By David Taylor / @DavidTaylor85
As Douglas Alexander wrote on this site a couple of months ago, climate change is the defining test of our era. 300 million people are already affected, and if nothing is done to avert it the impact is predicted to be catastrophic for billions of people.
The test then, from a development perspective, was whether the Copenhagen talks would deliver a deal that committed the world to staying below the 2°C mark needed to avert disaster, and whether enough money would be committed to help developing countries already affected to adapt. That test was not met.
Yes, it is an important first step that all countries have accepted the science and committed to keeping the globe below 2°C - but as many have already pointed out, it is not legally binding. China is getting a lot of the blame for this, and whilst some of the criticisms are justified, it cannot excuse the lack of ambition shown by President Obama. China may have recently pulled ahead of the US on total emissions, and India’s may be rising, but as John Prescott points out, an American emits almost 4 times as much carbon as a Chinese person. Both China & India have hundreds of millions of people still living in poverty and need space to grow to lift them out of it. Like many of us, I gotta a crush on Obama, and I want to believe those who say this summit has come too soon for him (with his climate bill yet to go through Congress). But the world can’t wait. American Democrats need to get their act together fast.
On aid for adaptation the news was certainly better, with our Prime Minister showing great leadership on the world stage again. The Copenhagen Accord will provide 30 billion dollars over the next three years to kick start emission reduction measures and help the poorest countries adapt to the impacts of climate change. It also committed developed countries to provide 100 billion dollars a year by 2020, a figure first put forward by Gordon Brown in June of this year.
The concern, however, is whether the rest of the developed countries will keep to that promise. The money pledged is an aspiration and not a commitment, and whilst this Labour Government has kept the promises it made in the Make Poverty History campaign of 2005, the rest of the G8 have not. Whilst we have said that no more than 10% of our existing aid budget will be spent on climate change adaptation, the rest of the countries have made no such commitment. Furthermore, not all of the money will be public, which as Oxfam point out, mean there is no guarantee it will be spent in the right way. And as most NGOs point out, 100 billion dollars is not even half the money that will be needed.
As almost everyone has acknowledged, on both 2°C and aid for adaptation, there is a considerable way to go before the politics matches the science. After years of wrangling, this deal is better than no deal at all, but only if we starting building on it fast.
Before finishing, I think it is important to state that for all the disappointment at Copenhagen, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband – who went for days without sleep – deserve our utmost respect for Britain’s role in these talks. Some have acknowledged that, with Oxfam’s Campaigns & Policy Director Phil Bloomer saying “Lets give credit when credit is due: Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband have worked tirelessly this week”. Franny Armstrong of the 10:10 Campaign said the same in more colourful language:
“He (Ed) has been working f**king hard...The UK’s got a really really great reputation, and everyone is saying they couldn’t have done any more”.
That praise needs to get back to their supporters. Just as with the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005, Britain’s leadership has been the result of a constructive relationship, between a Labour Government showing leadership and a noisy civil society pushing us to act. It is in civil society’s interest that they acknowledge that as they need to show their supporters that their actions made a difference. Clearly, it is also in our interest – we stand to gain electorally as if supporters, inspired by the leadership a Labour Government has shown – come (back) into and vote and mobilise for the Labour Party.
This article was also posted at the Labour Campaign for International Development.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
This changes things!
The problem of balancing the power swings is not addressed anywhere in these papers and discussions. This is the reason you choose not to "rehearse" it here. No matter how dogmatic you get, this real-world problem has not gone away. I think you need need to get out of your ivory tower and face up to this fact.
What do your papers say to the problem of very high speed winds, that risk damaging blades?
In what way are wind farms "self-funding?" Wind farms are unprofitable, relying on heavy subsidies that ultimately come from consumers in the form of rising energy prices.
The market for renewable energy is an artificial one created out of government legislation. Whether this consumer-derived money is well spent is debatable. Note that the large subsidies handed out to onshore wind developers has drawn them even to sites where wind resources are known to be weak.
During 2006-07 more than £217 million was paid to energy firms under a subsidy scheme known as the Renewables Obligation.
Under this scheme energy companies are obliged to obtain a proportion of their power from renewable sources, 6.7% today rising to 15% by 2015. Those that fail have to pay a fine that is then shared between all companies that have obtained energy from "green" sources. Guess who ultimately ends up paying these fines?
To LabourList readers I say don't be deceived by Chris Cooks' spin. This group appears to be a sham, whose express purpose is to provide disinformation and factually inaccurate spin regarding the practical constraints surrounding wind energy, especially onshore wind.
Like all collective madnesses (tulip bulbs, the south sea Bubble, the NASDAQ at over 6000) wind power will come and go.
Try Claverton Group if the new site's still a bit sparse. I had thought the Yahoo group was accessible from the new site, for which apologies.
What do your papers say to the problem of very high speed winds, that risk damaging blades?
If you would like to know about the latest in blade design you can ask a leading expert on this thread in respect of this new wind farm in Aruba - on one of the world's windiest sites
Saving the world one wind farm at a time
You may also consult the author of the thread - probably the world's top global wind turbine financier, on and off-shore - if you don't believe me. Both of them will probably be only too pleased to put you straight on your misconceptions especially if you keep a civil tongue in your head which you seem disinclined to do.
The price of carbon-based energy is only at the level it is because the costs associated with it are largely externalised for the benefit of profit making intermediaries. In case you were unaware, we are probably at or near peak levels or carbon fuel production, and energy prices can only go one way no matter what governments do about taxation. So any question of subsidy will become moot.
And perhaps you can demonstrate how it is that nuclear technology - once again going way over budget and over time in Finland - can be funded without either high energy prices, or high subsidies? The pot calling the kettle black, indeed.
As for fusion - the mind boggles at the costs of that. Energy too cheap to meter,we were told.....
Whose express purpose is to provide disinformation and factually inaccurate spin regarding the practical constraints surrounding wind energy, especially onshore wind.
Claverton's mission statement is as follows:
To provide an expert forum in which to rigorously debate energy issues, and carbon issues, thereby to provide fact based / objective / independent analyses to government, media and businesses.
Every technology, including nuclear, is discussed and debated on this site, with vastly differing views, some even more intemperately held than yours.
Your accusation is breathtaking coming from someone who has parachuted into this site with glad tidings of wondrous nuclear fusion which would make the Three Wise Men blush.
This raises the question about the arguments of cost of transmission put forward by New Labour as the reason for the lack of investment in Hydro-electric plants in Scotland and the failure to use undersea HDVC cabling to move power from north to south.
But then this also raises the serious question about Gordon and the 12 nuclear plants.... remind me ... who does his brother work for?
I see no reason why HVDC is any different in terms of power loss whether the lines are above or below ground or water.
Losses in AC transmission are, as I understand it, in all cases proportionally greater than HVDC losses for the same distances, and I think you might have the numbers reversed?
I think that the Grid have got away with murder with the costs they attribute to burying AC lines, rather than stringing them through beauty spots. The reason is that there are new cabling methods already in use which drastically reduce burial costs, and which they choose to ignore.
I have long thought that an HVDC 'exoskeleton' approach is logical with undersea lines connecting a North/Baltic/Irish Sea supergrid underwater, plus spurs up rivers to existing power connection points at redundant fossil fuel plants.
Combined with an increase in offshore and decentralised generation then much of the existing Grid could be demolished, or down graded and buried.
The most effective way to balance power needs are pump / storage hydro systems. This means that when the power from the base load is not required by the grid then water can be pumped back into the feeder reservoir for the Hydro plant which is then ready to come on line to balance sudden demand, instantaneously.
Tidal / tidal barrage power that is surplus can be used in a similar way to create a 'power reserve' as tidal flow is pretty constant. To reduce power loss Government should be encouraging the setting up of micro-hydro plants for isolated communities - but of course it won't because that directly effects the vested interests of the big power companies.
The current assessment is Scotland utilises less than 10% of its potential Hydro production capacity... you have to ask, why? The answer it appears, is lack of investment in transmission lines and the National Grid's add on costs. So the decision is not environmental, it is about vested interests in Government and the power Industry. The question for England is will Westminster ensure the nuclear plants are built before you go the way of California and power outages. The taster was there in Summer 2008 when a Scottish 'coal fired' back up plant failed to come on line and the impact was felt all over the South East. Think how much worse it will become if you are reliant on wind farms.
Don't patronize me, I don't give a stuff about this so-called group of "real" (as you say) experts. I have no intention of joining a group of questionable scientists, career politicians, journalists and their hangers-on.
For your info I'm a chartered statistician with a background in electrical engineering and software. I reckon I have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't than many of these people.
"very little appreciation of the realities of energy economics in relation to wind in particular and renewables generally. "
Oh I am painfully aware of these reality of wind power: you've opted for a terrible energy source, one that will pay investors virtually nothing without a generous tax-funded subsidy, and lacks any credibility or reliabilty as an consumer energy source. The wind/sun/tide all might be free, but extracting energy from them is not, neither can they be fed into the grid without cost to somebody and inefficiency.
Any reduction in CO2 emissions derived from wind/solar/wave etc is negated by power stations that will HAVE to run on standby. This is an undeniable fact.
Among many windfarm developers, exaggeration is the order of the day. Many developers try to fool the public for their own gain, claiming turbine lifespans of 20-25 years, while many are being replaced after just 10 years. Developers exaggerate the climate-related benefits of wind farms. The use of the government figure 0.43t/MWh (no. tonnes of C02 saved) was recently supported by the Advertising Standards Authority when they upheld a complaint against Renewable Energy Systems Ltd for using the ludicrous value of 0.86t/MWh.
Get over yourself Chris. Wind will never become a reliable player
on the energy scene. It would take 1,500 wind turbines spread over 20 km2 to produce the same electricity as a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power station – even then it would only be available when the wind blew. It cannot ever provide a base load.
That explains a lot.
The Claverton Group, for your information, are engineers almost to a man, and probably the best assembly of cutting edge knowledge and experience in the country on this subject. If you were to get off your statistical ivory tower you would learn from them about what happens in practice rather than in Monte Carlo simulations or Gaussian distributions.
The misconceptions you state as gospel are comprehensively addressed in papers and discussions on that site which I will not rehearse here. If you were interested in anything other than handing down your nuclear religion tablets of stone, then you might actually learn something.
No-one imagines that the UK will exist as an energy island, and studies are available on that site as to exactly how the issues you raise eg about the integration of intermittent and base loads can and will be addressed.
Your dismissal of wind, tidal, and other renewable energy - not to mention your complete silence in respect of the potential for energy savings in the UK - are based upon the exact same ludicrously uncritical over-reliance upon nuclear which pervades this government's energy policy.
Most renewable energy is self funding - as is the Supergrid necessary for a coherent European energy framework, and I outlined at the All Energy Show in Aberdeen earlier this year how it may be financed simply by selling production forward to investors interested in direct investment in energy. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars looking for just such an opportunity as an alternative to US T Bills paying zero per cent.
I take with a pinch of salt all claims by people who promote technologies, whether wind or anything else, and I prefer to learn from people who understand the subject.
Your statements concerning nuclear fusion are a combination of wishful thinking and science fiction, and your critiques of the costs of renewables are laughable in comparison with the costs of fission, many of which we will be paying for hundreds of years to come.
I live in the real world, and you, Mr Statistician, should try it some time.
Whilst in general i approve of renewable energy sources I do wish that people would stop saying that wind and wave power is "free energy". It's not. It is "potential energy" that needs to be harnessed by machinery and converted into a form which we can use, principally electricity. Whilst the energy might be free the machinery certainly isn't. This machinery has a considerable cost both in terms of initial finance, energy used in construction, carbon foot print, damage to the environment, long term maintenance. it's also true that some forms of energy isseen as far more fashionable and sexy than others. Thermal solar panels are far more efficient and less damaging to the environment that photovoltaic cells. Yet PV cells are pushed as the technology to have, including by governments.
By all means increase renewables but we do need to be honest and admit they're not free.
The energy in gas and coal etc costs increasing amounts of money: that in wind and tide etc do not and that is my point. Machinery to convert both to electricity costs money as you say. I see nothing misleading about that.
Re solar panels you are right, of course. Moreover the potential of retrofitting CHP and installing heat pumps of different types - far and away one of most promising technologies in this context - have been shamefully ignored.
"it was a rhetorical and partially sarcastic question"
Rhetoric and sarcasm? So any kind of logical debate, reasoning and facts are beyond your remit?
A "logical" debate. What are you a computer. This is politics fella and there was no logical reasoning in the tribal point you were making.
Yes, I am all for reducing dependency on fossil fuels, but why do so-called greens support a cartel of multinational companies on carpeting some of our best of our countryside with so-called wind farms?
These do not provide us with any meaningful energy nor do they have any measurable effect on reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you can disprove this, which are mathematical truths, then I will fall in line with you, but you can't so I won't.
The UK has about 1200 wind turbines producing electricity for about 25% of the year. About 4 thousands of the power used by the UK.
I'm not making these numbers up, look them up on the Dept of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website, (see Digest of UK Energy Statistics Tables 5.6 and 7.4). Take a cold, clinical look at the facts and figures and discover for yourself that there is no evidence that wind farms deliver in terms of C02 reductions or contribution to the electricity supply:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D5695.xls)
You also confuse power output from turbines with actual power getting to the consumer. There are significant losses in the transmission lines, AND very significant inefficiencies incurred as a result of always having to provide a fossil fuel backup in case of er.. no wind.
Engineers repeatedly try to point out these inefficiencies to eco-loons, mainly unsuccessfully. A lot is wasted in trying to balance the power swings that variable wind-sources introduce into the grid. Because wind-power needs back-up for when the wind doesn't blow, conventional plants have to be kept running on stand-by, not producing electricity, but using up resources all the same. Unless you don't mind your life-support machine being intermittent, that is.
Two sets of equipment need to be run in parallel. Conventional plant cannot be retired just because you've plonked a load of windfarms somewhere - and f***ed up their countryside at the same time!
Again, wind turbines are a waste of time. Why not read up on these cold statistics before allowing yourself to become hypnotized by media spin?
1. You need to read what people have been saying. I have more of a geological/ecological historical interest in global warming and and find the debate as whether it is man made or not irrelevant. It is happening, global warming but there are also short-term fluctauations in temperature as there have always been as provne from ice core bore samples taken from the poles and in other areas too.
2. I never advocated wind farms, I think they help a little but wave power in my mind is more reliable and potent and it will take both science AND engineering to work out how to harness it, as they are doing today in East Asia.
I don't know your background, but I will assume you have some knowledge of what you are talking about. If that is so then I suggest that you join the Claverton Group to participate in an informed debate on the subject and to learn.
You do not appear to know what you don't know.
I have been involved in market development and regulation for almost 25 years, for six of them a director of a global energy exchange, and I still occasionally work at the highest level in energy markets. I have given evidence to both the Treasury Select Committee and a Holyrood committee in the last year or so.
Your blanket statements do you no favours and make you look like an arrogant monomaniac with very little appreciation of the realities of energy economics in relation to wind in particular and renewables generally. The fact is that wind farms harvest free energy and most certainly have a place in a decentralised energy architecture, as the Danes have demonstrated conclusively, and the Spanish are well down the road to demonstrating.
Tidal energy already works, and could easily supply a significant proportion of UK energy. And not via grandiose schemes like the Severn Barrage either.
All assumptions in relation to 'economics' are based upon a literally insane financial system even now decomposing. I am pointing out - and these are not new ideas - that to base a financial system upon intrinsic value such as energy value (the Technocrats suggested this almost a hundred years ago) and land value (eg John Law three hundred years ago) both makes more sense than to base value upon deficit (eg Bank IOUs), and is straightforwardly implementable.
I suggest that you actually have a good look at the Claverton group and acquaint yourself with what real experts are saying in respect of the issues you raise before indulging in trollish behaviour on this site and attempting to throw your extremely uninformed weight around.
God knows we have enough trolls already. So please go and learn, and if and when you do come back don't patronise people in the insufferable way you have been doing.
Nice one.
Tel : 01189 476063
Mob: 0789 1882321
e-mail: john.madeley@gmail.com
22nd December 2009
You say that the Prime Minister is showing great leadership on climate change. Maybe, but vital years have been lost with our government, like all Western governments, being very slow to act on climate change, and to acknowledge its severe impact on the poor. I deal with this in my new book Beyond Reach? which tells what really happened in the 2005 Make Poverty History campaign. It’s the story of the campaign told in a novel way.
I am a journalist and author, and covered most of the national Make Poverty History events in 2005, including the G8 summit in Scotland. I was also involved in local campaigning.
“Beyond Reach?” employs a fact-cum-fiction plot to tell a witty story of how a feisty young married woman inspires a church minister to join the campaign. The result is an explosive mix that takes them into a world that neither bargained for. Their relationship energises them for the campaign, leading them to an exposé of government duplicity, of how the claims made about more aid and debt relief were far from all they seemed.
The debt relief came with strings attached and there was not much of it - four years later, only about 20 per cent of developing country debt has been wiped out - and the aid increase included money for debt relief. There was huge double counting, and the government was slow to act on climate change which is reinforcing poverty.
This is also a story about forbidden love and the meaning of life. The relationship of the book’s two main characters is set against a background of faithfulness, commitment, weakness and opportunity.
I draw on almost 50 years experience of campaigning on development issues to pack the book full of campaigning ideas.
This is a book for anyone who supported the Make Poverty History campaign, who bought a wrist band, or who just wants a good read about one of the most important issues of our time.
Royalties from the book go to agencies working to eradicate poverty.
“Beyond Reach?” is published by Longstone Books, 239 pages, price £9.99. ISBN: 978-0-9554373-7-3.
I am the author of nine factual books on development issues, including the best-selling “Hungry for Trade - How the poor pay for free trade”. and “100 Ways to Make Poverty History” (Illustrated by Dave Walker).
The book is available direct from me, or from all good bookshops.
John Madeley
e-mail: john.madeley@gmail.com
website: www.JohnMadeley.co.uk
BREAKING NEWS: “Beyond Reach?” has been nominated for The Good Writing Awards 2009.
Comments on “Beyond Reach?”
‘A revealing story about a scandal of our time, witty, sharp - and above all urgent’ - Rosie Boycott
Beyond Reach? is a wonderful tribute to all those ordinary people who take action against the scandal of global poverty. For those of us who took part in the Make Poverty History campaign, it's also great to revisit the experience of that year’ - John Hilary
‘In this amusing novel, John Madeley links modern ethics and politics with the age-old issues of relationships and the meaning of life. All this, with serious intent, too’ - Tim Lang
‘In the tradition of Saturday, this outstanding novel weaves together the world of public events with the private world of individual lives’ - Carl Rayer
‘A gripping and inspiring story of forbidden love and the struggle for justice. In a hundred years people will look back on our culture of greed and realise books like this helped change the world’ - Revd. David Rhodes
‘A story rarely told, albeit in a landmark year, of what it is like to be a local campaigner....manages to highlight the reality of government positions and manoeuvring too often neglected in many accounts, fictional or otherwise. An enjoyable read’ - The Networker
‘Brings together in a human-centered format so many interconnections from 2005’ - Revd. Michael Crowther-Green
‘Be warned, this book could change your life’ - Ann Pettifor
"How will fusion replenish fish stocks?"
And you call me funny?
You are it was a rhetorical and partially sarcastic question which clearly went above your head lol.
You seemed to believe that fusion was the solution to so much and totally disregard the importance of eco-science yet it is the latter which will solve the issue not the former.
Oh dear, you are one of those luddites that think "renewables" are the answer. I see an aerogenerator out of my window. A beautiful elegant thing. A lovely contrast between the ancient landscape and the modern. I am not a nimbyist.
It produces on average about £80 per day. It cost £800,000 to build. 27 years to recoup the initial investment without accounting for maintainance cost, which will be very costly. It is therefore a total waste of time.
This is despite it being sited in one of the best locations in the UK and the government forcing power distributors to pay FIVE times more for renewable energy than thermal energy.
You cannot get blood out of a stone. There is no meaningful energy in the wind or tide. Wave generators will never work due to engineering constraints (they've been trying for 60 years without success, see Salter's Duck).
Solar energy doesn't work when it's cloudy
If you're serious about plentiful "clean" energy then the only option is nuclear: fission and then fusion. The green lobby has ensured we're 20 years behind in the building of nuclear power stations and no-one in the UK has the ability to build them. Fusion reactors are a certainty ... a bit of funding and political will and they're there. Not many votes in it though.
Especially when you've got the leftist media spouting nonsense about the real myth ... renewable energy.
If you believe that solar/wind/tidal power can replace fossil fuels then you are seriously under-informed. If we adopt your hippy "system", millions will starve/freeze to death.
"Just ask the banks. Even now they're still funding wind projects."
You trust these rascals? You have fewer marbles than I thought.
Stop being ridiculous. Nuclear is the only answer. Unless you want to destroy modern society. Maybe that's it...you've failed in this society so you want to destroy it. Unfortunately, if you've failed in a capitalist society, you'll definitely fail in any other.
£800k for a turbine producing £80 per day? Either the owner's been entirely screwed by the turbine supplier and/or the electricity buyer, or someone's been pulling your leg. Maintenance is only costly if you buy a crap machine. If you acquire an Enercon turbine, they'll share the production with you, and there's plenty left over to pay for the machine.
The one point I agree with you on is your scepticism re wave power.
But I don't know how you can keep a straight face and claim there's no energy in tides. Ever heard of La Rance?
In November 1996 the La Rance tidal power plant celebrated 30 years of active service during which time 16 billion kWh of electricity were generated without major incident or mechanical breakdown. The initial capital cost of the power plant (620 million Francs) has long since been recovered, and the cost of electricity production is now below 0.02 Euro per kWh.
I'm no fan of tidal barrages like La Rance either, but there are good sites for tidal lagoons and tidal fences around the UK coast which are all easily self funding. As for hydro electricity, well of course there's no energy in that either - it's just my imagination.
You trust these rascals? You have fewer marbles than I thought.
If you were to read any of my posts on Labour List you would know that trust does not come into it. I regard the banking system as obsolescent, and advocate a new direct approach to investment in renewables - Energy Pools.
Stop being ridiculous. Nuclear is the only answer. Unless you want to destroy modern society. Maybe that's it...you've failed in this society so you want to destroy it. Unfortunately, if you've failed in a capitalist society, you'll definitely fail in any other.
Nuclear is a disaster environmentally and economically. Just let me know how it is you intend to finance these beauties over their lifetime, which will be 30 to 50 years away for the next few hundred years at least.
@Ralph re your question, "Are you God?" - sadly not, otherwise there is no way I would have let United lose to Fulham at the weekend.
"Do you have the power to control the climate?" - Sadly I'm not a member of the X-Men either (Iceman would come in quite handy right now).
"What next a tax on God? Rent our Mt Olympus to Zeus?" - Could be an innovative way to finance adaptation for developing countries, like it!
@Andrew Webb - "Where does this magic figure of 2°C that you keep quoting come from? You don't have a clue what you're talking about." It my even need to be 1.5oC. Just watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbOh6u_UJPg
David
"What part of the phrase 'rolling resistance' do you not understand?"
What do you want to know about it?
"How will fusion replenish fish stocks?"
Since you're an eminent oceanographer, you will agree with me that there is no meaningful energy in the tides?
"How will engineers make agriculture more sustainable and protect key species we need for our survival?"
How are you going to replace petrochemicals in agriculture without putting farmers out of business? Or making food so expensive, only the rich can eat? Please tell me how to plant and harvest crops on a meaningful scale without using oil?
Solar cells don't work when it's cloudy.
Wind energy is un-economic.
Tide energy is non-existent.
Wave energy cannot be harnessed.
I think socialism and eco-stupidity go hand in hand because both demand a suspension of reality and an outlook based on wishful thinking. These are hard pills to swallow but completely true.
Nuclear fusion is the only answer. Unless you want to destroy modern society. Maybe that's it...you've failed in this society so you want to destroy it. Unfortunately, if you've failed in a capitalist society, you'll definately fail in any other.
Science that brought so much to this country along with engineering admittedly, hold the key to the future, but both have their failures don't they Andrew. Testing, evaluation, hypothesis it's scientific procedure in research. If you can't recognise the science of your own field then you are in denial.
"Eco-stupidity" as you claim it brought in sustainable land management, through research, trial and error, through long term study we now know how to manage habitats that are essential for our survival for the long term. This stupididty of ours is just beginning to develop and is still young as a research field but is now a growth industry across the globe as it's incresing importance is being recognised and it is paying for itself as it offers long-term economies and jobs.
As for fusion being the "only" solution, perhaps but research into energy for the future is occuring on many levels and in many areas as physicists explore new ways of harnessing energy. Assisted funnily enough by engineers.
You cannot segregate the two...it is clumsy and silly to label one group as crap and the others as the brave heroes of the fute and claim the latter do not use science is utterly ridiculous.
I think you'll find the Labour Government is now a proponent supporter of Nuclear power until we have a replacement so I am unsure where your last point is directed.
Oh dear, you are one of these that think "renewables" are the answer. I can see an aerogenerator out of my window. A beautiful elegant thing. A lovely contrast between the ancient landscape and the modern. I am not a nimbyist.
It produces on average £80 per day. It cost £800,000 to build. 27 years to recoup the initial investment without accounting for maintainance costs, which will be huge. It is therefore a total waste of time.
This despite it being sited in the best location in the UK and the government forcing power distrubuters to pay FIVE times more for renewable energy than thermal energy.
So the green levy think they can improve renewable technology? Afraid not. You can't get blood out of a stone. There is no meaningful energy in the wind or tide or solar. Wave generators will never work due to engineering constraints (they've been trying for 60 years without success - see Salter's Duck).
If you're serious about "clean" energy then the only option is nuclear fission and then fusion. Unfortunately the green lobby have ensured we're about 20 years behind in the building of nuclear power stations and no-one in the UK has the ability to build them.
Renewable energy is a con. It is completely un-economic and to disagree means you have been misled.
If wind generators are built in the numbers required to provide the UK with electricity only, 50% of Britain would need to be covered in them. Fact. The sums have been done. If you want to electrify all transport then you'll need a whole lot more...possibly another 40% of the country. If every country adopted this then you would see a catastrophe way beyond the imagined result of global warming.
"Fusion has always been 30/50 years away and always will be, apart from the wildcard of cold fusion, where I am agnostic, but don't see it in under 50 years either."
Wrong. Fusion reactors are a certainty ... only a bit of funding and political will and they're there. Not many votes in it though.
Especially when you've got the leftist media spouting nonsense about the real myth...renewable energy.
Could at least one of you warmingistas please tell me how we are going to feed 6.3 billion people in a low carbon world? Have you even thought about it in engineering/practical terms? If you haven't then shut up.
The economic reality of wind (which can be captured both onshore and offshore), hydro, and tidal energy and of energy savings is that the energy saved or the free energy collected will finance the necessary investment.
To come on this site as a High Priest of Fusion and criticise other users for spouting nonsense is brass neck of the highest order.
As for calling me a warmingista I laughed out loud - my arguments are economic, and nothing whatever to do with global warming and I challenge you to find anything I have ever written either supporting or denying the global warming thesis.
For the most part I could not care less about much of what is commonly called science. I once worked in academia long enough to know that charlatans and snake oil salesmen there are aplenty. Those that can are engineers, those that can't become scientists.
I still think the science of so-called climate change is a pseudo-science. It's not the climate that is at risk, it's socialism. Nothing is going on climate-wise that hasn't already gone on in much more concentrated doses.
The problems facing us re energy generation will be solved by engineers (probably via cold fusion) not scientists, since they have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.
I can assure you that the vague and woolly "solutions" as espoused by the AGM alarmists will not work.
Solar power? Most people live in temperate cloudy countries with highest energy requirements in winter. No good.
Trains? The least efficient transport system of all. Ask Network Rail, Virgin Trains...etc etc. All losing money and very expensive. Socialists love their trains though, easier to control.
No worthwhile energy in wind turbines that no amount of "development" will alter. The obsession with wind turbines is idiotic and will be looked back on in decades to come as environmental rape
We can and must liberate alternative energy sources. Fusion generators are probably about 30-50 years away. Research so far has continually thrown up difficulties, but it has made steady progress as well.
We should stop wasting time, effort, money and brainpower on fraudulent "renewable" nonsense and divert the whole lot into fusion research. Fossil fuels will run out. If we adopt their "system", millions will starve/freeze to death. A basic understanding of the laws of physics tells you this.
Limitless, clean and safe energy within 30-50 years!!! Why don't you demand that this happens?? This would be the real solution to future energy needs.
Is it because if this happens we will no longer have an excuse to re-distribute wealth globally in some kind of Marxist wet dream?
Engineers are people who turn science into stuff. Without science, engineering would go back to being trial and error.
And you're never going to see fusion power in this country without scientists. Which would be a shame because we're going to need it.
Hard to know where to begin on such a wonderfully eccentric post.
And I'm on the same side as Guy M! Wonders will never cease.
Firstly, for your information most renewable energy is literally self-funding. Wind power is literally taking £50.00 notes out of the fresh air, hydro power does the same from the water, as will tidal - I'm not convinced about wave energy. Biomass - same deal - free money.
Just ask the banks. Even now they're still funding wind projects.
Even cheaper are energy savings - the fact that this is literally free money as well has been belatedly recognised by Cameron, with his recently announced plans on which I posted on LL the other day. Who would have thought that Labour have managed to twist the arm of British Gas to pilot a similar energy saving approach as well.
Fusion has always been 30/50 years away and always will be, apart from the wildcard of cold fusion, where I am agnostic, but don't see it in under 50 years either.
Trains 'least efficient'!?
What part of the phrase 'rolling resistance' do you not understand?
If it's economic efficiency you refer to then a rational system for sharing the costs and benefits of rail more fairly would soon sort that out. At the moment roads and road transport externalise most of their costs, while rail's benefits - particularly to home-owners near stations, and businesses whose staff commute - are entirely ignored.
Huge investment in energy saving and renewables is straightforwardly possible, and it is self-funding, but the transition could be galvanised by a carbon levy on carbon fuel use, and an energy dividend to populations instead.
I completely agree with you with regard to fusion research. It baffles me why money is ont being thrown at it.
However when you write:
"Those that can are engineers, those that can't become scientists.
I still think the science of so-called climate change is a pseudo-science. It's not the climate that is at risk, it's socialism. Nothing is going on climate-wise that hasn't already gone on in much more concentrated doses."
It is just plain nonsense, I'm right wing, hate socialism and tell you now that climate science is science and without scientists you'd be living in a cave somewhere living off berries.
How will fusion replenish fish stocks?
How will engineers make agriculture more sustainable and protect key species we need for our survival?
Will Engineers at the exclusion of science magic up results without any reliance on science? This must be a new kind of engineering I have not yet come across lol!
You are funny.
Research into fusion does need serious resourcing along with and not at exclusion of anything else, especially not for the benefit of an engineer who clearly does not understand the scientific and mathmatical "pseudo-scientific theory and methodology" behind his work.
When you use things they run out if you use too many too soon, resources are not infinite at the current time.
Well of course the technology already exists for home heating: it's called heat exchangers.
And local schemes involving 200 houses on estates could be installed and minimise capital costs per household..
And the Government is doing? Nothing.
Since domestic heating is almost by itself the biggest cause of CO2 emission in the UK, you might ask why not?
Because it's a commercially available system with a large base of satisfied customers and is proven. It's unsexty, is decentralised and works.
that's why.
And Gordon could not tax you on it. In fact it will reduce revenue to the state as it uses less gas and electricity..
So now you know. the Government only wants to tax us. Green is good as it means more taxes.
(anyone who thinks otherwise is called Brown or Miliband or Straw)
You are both terribly wrong and terribly right in what you wrote.
Firstly where you are very wrong:
There are masses of data to show that climate change is occurring and will go on occurring whatever humanity now does or doesn't do.
Arctic ice packs are melting, Antarctic ice packs are melting, coral reefs are dieing, glaciers are melting and ecosystems are in a state of change and adaptation.
You are likely to see more extreme weather events, but any one weather event can not be attributed to climate change.
To deny these geographical and environmental phenomena is akin to calling the world flat.
So you comment "Climate change is not science as it conclusions are open to interpretation" is plain f***ing stupid if you don't mind me saying. The science is there and it is pretty clear as to what is happening.
Now where you have a point:
Whilst the science is pretty clear as to "something is going on", what it isn't clear about is "why?".
That's to be expected and if politicians are selling it otherwise then take it up with them over their stupidity rather than anything else.
Most scientists you talk to will take a position based upon research but make it clear that it is open to question through further research. That is the basis of scientific advance.
The problem you have is the public is pretty dumb science wise and relies upon sound bites, the politicians are pretty dumb and rely upon sound bites and the media serves both parties by dumbing down.... with sound bites.
So yes, political manipulation is there and it shouldn't be but...
you have two choices, either wait for the most incredibly complex system i.e. weather and climate, to work itself out so you get a better idea on what to do, by which time it will be almost certainly too late to prevent some nasty things from occurring or...
Take a leap now on the basis of incomplete and inconclusive evidence i.e. use a bit of gut feeling, and maybe do the wrong thing at great cost.
What you will not get is a 100% crystal clear answer and solution, so stop trying to look for one.
The general public don't get science or scientists. The public does get tabloid newspapers, celebrity gossip, reality TV and soap operas. So expecting joined up intelligent debate and analysis whenever you involve the public with science is a fail before you even start.
As politicians are there to "serve" and interact with the public, do you think that they are going to be more like the rather dumb general public or scientists?
Climate change is a reality, but humanity hasn't got much of an idea why it is happening or how to stop nit and I forecast that they will collectively bitch about it until there are real problems.
I don't really care anymore, as I think humanity rather deserves what it gets. I do however feel sorry for my kids and have already apologised to them for the stupidity of my generation.
If you think climate change "isn't science" then you need to do a lot of apologising as well.
Are you God?
Do you have the power to control the climate?
Politicians are clearly too elite for mere science now they now think they are such powerful entities that they can control and regulate the weather by legislation.
What next a tax on God?
Rent our Mt Olympus to Zeus?
They really are quite mad, it is no wonder an agreement can't be reached they are obsessed with childishly stupid gimmicks such as this, a GCSE science student would find it hilarious.
The Test was unreasonable and silly.
You cannot legally bind CO2 emissions or aim for tagets like this, we need a prescibed new economicic model accompanied by an idea of what is an acceptable lifestyle in the way we live our lives in terms of the impact we are having.
We have a heavy handed policy which cannot possibly work, when what we need is far less, a long term plan for replacing unacceptable environmental activities with better more sustainable ones. In industry and in our lifestyles. A CO2 targt does not guarentee this whatever ridiculously clumsy degree target you affix to it.
I respect Ed for fis industry but it was for a noble motive, I am sure, even if misguided. Mind you had he succeeded it would have a triumph in securing a Global agreement on something....
We have to create a new ideal lifestyle and live up to it. It won't be easy for anyone, especially for those who are very wealthy. I am sorry the planet will only sustain so many of us and those who want far more than there fair share should go find another one they can ruthlessly exploit.
We the people have a simple choice, we can take the tough decision, we can regulate the most wasteful and ultra greedy activities or we can wait to BE regulated by necessity and by the very resources we have wasted and abused.
I have started some time ago. A necessary decision that has cost me.
As a former MD used to say: " "A" for effort,"FA" for performance".
All the rest if just hot air..
If the Government is so sure of its case and it funds the Met office and Cardiff, lets see the data published.
They won't . I wonder why?
Well if you lookhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/flat-earth-climate-change-copenhagen at the Met Office they have now published.. and guess what.. it is the most user unfriendly non graphical data.
Just look at it..
Have you ever wondered why there are so few programs about the science behind climate change? It's because there isn't any. The government's attempt to prevent the met office reviewing it's own data is contemptible. The whole AGW theory is disintegrating despite bent politicians, bent scientists and biased media trying to shore it up.
Climate change is not science as it conclusions are open to interpretation. Given the deliberate, premeditated falsification of data at CRU, this theoretical, pseudo science has been discredited.
There has also been manipulation of models, destruction of damning evidence and suppression of dissent. The government are trying to to suppress investigation and have funded two thirds of the research institutes which have spread the AGW hysteria.
Lets's have a lot at the planets you and I live on:
Mine:
A world where scientists can work without government interference.
A world with people who realize we need energy at increasing levels to avert starvation and economic meltdown.
A world without bent, unelected governments taxing those who make the effort and rewarding those who don't.
Yours:
A world where scientists are instruments of the state.
A world where fear is is the main motivation.
A world with falling energy availability.
A world robbed of hope...what's the point in working to improve the lot of your family if the state takes the fruits of your labours in ever increasing amounts?
The weakest will starve, freeze or be killed in a world deprived of energy.
Which is fairest .. your planet or mine or mine?
So Prince Charles goes by 1 private jet , mr brown another and Mr Presscot? how much carbon was created at this confrence? How many gasguzzlers did the leaders use? Why the need for all the journos to go ? It was not leadership it was hypocrasy and grandstanding , 50 days ago we 50 days to save the world , does that mean we are all doomed now or was Mr Brown telling a porkie?
Danny