Reynard Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 1.6GWh of wind energy being produced just now. When we need it... We are having to buy in three times that right now from abroad. Stooopid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 1.6GWh of wind energy being produced just now. When we need it... We are having to buy in three times that right now from abroad. Stooopid! How much of that is installed in Scotland? Let's be generous to everyone else and say 50% of it is in Scotland, so that's 0.8GWh currently being produced from Scottish wind farms. In 2010 Scotland produced 33,606 GWh, so on average each hour Scotland produced 3.83 GW, assuming it keeps that rate up over an hour so that wind produces 0.8 GW, then wind power, on a still day is producing an average 20% of Scotland's electricity (this of course is ana verage and doesn't take peak demand into consideration, the point remains that on non optimal days you can still produce significant capacity from current installations, but that you do nee dot build a lot more and diversify the mix in order to make it work properly) There is 6 GW of installed wind power capacity. When offshore and onshore is maxed out there will be 20GW of installed capacity. Which means on a similarly still day, and assuming that offshore has the same efficiency as onshore (it doesn't, it's much higher) then wind power alone would be producing 60% of Scotland's electricity, in fact would be higher due to offshore's greater efficiency. Factor in wave and tidal next, and suddenly you are getting close to 100% renewables output of electricity on a still day. granted, for the UK as a whole, wind power will never be a panacea solution, the thing about renewables is that they, by necessity are tailiored to the geography of the site. So, what makes sense for Scotland, wind and tidal, will not make sense for the South east of England (solar and tidal, I'd guess). It doesn't mean that wind is useless, within the local conditions of where it is installed, it works fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford prefect Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 If we increase our nuclear capability, where will all the waste go. Or do we just pretend it just has upsides? Renewable energy is the only long term way forward, developing it si that it becomes more effecient, is where the money should be going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 If we increase our nuclear capability, where will all the waste go. Or do we just pretend it just has upsides? Renewable energy is the only long term way forward, developing it si that it becomes more effecient, is where the money should be going. If you move over time away from fossil fuel reactors to nuclear fission (there is nothing so far to suggest a viable fusion reactor before 2050) then you just replicate the same captive market issues with nuclear fuel as you do currently with fossil fuels. A (much) rarer fuel source mined in only a few sources on earth and require to power an ever increasing demand for electricity? Same problems, different century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Reynard produces figures and his posts are succinct and clear. Oaksoft, Dorlomin and their peers construct waffling posts that elevate scientism and ignore the fact that we're all being conned. The new defence is either "our EXACT predictions for the impact of climate change are perhaps incorrect" OR "even if we're wrong isn't it better to be good stewards of the planet" while we have to pay for this BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Aye and then he gets one of his aliases to post backup messages. This is getting really tedious Reynard. The argument is that all the resources Reynard talks about using are finite and we are already running out of them and we urgently need to find new power sources which are renewable. High school kids are smart enough to understand this concept. Accuse me of being an alias of Reynard and then refer to him in the third person Really and you voted for an independent Scotland because "we'd be better off". The centrality of Oil as being Scotland's economic wealth wasn't emphasized enough for you? People are being brain washed into believing this pap. When it all comes out in years to come, don't be surprised and don't say the signs weren't there either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Aye and then he gets one of his aliases to post backup messages. This is getting really tedious Reynard. The argument is that all the resources Reynard talks about using are finite and we are already running out of them and we urgently need to find new power sources which are renewable. High school kids are smart enough to understand this concept. Yup, even if you are an absolute denier of anthropomorphic climate change, the simple fact that finite resources that are running out will become ultimately much more expensive and will raise global tensions (requiring a large squandering of money and finally, lives) should be enough to make even a half sane person want to seriously explore renewables as the only short to medium term solution available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Yup, even if you are an absolute denier of anthropomorphic climate change, the simple fact that finite resources that are running out will become ultimately much more expensive and will raise global tensions (requiring a large squandering of money and finally, lives) should be enough to make even a half sane person want to seriously explore renewables as the only short to medium term solution available. Ah right so countries will get into conflict over Oil? Wow you guys are just too smart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Ah right so countries will get into conflict over Oil? Wow you guys are just too smart Sorry, what's your point? You think they won't - you think oil won't run out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Sorry, what's your point? You think they won't - you think oil won't run out? He didn't have a point mate. He was just being an immature c*nt as per... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Aye and then he gets one of his aliases to post backup messages. This is getting really tedious Reynard. The argument is that all the resources Reynard talks about using are finite and we are already running out of them and we urgently need to find new power sources which are renewable. High school kids are smart enough to understand this concept. You were asked to prove this. It will be fairly simple to do as well. Instead of constantly attacking the poster, maybe you could attempt to address what is actually said. Although you know I'll wipe the floor with you so you'll persist with the AILLLEEEASSS!!! drivel. BTW wind is producing an almighty 1.62GWh of energy right now. A brilliant return for the billions wasted on it don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 As for oil running out. We don't use oil to provide electricity. The ONLY time we would burn oil would be in a dire emergency. We DO burn a lot of gas to make electricity. Thankfully the UK is actually fully self sufficient in gas if the loony left allow us to exploit it. We have enough gas under our feet to last us for many hundreds of years.. The main concern for the fuckwits seems to be global warming and reducing the plant food that is CO2. Well, its at the highest level it has been at since we began to measure it properly and temperatures are not rising. I suggest that the science is therefore "pish" and that instead of fucking over the economy for whatever reason and putting the poor in massive fuel poverty, that we actually use the cheapeast methods we have at our disposal to produce our energy. Maybe this is just too sensible for some people all the same. Germany will be binning its commitments to reducing CO2 anyway and Australia has already dumped it. We will eventually follow on. Mainly because wind, as I have shown, doesn't produce for us as and when required. Its also cripplingly expensive. And of course, it just doesn't work. Rentons own graph gave us a snapshot of this but it didn't pony up ANY detail as to WHEN this wind power was actually generated. Three in the morning is no use to us when peak demand is early evening... But hey. Polar bears are melting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Mmm wonder were gas comes from Those estimates keep changing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Down to 1.56GWh from wind now. In 2011 the government was told that we would need a 10billion investment in new gas fired plants as back up for all the wind power coming on stream. These plants will also require subsidy when not being used. Thats on top of the subsidies being paid to wind farm operators when the wind isn't blowing (like today) and of course when the wind blows too much, wind farm operators also get paid to turn off the turbines and stand them idle til the storm passes. Sensible energy policy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 1.34GWh now. Lovely day out there. Hardly a breath of wind. Not even at sea by the look of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 As for oil running out. We don't use oil to provide electricity. The ONLY time we would burn oil would be in a dire emergency. We DO burn a lot of gas to make electricity. Thankfully the UK is actually fully self sufficient in gas if the loony left allow us to exploit it. We have enough gas under our feet to last us for many hundreds of years.. The main concern for the fuckwits seems to be global warming and reducing the plant food that is CO2. Well, its at the highest level it has been at since we began to measure it properly and temperatures are not rising. I suggest that the science is therefore "pish" and that instead of fucking over the economy for whatever reason and putting the poor in massive fuel poverty, that we actually use the cheapeast methods we have at our disposal to produce our energy. Maybe this is just too sensible for some people all the same. Germany will be binning its commitments to reducing CO2 anyway and Australia has already dumped it. We will eventually follow on. Mainly because wind, as I have shown, doesn't produce for us as and when required. Its also cripplingly expensive. And of course, it just doesn't work. Rentons own graph gave us a snapshot of this but it didn't pony up ANY detail as to WHEN this wind power was actually generated. Three in the morning is no use to us when peak demand is early evening... But hey. Polar bears are melting. UKIP believes that the UK's current energy policy, dictated by Brussels, with its heavy reliance on wind, is seriously undermining the UK economy and driving jobs, industry and investment off-shore. It is forcing millions of households and pensioners into fuel poverty. And over-dependence on renewables threatens security of supply, and raises the probability of electricity shortages by the end of the decade. The UKIP statement draws attention to recent studies indicating that emissions savings achieved by wind power, after allowing for the necessary conventional back-up, are somewhere between trivial an zero. It also contradicts claims that "the green economy" generates jobs and has the potential to aid economic recovery. UKIP draws attention to a number of studies showing that by driving up energy costs, renewables actually destroy jobs in the real economy. As Helmer puts it, "We're not talking green jobs. We're talking green unemployment". UKIP proposes instead a policy based on proven and economic technologies: gas, coal and nuclear. This implies a rejection of EU policy and particularly of the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive, which seeks to ban coal. The policy statement points out that ironically, such a policy could in fact achieve the emissions reductions called for by green lobbyists more effectively and more cheaply than a policy based on renewables. UKIP also calls for urgent investigation and exploitation of domestic energy sources including shale gas (which has achieved a 50% reduction in gas prices in the USA). Commenting on the policy launch, Helmer said: "UKIP's common-sense policy is based on reliable, secure and affordable energy technologies, in stark contrast to the three old parties, which all endorse a flawed renewables strategy. Our strategy can ensure that households have access to affordable energy, while underwriting the competitiveness of British industry" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 At some point Reynard or one of his forum girlfriends will explain exactly what the long term alternative is to renew. Mmm a bit of homophobia from the resident tree hugger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 So Reynard's mind blowing suggestion is to simply ignore the problem. Ignore the fact that coal and oil are running out. Ignore the fact that gas supplies are ultimately limited. Ignore the fact that nuclear power requires material which is in short supply. In fact he wants to speed up the use of this set of precious and dwindling resources with no suggestions offered as to what we do when, in the words of industry experts, we are going to face oil shortages within 5-10 years and most of the above resources will be exhausted within 50 years. ....and he has the cheek to call other people idiots??? Scotland alone has enough coal to last us another 300 years. England also has plenty. There is no shortage of coal . There is no shortage of oil either. The USA, in case you haven't spotted it, is now self sufficient in oil which is driving down demand elsewhere and also price. This has totally fucked over the SNP economic figures as well, but I digress. I also told you that in England there is enough gas to last the entire UK hundreds of years at present useage. More than enough time to "come up with something better" I would have thought. The problem with green lunatics is that they have set us on a course for disaster energy wise. Renewables don't cut it and we need to stop wasting money on the utter scrap we are throwing up right now. Wind is currently providing us with 4% of the entire amount of power this country is now using. We have wasted billions throwing this shite up and it doesn't give us a return for our money. Thats a gross misallocation of resources which COULD have been spent on researching better technologies in the field. But no, you utter morons want to throw up more and more of these money pits to salve your green consciences. For no reason whatsoever. So while you are utterly and hopelessly wrong about fossil fuels we also have the capability of using nuclear. Something that in CO2 emission terms is almost entirely "green", but more than that, it actually delivers us some power too unlike renewables. Maybe the French, who run their vast country on nearly 75% nuclear generated power are dong thing wrong? Unfortunately the French provide us with more carbon dioxide free generated electricity than our own waste of time renewables do. They also provide Italy and Spain and Switzerland with cheap decarbonised energy. Yet the lunatic greens cant handle this for ideological reasons. Its almost so pathetic its untrue. Frankly the renewables industry will die a death. The tide is already turning against it as we see how little power we are getting for the billions spent on it so far. Perhaps instead of whining about using fossil fuels (which is still by far the cheapest method of power generation) you can explain to your scheme goblin chums in your condescending leftarded way why them sitting in a freezing damp unheated flat because they cant afford to heat it, is saving the fucking planet. f**k knows which planet right enough. Maybe the one you fucking beamed down from. c**t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 We know for a fact that a tiny portion of Bowland shale has enough gas in it to provide the UK with its entire gas needs for 40-50 years alone. Bowland is actually one of the biggest and deepest shale deposits yet found. Its fucking huge. Bigger than the Marcellus find in the US which has transformed their energy production. Maybe your "industry experts" hadn't heard the news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 It's a left wing conspiracy Reynard/Clarkston5/Haggis Pakora. Do you nutters call it the New World Order or something like that? Or do you favour the lizard theory? I think that you should read his posts and then respond rather than including us en masse. You come across as slightly paranoid but mainly thick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.