Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
16696706726746751067

Comments

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Link to that paper PDF https://file1.lookchem.com/doi/2022/2/1/4d968ad4-ad4d-426e-85d6-dae8f418dac9.pdf ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.200801667 )

    They were using 50% efficient hydrogen fuel cells as the reference. The existing CCGT can already do up to 60% efficiency. And we've to reduce their emissions to a fifth of what they were by 2030. That paper was Received: April 9, 2008

    The nature article is about improving well to wheel by skipping the energy used to convert hydrocarbons to hydrogen. Nothing whatsoever to do with green renewable hydrogen , which bypasses the well altogether.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia



    Ok, you've finally pushed me over the edge. "(respected) Climate scientists are 'evil'"

    You're completely beyond reasonable discussion.

    I've tried to talk some family members off the edge of insanity before. When the word evil comes up, it's impossible to talk anymore.

    I wish you the best but you're not thinking in rational terms anymore.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    the real world data that showed record coral bleaching events repeated multiple times in a decade

    The evidence is that we're killing these eco-systems. They may cling on, the same way my dying grandfather clung on for a few days. But the changes we're making are incompatible with the biosphere that has taken thousands of years to mature

    Sure, a new eco system will eventually take over.

    But that's not much use for humans who only live 50-100 years



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    I mean, I've shown you real world examples of the climate catastrophe nonsense that gets peddled on an all to regular basis. You can't possibly have any idea if this is the last dying thrust of the great barrier reef or a natural recovery. The real data is showing the opposite to what you are predicting.

    Why do you think the biosphere is in trouble? The planet is getting greener, crop yields are increasing, humans are flourishing with more and more people getting out of poverty. We've a way to go to improve the environment and reduce pollution but we'll get there. Humans are going to be just fine for the next few thousand years bar a meteor strike or some other anomaly.

    Honestly, take a step back from the climate catastrophe mumbo jumbo and start looking at the positives going on right now all around the world instead of politicized IPCC summaries and other over the top predictions of our doom.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    We did not die out when the UK could grow grapes for wine. Africa had to be hotter then for example. How do we blame climate change on crabs eating reefs like in Aus. Seals falling off cliff due to the sheer population explosion. Things go extinct or move like in the case of reefs they are not permanent structures. Reef will die off if the water gets to hot or too cold they need a pretty tight margin.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The data shows record breaking bleaching events happening when SSTs are hot. The data also shows SSTs being hotter more often

    There may be some 'recovery' in tha la Nina years but the fact is, SSTs will soon get to a point where the current ecosystem collapses and we're left with either nothing or a severely depleted alternative.

    This is in the IPCC reports.

    All life won't be lost but biodiversity will be lost. some corals will survive but complex systems will be lost and the corals will shift to a new state that supports way less life than they currently do.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Those are regional impacts and there definitely were famines and severe hardships associated with them



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    Really care to share the data from those times. Say like 300 AD.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Most people accept climate change. Most people accept something has to be done to prevent it. Most people are in favour of improving the condition of the environment, less pollution etc.

    What most people are not in favour is tax increases and quality of life reductions in Ireland alone for vanity reasons which will do very little to alleviate climate change but will really have large effects in Ireland. If I’m spending €1,000 more per month than I earn, buying one less carton of milk will not solve my deficit issues but it will have a larger impact on my milk consumption.

    This is what’s wrong with this approach in Ireland. Those advocating for these societal shifts don’t understand the macro and micro benefits and how they play out. Take for example the Minister for Transport. He’s doing his level best to obstruct roads projects left right and centre. If he cancels the Tipperary Town bypass for example to prevent extra emissions, it has a minuscule impact on global emissions but has a massive impact on Tipperary Town and it’s residents. Why are these people having to suffer traffic and inaccessibility in their town for such a futile apparent benefit?

    It’s the failure to understand this concept that drives people against environmentalism and efforts to decarbonise. Because 1kg of emissions from a car on the N24 has exactly the same impact on the climate as 1kg of emissions from a private jet, or a coal plant in China, or gas being flared in Russia. And then it becomes a them vs us issue which is where progress goes to die in politics.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    There's no "may be some recovery", they are recovering. Despite the fact we were told they "could" disappear. Coral is sensitive to temperature but it's also sensitive to the farming runoff that was happening all down the Queensland cost until tighter measures were put in place over a decade ago. It's another example of having a myopic focus on climate and ignoring other facts which can be solved far easier than repowering the world off wind and solar at extraordinary expense.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Tipping points are code for unpredictable scary stuff, where they have no actual idea what to do . . . Except operationally it always turns out to mean give us loads of your money!.

    Rahmstorf, Schellnhuber and Rockström are first and foremost climate alarmists, science is a secondary consideration. I've been watching the Potsdam institute of climate alarm for years, their M.O. is usually <release study>, send press release with <insert alarmist headline>, further down the press release there will be <give us more money>.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    They have all the hallmarks of good old fashioned grfters.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Some Reefs are recovering. Others are still barren. The mass bleaching events we have seen occur in the previous few years will be annual events as climate change continues

    The reefs are going from being slowly poisoned by run-off, to being acutely killed by high water temperatures.

    The longer we delay action on climate change, the hotter the oceans will get, and the fewer corals will be able to survive.

    Some types of coral may be resilient to the heat but we will lose enormous amounts of biodiversity



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    They're scientists and their positions are supported by the best available scientific evidence.

    On the other hand, we have Exxon who know the exact same science, but choose to act in ways knowing that it will massively increase the risk of passing these tipping points with potentially catastrophic consequences.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    No Tricks Zone routinely falsifies graphs and lies about the science.

    Following actual 'grifters' like this blogger is not good for your paranoia



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Some additional interesting points on that page


    • The global offshore wind benchmark is now $3/MWh below that of coal and $18/MWh below that of gas. This is the first time that the benchmark undercuts fossil fuels in our analysis.
    • High commodity prices continue to make coal and gas projects more expensive. At $93/MWh globally, our benchmark gas LCOE is now more than double solar and onshore wind. BNEF expects fossil fuel prices to remain high in the short- to mid-term.

    It's easy to see why the share of investment is upwards of 90% into renewables versus others



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,407 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Love the way it’s assumed everyone in social housing is struggling but if you’re not in social housing you’re fine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    It's clear hard data just doesn't cut the mustard for you. Keep believing we are doomed all you want and reading whatever catastrophic fiction you want.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The CfD for offshore wind is £37.50 and solar is €45.99 and together they'll have over 50% capacity factor.

    UK CfD for nuclear is £92.50/MWh for continuous operation as what is being paid for is the capita cost (fuel only costs "£8m a year" etc.). This cost would have to be recovered during the 50% of the time when renewables aren't completely undermining it. So with half the time nuclear would actually need twice the price, £185/MWh to have the same income.

    At £185/MWh lots of other options including grid scale storage become attractive.



    Again to remind everyone nuclear is not reliable. These graphs should be a straight line with rectangular dip of about a month when plants go offline for schedule maintenance / refuelling during the minimum demand in summer. Nuclear means you need to invest in the sort of storage and backup that also supports renewables.

    UK Nuclear 2022 - https://gridwatch.co.uk/


    German Nuclear 2012



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The long term trend is that batteries are getting cheaper very fast. Even BNEF, the same source as that link you provided, project that prices will continue to fall from next year as additional manufacturing facilities come on stream.

    https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Its a Pilot proof of concept scheme and you have to start somewhere.

    Ultimately everyone will be availing of very cheap/free energy in the times when there is more wind and solar than there is demand. This will balance the load so that we don't have peak demand in the middle of the day, and very low demand at night

    It means we can build a grid to fit average demand rather than having to have enough capacity for peak plus additional backup capacity in case a system trips out during peak hours

    The difference is storage. Before now, in the 20th century grid, energy had to be used instantly as it was produced or we had very limited storage in pumped Hydro

    Now, we're in transition to a system where energy is going to be generated as it is available, and then stored for when it's needed. Every BEV in the country will be an energy storage device, there will be commercial grid scale battery storage providers who can top up their batteries when energy is abundant, and sell it when supply is low. Commercial and industrial facilities will have generation and storage facilities on site to take advantage of the changes in the price of electricity and as backups so that they won't have to rely on peak electricity prices.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Clear hard data comes from the peer reviewed scientific research literature, not pseudoscientific blogs who's income comes advertising pseudoscientific nonsense to gullible contrarians

    The NoTricksZone guy made a bet in 2010 that the next decade would be cooler on average than 2000-2009

    He lost that bet spectacularly

    So he made another bet in 2020 that the decade from 2020 to 2029 will be cooler than the decade from 2010 to 2019

    Why would you listen to a guy with no relevant qualifications who keeps making predictions that are 100% destined to fail?



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    How much does it cost to backup your Nuclear power plants for when they fail unexpectedly?



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Why are you asking me about Exxon or Trickzone? Seriously, what do they have to do with what I said?

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Why are you still using lithium batteries as a strawman when you know they can only support part of the load for a few hours ?

    They're grand if you've to wait 6 minutes for 200MW of gas turbines to spin up from a standing start.

    Batteries are as useful as a chocolate teapot if your nuclear plant keels over without even getting to 30 days on full load after you've been waiting since 2009 for it and another one approved in 2002 is cancelled in 2022. Because that's the reality of nuclear in Finland.


    Maximum costs for months long grid scale hydrogen storage using existing contracted prices are £1.5/Watt for hydrolysers + €1Bn refurb on gas field + £93/MWh if you paid full CfD price for offshore wind. NB Nuclear would require backup, storage and grid upgrades too.


    Back to batteries you are completely ignoring the 90% price drop in batteries in the last decade and developments in iron flow cells, sodium sulphur, and a whole set of other chemistries using cheaper metals like zinc or aluminium.


    And most of the recent price increases are by corporations, not the costs of technology.

    In the US, the UK and Australia, studies have found that 54 percent, 59 percent and 60 percent of inflation, respectively, was driven by increased corporate profits. In Spain, the CCOO (one of the country’s largest trade unions) found that corporate profits are responsible for 83.4 percent of price increases during the first quarter of 2022.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    You replied to a post calling climate scientists 'Grifters' on the basis of a post by Pa-El Grande' posting a hitjob on them by that blogger

    I was letting you know that this source is not credible, and calling professional scientists 'grifters' because of what some pseudoscience blogger said about them is only contributing to the problem



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Stefan Rahmstorf has been caught out several times in his own native Germany. Like Michael Mann he gets away with it because he aligns with the dominant narrative. For those not aware Potsdam has influence in this country through Maynooth university and the climate change advisory quango, in the person of Prof. Dr Ottmar Edenhofer.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Caught out doing what by who?

    Michael Mann, was proven right btw.



Advertisement