Fossil fuels should be 'phased out by 2100' says IPCC

[Reynard]

It's a left wing conspiracy Reynard/Clarkston5/Haggis Pakora.

We shut down the coal mines because it was getting too easy and cheap to dig it out the ground.

Sir Ian Wood is in on this as well when he talked about oil running out in the next couple of decades.

As for gas. Wonderful gas. So easy to remove we can simply suck it out of the ground at no risk to the environment or the atmosphere.

Do you nutters call it the New World Order or something like that?

Or do you favour the lizard theory?

Here's a wee question for you Reynard. Do you know what happens to methane when (and it most certainly will) it gets into the atmosphere? Any idea at all?

You are a clown.

You deliberately avoid what we were talking about. You refuse to accept that I have completely dismantled any argument that can be made for windfarms and you come away with the sorriest looking pathetic retort I've seen on the internet. And there are some real spangles out there. You try to put yourself forward as some sort of font of scientific knowledge yet you haven't managed to counter a single thing Ive told you abiout wind power. And its specifically windpower I'm arguing against.

So either get yourself a counter argument or get yourself to f**k. At least Renton made a half arsed attempt at telling me renewables were brilliant. ou spent a couple of years making a c**t of yourself in the privacy of the GN forum OF b&w Army along with PB, and it looks like you've emerged from that chrysalis and have emerged into this particular arena to make a c**t of yourself here too. You buckled commie f**k.

[renton]

You are a clown.

You deliberately avoid what we were talking about. You refuse to accept that I have completely dismantled any argument that can be made for windfarms and you come away with the sorriest looking pathetic retort I've seen on the internet. And there are some real spangles out there. You try to put yourself forward as some sort of font of scientific knowledge yet you haven't managed to counter a single thing Ive told you abiout wind power. And its specifically windpower I'm arguing against.

So either get yourself a counter argument or get yourself to f**k. At least Renton made a half arsed attempt at telling me renewables were brilliant. ou spent a couple of years making a c**t of yourself in the privacy of the GN forum OF b&w Army along with PB, and it looks like you've emerged from that chrysalis and have emerged into this particular arena to make a c**t of yourself here too. You buckled commie f**k.

You really, really haven't. You willfully ignore the fact that even on a bad day, the limited installed capacity of onshore wind is still ptoducing a significant proportion of Scotland's electricity, and that when the full potential of onshore and offshore wind is installed it will provide near enoguh 100% on a relatively still day (let alone tidal and wave). Wind cannot provide the capacity of the bulfk of the UK, but other renewables can. I argued that the solution has to fit the geography of the place. What works for Scotland doesn't work for south east England - but something will, solar, perhaps.

On another note, the reason we have so much coal in the ground is because your w**k bank material shut the fucking industry down on the grounds that it was uneconomic.

[Clarkston5]

You are a clown.

You deliberately avoid what we were talking about. You refuse to accept that I have completely dismantled any argument that can be made for windfarms and you come away with the sorriest looking pathetic retort I've seen on the internet. And there are some real spangles out there. You try to put yourself forward as some sort of font of scientific knowledge yet you haven't managed to counter a single thing Ive told you abiout wind power. And its specifically windpower I'm arguing against.

So either get yourself a counter argument or get yourself to f**k. At least Renton made a half arsed attempt at telling me renewables were brilliant. ou spent a couple of years making a c**t of yourself in the privacy of the GN forum OF b&w Army along with PB, and it looks like you've emerged from that chrysalis and have emerged into this particular arena to make a c**t of yourself here too. You buckled commie f**k.

Another issue I have is around the H&S of wind turbines because all this nonsense about "catastrophe if we don't" might enable these things to be constructed and made operational without rigorous safety tests.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695266/Wind-turbine-fire-risk-Number-catch-alight-year-ten-times-higher-industry-admits.html

[Reynard]

You really, really haven't. You willfully ignore the fact that even on a bad day, the limited installed capacity of onshore wind is still ptoducing a significant proportion of Scotland's electricity, and that when the full potential of onshore and offshore wind is installed it will provide near enoguh 100% on a relatively still day (let alone tidal and wave). Wind cannot provide the capacity of the bulfk of the UK, but other renewables can. I argued that the solution has to fit the geography of the place. What works for Scotland doesn't work for south east England - but something will, solar, perhaps.

On another note, the reason we have so much coal in the ground is because your w**k bank material shut the fucking industry down on the grounds that it was uneconomic.

How much. Exactly. And when. I can give you all thew figures you like on a five minute basis from the grid. Where are you getting yours from? The crucial part of it all is WHEN its generated.

Coal is uneconomic to dig out the ground in this country for a variety of reasons. We can import it FAR cheaper than we can dig it out the ground being the main one. But the fact remains that its there, if needed. There are other uses for it too.

Coal remains by far the cheapest method of producing electricity known to man.

[renton]

How much. Exactly. And when. I can give you all thew figures you like on a five minute basis from the grid. Where are you getting yours from? The crucial part of it all is WHEN its generated.

Coal is uneconomic to dig out the ground in this country for a variety of reasons. We can import it FAR cheaper than we can dig it out the ground being the main one. But the fact remains that its there, if needed. There are other uses for it too.

Coal remains by far the cheapest method of producing electricity known to man.

Well yesterday when you were giving out the figures 'minute by minute' I was able to do a basic back of an envelope, fairly conservative calculation using your figures and came up with about 20% of Scotland's electricity - on a still day.

[Reynard]

Well yesterday when you were giving out the figures 'minute by minute' I was able to do a basic back of an envelope, fairly conservative calculation using your figures and came up with about 20% of Scotland's electricity - on a still day.

And you know for certain that it was all Scottish turbines that were twirling merrily away? If so, how do you know this? Thanks.

And what Scotland is producing is an utter irrelevance anyway as its a national grid, not a Scottish one. We are one country when it comes to energy production. I take it this will be the reason why there are no separate figures for Scottish energy production and we have to base it all on back of a fag packet guesswork based on nothing solid.

Again, the crucial thing is WHEN energy is being produced. And if you want to constantly use Scotland as your shining light, what gas turbine back up is required in Scotland to balance supply when the wind isn't blowing? We know that in 2011 it was said that at that point we would need to spend 10bn as a nation installing gas turbines to back up the installed capacity of the useless windfarms. And also pay them ongoing subsidies even if they are effectively mothballed.

[Reynard]

We are producing 1.54GWh of energy from wind just now. Current demand is 43GWh

[renton]

And you know for certain that it was all Scottish turbines that were twirling merrily away? If so, how do you know this? Thanks.

And what Scotland is producing is an utter irrelevance anyway as its a national grid, not a Scottish one. We are one country when it comes to energy production. I take it this will be the reason why there are no separate figures for Scottish energy production and we have to base it all on back of a fag packet guesswork based on nothing solid.

Again, the crucial thing is WHEN energy is being produced. And if you want to constantly use Scotland as your shining light, what gas turbine back up is required in Scotland to balance supply when the wind isn't blowing? We know that in 2011 it was said that at that point we would need to spend 10bn as a nation installing gas turbines to back up the installed capacity of the useless windfarms. And also pay them ongoing subsidies even if they are effectively mothballed.

Actually, looking at that website, you probably could, if someone was so inclined, seperate out Scotland from the UK - they just don't.

It's not an utter irrelevence what Scotland produces at all. It matters because, as I keep saying, renewables is ultimately an expression of geography: local solutions for local problems (I thought, as a Tory you'd love that sort of thing). So what benefits Scotland may not be the best solution for the south east of England. In any event the total installed capacity for renewables in Scotland from all sources is given as something like 60GW, currently we only have about 8 GW in total installed. Allowing for a load factor of 0.3-0.4 that still implies a realistic output of around 20 GW, more than enough to power Scotland and provide a decent percentage of UK wide demand. It's nonsensical to hold up the current, partial renewables strategy and say it can never work - that's like only building one nuclear power station and complaining it's not providing 100% of demand by itself.

[AUFC90]

In 2013 renewables accounted for 44% of electricity consumed in Scotland.

[Reynard]

In 2013 renewables accounted for 44% of electricity consumed in Scotland.

Actually, looking at that website, you probably could, if someone was so inclined, seperate out Scotland from the UK - they just don't.

It's not an utter irrelevence what Scotland produces at all. It matters because, as I keep saying, renewables is ultimately an expression of geography: local solutions for local problems (I thought, as a Tory you'd love that sort of thing). So what benefits Scotland may not be the best solution for the south east of England. In any event the total installed capacity for renewables in Scotland from all sources is given as something like 60GW, currently we only have about 8 GW in total installed. Allowing for a load factor of 0.3-0.4 that still implies a realistic output of around 20 GW, more than enough to power Scotland and provide a decent percentage of UK wide demand. It's nonsensical to hold up the current, partial renewables strategy and say it can never work - that's like only building one nuclear power station and complaining it's not providing 100% of demand by itself.

And what gas back up does Scotland have for all its mighty renewable array? Or is it relying entire on gas fired stations from "abroad"?

Scotland isn't a stand alone part of the grid. The reason we have lots more windmills is because the SNP want more windmills. They don't deliver. I've shown you this repeatedly yet you can't handle this.

[Reynard]

1.38GWh being produced by our vast and extremely costly windmill array. The country needs 42.64GWh right now or the lights go out and P&B ceases.

[renton]

And what gas back up does Scotland have for all its mighty renewable array? Or is it relying entire on gas fired stations from "abroad"?

Scotland isn't a stand alone part of the grid. The reason we have lots more windmills is because the SNP want more windmills. They don't deliver. I've shown you this repeatedly yet you can't handle this.

No you haven't. They do deliver, and I can handle that just fine.

[Reynard]

No you haven't. They do deliver, and I can handle that just fine.

They clearly don't. Pound for pound they are the most expensive and most erratic method of delivering power that we have ever come up with.

What plans do the Scottish government have to back up the wind array with gas as recommended in 2011? Any? None? Just going to crow about how they've carpeted Scotland with shrapnel that generates energy erratically and not necessarily when we need it. Would Scotland simply have imported power from abroad when the wind doesn't blow do you think? Coal burning at Longannet will cease and the SNP want to shut our nuclear power stations. What plans have they got to secure energy supply? I also think the UK energy policy is disastrous, but it looks almost coherent next to the SG efforts.

[AUFC90]

They clearly don't. Pound for pound they are the most expensive and most erratic method of delivering power that we have ever come up with.

What plans do the Scottish government have to back up the wind array with gas as recommended in 2011? Any? None? Just going to crow about how they've carpeted Scotland with shrapnel that generates energy erratically and not necessarily when we need it. Would Scotland simply have imported power from abroad when the wind doesn't blow do you think? Coal burning at Longannet will cease and the SNP want to shut our nuclear power stations. What plans have they got to secure energy supply? I also think the UK energy policy is disastrous, but it looks almost coherent next to the SG efforts.

Are you factoring in the cost of decommissioning all these power stations when calculating your pound for pound figure ?

[Reynard]

1.15GWh from wind this morning. An absolutely astonishing return for our money.

[Reynard]

Are you factoring in the cost of decommissioning all these power stations when calculating your pound for pound figure ?

Of course. You absolute turnip

[AUFC90]

Of course. You absolute turnip

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117

67 billion and rising to clean up Sellafield. That's a hell of a lot of money. How much will cost to decommission all our old nuclear power stations and replace them with new ones ? You complete tosspot.

[Reynard]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117

67 billion and rising to clean up Sellafield. That's a hell of a lot of money. How much will cost to decommission all our old nuclear power stations and replace them with new ones ? You complete tosspot.

Dunno. Or care. Nuclear actually delivers abundant power all the same, unlike renewables. Nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels but considerably cheaper than renewables, and thats including decommissioning and rebuilding. The French generate over 75% of their energy from it, and supply quite a lot of other states with their excess fuel. Maybe that helps them when it comes to decommissioning these dreadful massive energy generators (no CO2 emissions either) and building new ones? They certainly havent been stupid enough to litter the countryside with windmills that provide f**k all energy and at extortionate cost.

[AUFC90]

Dunno. Or care. Nuclear actually delivers abundant power all the same, unlike renewables. Nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels but considerably cheaper than renewables, and thats including decommissioning and rebuilding. The French generate over 75% of their energy from it, and supply quite a lot of other states with their excess fuel. Maybe that helps them when it comes to decommissioning these dreadful massive energy generators (no CO2 emissions either) and building new ones? They certainly havent been stupid enough to litter the countryside with windmills that provide f**k all energy and at extortionate cost.

Aye and nuclear is just really cheap compared to renewables. It's that cheap that we have been unwilling to replace them all. How much power would £69bn worth of windmills deliver ?

[Reynard]

Aye and nuclear is just really cheap compared to renewables. It's that cheap that we have been unwilling to replace them all. How much power would £69bn worth of windmills deliver ?

Not a lot. Gordon Brown committed to spending 100bn on windmills and this government hasn't knocked this spend on the head either.

The "project" today is currently delivering 0.66GWh of electricity to the grid. Basically if you light one of your farts, its producing more energy.

When I was talking about costs to deliver power, I was of course including all the subsidies paid to generate the various methods. In stand alone terms per GWh nuclear is actually the cheapest by a mile. Looking at the raw costs of producing electricity from various power sources is instructive. For a megawatt hour (a standard unit of energy, enough to brew about 50,000 cups of tea), the cheapest fuel is nuclear (£74), followed by gas (£77) and coal (£95). Onshore wind ties with hydroelectric at just over £100 and offshore wind can cost a whopping £146. But the costs are all skewed by the various subsidies demanded by the generators and by the government as they try to push whatever method is currently flavour of the month with them. As I've said previously, wind DOES generate power, but it's totally erratic and its not predictable. It also needs to be backed up by something which can fire up and shut down swiftly. That "something" at the moment, happens to be gas fired power stations.