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fberkeleyearth.org%2Fglobal-temperatures-2017%2F&docid=ZJ30yFU6Sl6OMM&tbnid=L6h6I-_aSoPx0M%3A&vet=1&w=1596&h=907&bih=646&biw=1280&ved=0ahUKEwib1_LfmdnhAhUYOisKHWj5A70QMwhXKAEwAQ&iact=c&ictx=1

Your chart shows the generally agreed rise of 1^oC over the last 160 years. You can see that WW2 affected human industry somewhat! The predicted temp is also similar to most that I have seen. Just hope they are wrong! There have indeed been far greater temperature variations through Earth history. However the rate of change of these in the has rarely been as relatively abrupt as this.

 

It is true that CO₂ may not be the main driver of warming but, while we don't know for sure, emissions should be cut as much as possible, especially for the sake of the oceans.

 

I don't agree with carbon tax either. Or Corbyn tax.

 

 

 

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

To qualify what you say in more easily understood terms then CO2 has risen from 0.028% to 0.040% of the earth's atmosphere.

So is the other 99.960%, or (999,600 ppm) of earth's atmosphere blameless in global warming? Why is 400 copping all the flack? Just a question.

Your percentages look correct. Nearly all of the atmosphere (78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, <1% argon) is not composed of greenhouse (GG) gases and certainly not to "blame". The most common GG is water vapour but this varies in terms of volume in the atmosphere. Small percentages of CO_2, methane and others make up the greenhouse gas group. But taken as a percentage of the GGs only, then CO₂ becomes much more prominent and important.

 

There are various factors that may be driving up the temperature. Climate change is a fact of life anyway but it's the recent rate of change in the temperature and climate that is abnormal. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, elmrfudd said:

well thanks for the assumptions and condescension

 

where did I say that using different power sources (where they make sense) is not acceptable?

 

I merely pointed out the obvious physics behind the power generating capabilities of a gas turbine

versus solar, when bristolboy was trying to say they are going to be more cost effective and replace them.

physics say otherwise.

 

then you go with the arrogant comment "low level" nonsense.

 

I have done a waste incineration power plant, CCGT and geothermal, besides all the oil and gas facility

GGT's. almost always on the automation and control side. I really don't need your lecture.

 

we use solar for lighting in remote areas, I never said they did not have their uses.

 

All I did was comment on the absurd notion of replacing fossil fuels and the psuedo science 

behind the claims as well as the ridiculous "denier" mantra being spouted about.

 

perhaps it is it time to get off the high horse. 

 

but history has shown that is unlikely.

 

 

I wasn't aware that the price of gas was governed by the laws of physics. Thanks for the info.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I wasn't aware that the price of gas was governed by the laws of physics. Thanks for the info.

You're welcome...????

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

I wasn't aware that the price of gas was governed by the laws of physics. Thanks for the info.

weak  arrogant deflection, but expected.

 

it is not just about the price of natural gas, it is the efficiency, available run time, power demand

capabilities the smaller foot print and flexibility that make it the obvious choice for the majority of locations.

 

that is why the word capabilities was used.

 

but keep up the snarky arrogance regardless.

 

 

[RickBradford]

If these activists blocking roads were at all serious, they would be protesting China's CO2 emissions, which are 30 times greater than those of the UK, and rising fast, while the UK has cut emissions by 35% since 1990.

 

But in fact, they're just serial narcissists, with the main figures having protested in recent years against such varied targets as Barclays Bank, expansion of Heathrow airport,  The Sun newspaper, Donald Trump, bans on wearing the hijab, David Cameron, Nigel Farage, Bromley Council and Domino's Pizza.

 

I don't know how they find the time to protest, in between their ski-ing holidays, Italian sightseeing, and resort stays on Bali, which they proudly show off on social media.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

well thanks for the assumptions and condescension

 

where did I say that using different power sources (where they make sense) is not acceptable?

 

I merely pointed out the obvious physics behind the power generating capabilities of a gas turbine

versus solar, when bristolboy was trying to say they are going to be more cost effective and replace them.

physics say otherwise.

 

then you go with the arrogant comment "low level" nonsense.

 

I have done a waste incineration power plant, CCGT and geothermal, besides all the oil and gas facility

GGT's. almost always on the automation and control side. I really don't need your lecture.

 

we use solar for lighting in remote areas, I never said they did not have their uses.

 

All I did was comment on the absurd notion of replacing fossil fuels and the psuedo science 

behind the claims as well as the ridiculous "denier" mantra being spouted about.

 

perhaps it is it time to get off the high horse. 

 

but history has shown that is unlikely.

 

 

Like I say, an engineer or a scientist would understand power options in context of a broader power supply system. 

 

The growing number of solar power generation stations being installed and connected to electrical power grids around the world ought to prompt you to understand that solar power is a growing source of electrical power and that every kw of power generated from solar power is a kw that is not generated from fossil fuels.

 

Solar power has gone way past 'lighting for remote areas'. 

 

And it's only one of many renewable power sources. 

 

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as the replies. 

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

If these activists blocking roads were at all serious, they would be protesting China's CO2 emissions, which are 30 times greater than those of the UK, and rising fast, while the UK has cut emissions by 35% since 1990.

 

But in fact, they're just serial narcissists, with the main figures having protested in recent years against such varied targets as Barclays Bank, expansion of Heathrow airport,  The Sun newspaper, Donald Trump, bans on wearing the hijab, David Cameron, Nigel Farage, Bromley Council and Domino's Pizza.

 

I don't know how they find the time to protest, in between their ski-ing holidays, Italian sightseeing, and resort stays on Bali, which they proudly show off on social media.

 

 

 

On what basis do you make the claim 'But in fact, they're just serial narcissists'?

 

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Like I say, an engineer or a scientist would understand power options in context of a broader power supply system. 

 

The growing number of solar power generation stations being installed and connected to electrical power grids around the world ought to prompt you to understand that solar power is a growing source of electrical power and that every kw of power generated from solar power is a kw that is not generated from fossil fuels.

 

Solar power has gone way past 'lighting for remote areas'. 

 

And it's only one of many renewable power sources. 

 

like I said, they have their uses, mainly residential.

 

it is called fit for purpose.

 

offshore wind, horrible maintenance issues. 

 

 

as stated before, solar tied to a grid has to have battery storage incorporated to be viable and reliable.

 

I don't need your lecture or the condescending attitude

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

On what basis do you make the claim 'But in fact, they're just serial narcissists'?

 

Read the post.

 

These people have history of protesting anything and everything in a noisy and disruptive fashion. It's not the particular cause they care about, but the activism itself.

 

They would protest the second coming of Jesus if they thought they would get on the news.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

like I said, they have their uses, mainly residential.

 

it is called fit for purpose.

 

offshore wind, horrible maintenance issues. 

 

 

as stated before, solar tied to a grid has to have battery storage incorporated to be viable and reliable.

 

I don't need your lecture or the condescending attitude

 

Why does solar tied to a grid have to have battery storage to be viable or reliable? 

 

Surely that is dependent upon what other power sources are attached to the grid, the percentage of the power provided by the solar source, if there is one solar power source of multiple geographically  distributed solar power sources, the power consumption patterns on the grid etc?

 

I can see no intrinsic reason why a solar power source should need batteries when attached to a wider mixed power source grid. 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

Read the post.

 

These people have history of protesting anything and everything in a noisy and disruptive fashion. It's not the particular cause they care about, but the activism itself.

 

They would protest the second coming of Jesus if they thought they would get on the news.

So the foundation of one piece of nonsense is another  piece of nonsense.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

I guess Solar Power really does have its limited uses.... 'mainly residential'. 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/china-launches-largest-floating-solar-farm-180963587/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the foundation of one piece of nonsense is another  piece of nonsense.

Feel free to keep ignoring documented fact - it makes you a better climate zealot, after all.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Feel free to keep ignoring documented fact - it makes you a better climate zealot, after all.

I've asked you for the basis of your claim that the protestors are 'Serial Narcissists' you can't provide a basis and now you mention documented facts?