Greenpeace calls out tech giants for carbon footprint fumble

Greenpeace has savaged global electronics companies, claiming they are simply not doing enough with efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. A report [PDF] published by the environmental campaign group weighed up the decarbonization efforts of 11 of the biggest outfits in global electronics, and found them wanting. Five of …

[Art Slartibartfast]

Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

The whole scare about carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is based on climate models that have been proven to have zero predictive skill. CMIP6 averages out the results of tens of climate models to come to a conclusion. Why so many models? Because there are none that get it right. And the average of many wrong biased opinions is still a wrong opinion.

Greenpeace is all about ideology and has no clue about science. Patrick Moore, one of the founders, left Greenpeace because the organisation at the time wanted an outright ban of all use of chlorine, not realising its crucial role in for example medication. That is how dumb Greenpeace is.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Please would you consider deleting your comment? You are ruining the scam.

Think of the people riding the green gravy train? What are they going to eat? Who is going to maintain their yachts?

[John H Woods]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

The idea of a green gravy train, let alone one potent enough to buy yachts, compared to the financial power of the fossil fuel industry ... oh, I'm wasting my time.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

The idea of a green gravy train, let alone one potent enough to buy yachts, compared to the financial power of the fossil fuel industry ... oh, I'm wasting my time.

Well, keep watching. Only 1 week till 30,000 or so assorted thieves, scumbags and villains jet into Expo City, Dubai for the 28th Conference of the Parties (aka COP(a feel)). Which is why there's an unusual amount of global warming bullshit in the news again, because there always is ahead of COP. But basically this will be much lobbying and general hob nobbing in order to convince mostly the Western states that they should bung the UN EP $100bn a year.

The UN EP needs this money because the UN had so much fun administering the previous oil for food programme that it wants to do it again. So one Maurice Strong, who took personal cheques during oil for food came up with the UN EP as a way to keep them swimming in cash. But a while ago, there was a COP jolly in Paris where members pinky promised to give the UN that $100bn a year. So the UN set up lavish offices in a few places, appointed some mates into high paying & tax free gigs, but the $100bn never actually arrived. The US of course had it's $600bn 'Inflation Reduction Act', ironically named because it'll do anything but that.

But this time, COP is on a mission from god!-

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

Pope Francis calls for speedier action against the climate crisis and condemns climate change denial.

Thus moving Global Warming ever closer to being a full-on religion, and officially branding climate sceptics as heretics! Coming soon to the Disney Channel.. St Greta Thunberg as the Witchfinder General. Luckily though, the world isn't melting, virtually none of the doomsday cultists predictions have proven anything close to true, and sensible politicians are slowly coming to the realisation that it's a load of bollocks. Stuff like this doesn't help-

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00934690.2023.2272098

This article presents the results of archaeological survey of ice patches in the vicinity of the vast obsidian quarries and artifact scatters found near Goat Mountain and the Kitsu Plateau in Mount Edziza Provincial Park, Tahltan Territory. During the survey, over 50 perishable artifacts were found, including stitched birch bark containers, wooden walking staffs, carved and beveled sticks, an atlatl dart foreshaft, and a stitched hide boot. Radiocarbon ages on 13 of the perishable artifacts reveal that they span the last 7000 years.

With some being only 2ka or so old. Which means it was warmer then, or at least as warm as it is now given the ice previously covered those artefacts. But there's a ton of evidence that past climate has been cyclical and variable, without the possibility of CO2 dogma. The science actually explains all this because CO2 only has a very weak greenhouse effect. Climate models confirm this, as does archaeological evidence. After all, CO2 levels were supposedly much lower 2-7ka ago, therefore it should have been much colder, yet modern climate conditons are the same yet with far higher CO2 levels. Egro, CO2 effects are minimal. But this is the same debate people like Arrhenius had with Angstrom over a century ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

>>> Climate models confirm this, as does archaeological evidence. After all, CO2 levels were supposedly much lower 2-7ka ago, therefore it should have been much colder, yet modern climate conditons[sic] are the same yet with far higher CO2 levels

Believe it or not, climate is a multi-factorial thing. Claiming "Greenhouse effect is not a thing because there were warmer periods in a tiny part of the planet and CO2 ppm were lower at the time" is a textbook fallacy revealing some stunningly anachronistic denialist bias. Maybe you could look up such things as Milankovitch cycles for instance (and other things). There's a reason why being a climate expert is a full time job.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Claiming "Greenhouse effect is not a thing because there were warmer periods in a tiny part of the planet and CO2 ppm were lower at the time" is a textbook fallacy revealing some stunningly anachronistic denialist bias.

Indeed. Luckily, any sceptic worth their salt has seen this trope before. So for example the MWP and LIA. According to the deniers, these did not exist, even though there's a lot of documentation for them existing. Or if deniers do grudgingly admit they existed, they claim they were somehow isolated phenomena. Without really attempting to explain any of the processes behind this, especially attempting to explain them in the context of CO2.

Remember the dogma. There was a constant climate prior to the 1850s and the Industrial Revolution. Then CO2 went up, and temperatures followed! Ignore Napoleon's well documented troubles with the 'extreme weather' during his campaigns, or bad weather causing crop failures that helped contribute to the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age simply did not happen! Climate 'scientists' have wooden thermometers that prove this! But then if the LIA did happen, warming following it would be.. entirely as expected. Much as warming following the depths of an ice age would be.

So discovering artefacts as ice melts that are relatively recent isn't really that suprising to anyone but a climate denier. Geologists, archaelogists and anyone that exists outside the simulated reality of climate 'science' know this. So they also know it's a lie when the climate deniers claim present day temperatures are somehow 'unprecedented'.

Maybe you could look up such things as Milankovitch cycles for instance (and other things). There's a reason why being a climate expert is a full time job

Yeh, it can feel like it. Fortunately after a few decades in the climate trenches, some of it becomes easy. So a lot of climate 'experts' will simply throw out such things as Milankovitch Cycles! Like I've never heard of those before, and won't expect you to share your thoughts on say, this bit-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Unsynced_stage_five_observation

Deep-sea core samples show that the interglacial interval known as marine isotope stage 5 began 130,000 years ago. This is 10,000 years before the solar forcing that the Milankovitch hypothesis predicts. (This is also known as the causality problem because the effect precedes the putative cause.)

Although cause and effect are rarely problems in climate 'science'. You may notice the Vostok ice core graphic showing temperatures preceeding CO2. Then again, some climate 'scientists' also believe in 'teleconnections'.

[tonique]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Are you okay?

[conel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Taking the average of 30 something models always seem bizarre to me, is there any other field where this is done?

The weirdest thing is the models/ IPCC don't predict doom at all, there's a huge disconnect between what's actually in the assessments and the hysteria in the media.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Taking the average of 30 something models always seem bizarre to me, is there any other field where this is done?

There may be a branch of homeopathic horology that averages clocks, but real horologists prefer not to talk about that. And if you think the Climate Modellers are bad, you should look at how the Reconstructionists make 'climate proxies' out of bits of wood, mud, ice and anything they can find lying around and pre-screen to fit the desired data profile. MBH, aka the infamous 'Hockey Stick' was a classic example of this. But the really scarey part is sometimes those reconstructions are used to 'adjust' actual temperature data. Can't reliably model the warming around the Great Depression & Dust Bowl? No problem, simply adjust those temperatures downwards.

[An_Old_Dog]

The Average [Output] of 30-Something Models

I think there are investment houses which do something like this, but I don't say they invest wisely ...

[Rik Myslewski]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

You’re kidding, right? You’ve never done Monte Carlo modeling, nor looked into either the European or U.S. weather modeling? All reasonable modeling groupings work with multiple runs. Get a grip.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

You’ve never done Monte Carlo modeling,

Why would you use that for a GCM?-

Monte Carlo methods, or Monte Carlo experiments, are a broad class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical results. The underlying concept is to use randomness to solve problems that might be deterministic in principle.

A general problem in climate 'science' is many of the climate 'scientists' aren't mathematicians, or statisticians, yet rely heavily on numerical analysis. Often they do this badly, eg search for 'Rahmstorf Smoothing' where a simple triangle filter was used incorrectly, and a 'novel' claim made that was really just a processing artefact. It'd be much the same with monte carlo, given the weather is not random, and is deterministic.

..nor looked into either the European or U.S. weather modeling?

But weather is not climate, and those weather models don't use repeated random sampling either. Problem is more the sheer complexity of weather modelling, especially given you need to run, say, 3 forecasts a day (eg ECMWF) to try and produce reliable forecasts. Especially now our energy supply relies on the weather. Climate modelling is very different, ie far simpler models that break the Earth into a few grid squares that are parameterised, then attempt to simulate days weather months and years ahead. Sure, you could perhaps use monte carlo to test if model outputs were random, but they're usually tested against reality, eg CMIP that compares model outputs to observed weather events.. Where they diverge.

[Anonymous Coward]

So sprachen Klimaskeptiker

>>> "The whole scare about carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is based on climate models that have been proven to have zero predictive skill."

Hey is that you Shellenberger?

>>> "Greenpeace is all about ideology and has no clue about science."

The social role of environmentalists is to raise awareness in the public opinion about externalities caused by legacy unsustainable development models. Without public opinion awareness, politics have no incentive to act upon industries, which are too busy competing with each others, to invest into the evolution towards more sustainable development models and processes.

Now, industries can decide either to do the right thing or to fight back on the propaganda battlefield and spread narratives about pro-science (them) and anti-science (the environmentalists). We keep seeing that over and over again. About tobacco. About CFCs. About pesticides and GMOs. About nuclear wastes. About some pharma drugs. About fossil fuels and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And much more.

The sad thing is that there is no shortage of omniscient nincompoops, thinking highly of themselves, to relay these talking points. This has been going on for decades. You were labeled "anti-science" in the 1930s when you were raising awareness about radioactive drugs such as the Radithor, which are now recognized as quackeries.

Every year, new drugs lose their authorization because unforeseen side effects are identified. Every year established pesticides are phased out for similar reasons. This is when the science of today improves on that of yesterday.

The problem with environmentalists is not that they "have no clue about science". The problem with environmentalists is that they relay scientific concerns disrupting big money. On the other hand, the problem with anti-environmentalists is that they avoid debating with the scientists behind the environmentalists. And for good reasons. They can't.

[Tom Chiverton 1]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Say climate change is a lie. We do these things anyway, and end up with cleaner air and cheaper power.

[blackcat]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

We DO have cleaner air than even 20-30 years ago (who remembers the acid rain) BUT we do NOT have cheaper power and the reality is that it will not get cheaper.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Say climate change is a lie. We do these things anyway, and end up with cleaner air and cheaper power.

That would be nice. So in the '60s, governments realised the air was getting a little lumpy and generally nasty. So Clean Air Acts were implemented in some of the most polluted places. No more pea soupers and London fogs. People could see those blue skies again. Of course this also meant changes to insolation and warming, especially given many thermometers and temperature series were based in cities. So a first phase of the Urban Heat Island effect. Unsuprisingly, it got warmer. This was arguably a good thing given the alternative, ie more pollution, more lung diseases etc.

Cheaper power also happened, so bigger, cleaner coal power stations, along with better and tighter emission controls. Populations switched from domestic coal fires (and commercial/industrial for heating) and switched to gas. Then central heating became a thing, along with nuclear power stations providing cheap, reliable electricity in quantity.

Now of course that's ended and we've gone back to pre-Industrial era expensive and unreliable power thanks to 'renewables'. Obviously we knew the problems with wind & solar from the past, so the need to have some form of reliable stand-by power generation, even though that adds a lot of cost. It also increased our dependency on gas, with the disastrous effect when our genius politicials decided to ban the import of gas from a cheap supplier.

As 'renewables' have been an utter market and economic failure though, we could switch to cheaper power. So modern coal power stations, gas or nuclear. But groups like Greenpeace are bankrolled by the 'renewables' industry and of course don't want cheap energy.

[Catkin]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

That's rather Let Them Eat Cakey. It's better to be honest about the impact of necessary regulations because poorer people will notice the impact on their lives (like not being able to afford EVs with the same range as their previous IC vehicles) and statements like yours leave them ripe for picking by populists.

[blackcat]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

'(like not being able to afford EVs with the same range as their previous IC vehicles)'

Sod range, simply same SIZE. The cheaper end of the EV market is mostly ZOE and Leaf. The cheapest says the max range is only 60 miles, at best, for a 10 year old car. Anything reasonably family size is serious money.

Many of these were the second car for a family so size didn't matter.

[mpi]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

I do not agree with Greenpeace, or their methods, for many many many reasons.

However: Climate change is real, and whether or not Greenpeace says so, doesn't change that. Yes, greenhouse gases, CO2 chief among them, have led to rising temperatures, and yes these are increasingly becoming a problem for humanity. This is not disputed, this is scientific fact.

> Why so many models? Because there are none that get it right.

If that was the case, and each model would just say whatever, averaging them would essentially cancel out the signal. The fact that averaging many studies results in a signal that still points in a single direction, is a string indicator that the signal is real.

[Rik Myslewski]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

You are, quite simply and easily provably, incorrect.

A quick bit of ... uh ... science: If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15ºC globally — though that number is steadily rising. Y’see, loosely bound molecules such as CO2 and CH4 are excited by IR radiation reflecting off the Earth’s surface, and thus re-radiate some of that energy back into the troposphere, measurably warming that atmospheric layer while simultaneously cooling the stratosphere, as has been observed for decades. Just true.

What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie.

Luckily, we humans are smart. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it — if we hurry — and make a boatload of money doing so.

Okay, you clearly don’t understand the simple physics behind the unarguable fact that our addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is warming the world — or perhaps you know something other than that which nearly every competent climate scientist understands to be true. Or perhaps you believe in some whacko conspiracy lunacy such as “They’re trying to control us!” or “The scientists are all in it for grant money!” crapola.

Do you disagree with the “Well, duh …” clear bit of physical reality that underpins climate science? If so, and if you have proof of the errors you see in that experimentally provable reality, perhaps you should share your well-documented findings with the scientific community. I’m certain they’d find your insights of interest and value.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

You are, quite simply and easily provably..

.. dishonest. But here we go again with the if-then-bananas gish-gallop of climate 'science'.

..simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC.

simple physics for simpletons, and sets up the trick that's wasted trillions. Fundamental flaw is the Earth isn't, and never really has been a black-body, average temperatures are meaningless, and that's why we have weather & eventually climate..

Y’see, loosely bound molecules such as CO2 and CH4 are excited by IR radiation reflecting off the Earth’s surface, and thus re-radiate some of that energy back into the troposphere, measurably warming that atmospheric layer while simultaneously cooling the stratosphere, as has been observed for decades.

Loosely bound? WTF does that mean? But more specifically, CO2 is a well studied molecule with 4 absorption/emission points, 3 of which overlap with H2O, and H2O is far more common in our atmosphere. Although not in GCMs because GCMs are even dumber than Rik. Rik doesn't understand physics. Rik doesn't understand that CO2 molecules don't care where their photons come from. So they'll absorb, and almost immediately re-radiate a photon that comes from any direction, from space or from the surface. So the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the less IR will reach the surface. Ok, this gets a little more complex with other molecules like H2O because H2O makes clouds, and clouds reflect even more incoming radiation, preventing it from reaching the surface.

But Rik is confused by thermodynamics.. This is intentional on the part of the scammers. First, 'imagine the Earth as a Black Body', and it isn't. Then throw in some gas law, treating the atmosphere as an ideal gas. Which it isn't, because it's saturated with H2O, especially at the surface boundary layer.. DALR and WALR are not climate 'scientists' friends, mainly because the wet stuff (ie clouds) are very wicked problems to model accurately.. But ignore all the sciencey stuff, and just trust me, I'm a climate scientist!

We can fix it — if we hurry — and make a boatload of money doing so.

Very true, and if we hurry, fewer people will realise the con job, won't question The Science and scammers will make a boatload of money flogging pre-Industrial windmills. carbon indulgences, consultancy services, television appearences and of course book deals. Remind me, which infamous climate 'scientist' wrote a book called 'Dire Predictions'? That wasn't referring to his wooden thermometer..

The scientists are all in it for grant money!” crapola.

Err.. well, that's how scientists kinda have to work, unless they're lucky enough to be be public or privately funded. But of course this is where we can potentially save a lot of money.. As climate 'science' has been settled for ages now, and climate 'scientists' already know everything.. Why do we still need so many? Surely now we know everything, they've become rather redundant and the money should be going to engineers for the mitigation and adaptation stuff. Especially when we engineers can use all the supercomputers currently running climate models to play Crysis. Again if the 'science' is settled, why the need for so many models, and muddlers? Think how much energy and CO2 could be saved by shutting down the duplicate climate models. Why isn't Greenpeace saying anything about this?

Do you disagree with the “Well, duh …” clear bit of physical reality that underpins climate science? If so, and if you have proof of the errors you see in that experimentally provable reality,

Obviously I disagree because you fail at first principles. But this is entirely normal because your gish-gallop has been trotted out by various dishonest actors for the last couple of decades. But you obviously don't understand science because you come out with that classic. Reality is all around us. Your 'experimentally provable reality' is actually a simulation, ie climate models. Those almost always do the RealScience thing and self-falsify, because reality generally disagrees with, and diverges from the models. There should be no need to publish anything because there's a huge amount of climate predictions that have already been falisfied by simple observation.

Yet people like you seem determined to deny reality. Why is this, I wonder?

[albaleo]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

Rik doesn't understand that CO2 molecules don't care where their photons come from. So they'll absorb, and almost immediately re-radiate a photon that comes from any direction, from space or from the surface.

CO2 molecules may not care where photons come from, but I understand they have a preference for protons of certain wavelengths.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

CO2 molecules may not care where photons come from, but I understand they have a preference for protons of certain wavelengths.

I think this is why some people have a hard time seeing the problems with climate 'science' given it can dive into the quantum realm quite quickly. So kinda back to the good'ol days of BKS theory and controversies around quantizing, which lead to Einstein et al coming up with the ideas of quanta, photons and being called deniers.

Which is also where a lot of the FUD and dishonesty comes in, eg the usual Stephan-Bolzman stuff and imaginary conditions that don't exist. The Earth has a temperature greater than a black body because it isn't a black body, has an atmosphere, variable albedo and a whole lot more complex than 'SB says X therefore ban CO2 and build windmills'.

The only real issue is climate sensitivity wrt CO2, ie how much warming for how much CO2? Originally, that was assumed quite a lot, eg Arrhenius's orginal assumptions, but has been revised downwards ever since. The climate is pretty insensitive to CO2, hence why previous demands to 'prevent 2C warming' were quietly lowered to 'prevent 1.5C warming'. This was because at current run rates, we don't have enough carbon to hit 2C warming because CO2 is a weak GHG. So 1.5C is within the realms of natural variability, and more achievable. That will allow climate 'scientists' to claim success or failure, much as in the good'ol days priests that could predict eclipses could exploit other natural events.

Actual CO2 sensitivity is relatively easy to model in a lab, ie using things like Stokes-Raman scattering because the GHG 'crisis' is fundamentally a radiative issue, and the effects of CO2 are measurably and demonstrably minimal. Sure, deniers fake science with exagerated experiments like candles dimming when viewed through atmospheres at 10,000ppmv+ CO2. That sort of CO2 concentration would actually be a crisis on account of it's toxicity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

A quick bit of ... uh ... science: If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket

That is... uh.... incorrect.

The Greenhouse effect is a logical fallacy. Simply speaking, it violates the Second law of Thermodynamics - you cannot move heat from a cold body (freezing upper atmosphere) to a warm body (warmer lower atmosphere) without a heat pump, such an air conditioner compressor. Heat does not behave like light, in that heat does not reflect off sub-freezing upper atmosphere gases, heat is instead absorbed by those sub-freezing gases.

[Anonymous Coward]

How Silly..

Who said the heat was coming from the stratosphere?

According to your logic nothing can be warmer than the stratosphere if it lies under it... facepalm.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

The Greenhouse effect is a logical fallacy. Simply speaking, it violates the Second law of Thermodynamics - you cannot move heat from a cold body (freezing upper atmosphere) to a warm body (warmer lower atmosphere) without a heat pump

Actually.. It doesn't, because breaking those laws is hard. And it does because photons/quanta/'heat' doesn't care. Heat is just energy in motion, and if a molecule changes energy state, it'll radiate that off in a random (give or take quantum effects) direction. That may hit a 'warmer' molecule and increase the energy state. But climate 'science' glosses over most of the RealPhysics, grossly oversimplifies things and throws in some incorrect assumptions to enclose the Earth in a Greenhouse.

So gloss over conduction, convection, evaporation and focus on only radiation. Sun heats Earth during the day, at night, heat radiates away. CO2 'captures' 50% of that heat and radiates it back down to the surface, and voila, Global Warming in a can. Except the night time heat transfer is inexorably upwards and radiated back to space, the amount radiated back towards the surface by CO2 is teeny, especially with the overlap with H2O.. And any heat radiated downwards will be almost immediately radiated away again because it's hitting something that's cooling. Or it's hitting water, and IR from CO2 can't penetrate water very deeply. So it's a skin effect with any 'back radiation' from CO2 being lost almost instantly by conduction, convection, evaporation etc.

But then climate 'science' does often gloss over thermodynamics, ie how exactly CO2 is supposed to heat the oceans given warm water doesn't (usually) sink.. Give or take overturning currents, or stuff like ENSO and hurricanes.. Which are often claimed as 'proof' of global warming, when the reality is they're just our heat pump in action and cooling effects. Instead, climate 'science' fixate on maximum temps (TMax) which are often influenced by things like urbanisation, or even jet aircraft taking off. What people should be looking at is the night time minimum temps (TMin) because if those are rising, that's better evidence of 'back radiation'.. but they don't show this.

[Alf Garnett]

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

I heard somone say that CO2 isn't poison, it's plant food. The man's right. I have yet to see or hear an explanation from one of the global warming people about why the earth was warmer a thousand years ago when Greenland wasn't covered with ice. People are finding remains of them now as glaciers retreat. If a scientist knows that his paycheck comes from people who support this notion that we're cauing global warming, he will have an incentive to find evidence that supports that. Also scientists sometimes get something wrong. Look up Pitldown man. I remember in the 90s when global warming advocates said by 2010 or 2020 that coastal cities would be underwater. As time caught up with their predictions and proved them false, the advocates started calling it climate change. Now when a part of the world that gets blizzards gets one, the advocates blame climate change. When it's hot in Arizona during July, they blame climate change. Climate is what the so called experts predict. Weather is what we get. I've heard people say that global warming is a religion to some people. I'm beginning to believe that myself.

[Anonymous Coward]

And another one...

Or is it the same?

[ds11]

With thinking like that, you probably should invest in a holiday home on Venus

[codejunky]

Ha

"Greenpeace has savaged global electronics companies, claiming they are simply not doing enough with efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."

Is that a savaging? Yappy cultists making noise like a wet fart and someone is supposed to care? I guess it might matter in somebodies world but I shouldnt think anybody important.

"Greenpeace says in the report that in order to stay within the Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C, electronics suppliers need to hit 100 percent renewable energy across their supply chains by 2030."

Considering the technology doesnt work to achieve anything like that AND is severely uneconomical the cultists might as well whistle in the wind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ha

Considering the technology doesnt work to achieve anything like that

Which technology is being referred to here as not working? Hmmm.

Yappy cultists making noise like a wet fart and someone is supposed to care?

But enough about Tufton Street/IEA fanbois.

[Steve Button]

Re: Ha

"Greenpeace has savaged..."

Isn't that a bit like being "savaged" by a guinea pig?

[cookieMonster]

Re: Ha

Savaged by a sheep, if memory’s correct

[EBG]

Re: Ha

dead sheep, if memory is correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to online sources

The electronics industry is responsible for about 6 million tonnes of CO2 (0.8% of global emissions)

Whereas the cement industry is responsible for about 60 million tonnes of CO2 (8% of global emissions)

It's possible that Greenpeace is going after the wrong industry.

[John H Woods]

Never been convinced they are that sensible: their anti-nuclear approach seems totally at odds with their mission.

[elsergiovolador]

They shill for Russia. They want to disrupt Western economies, sow divide and ensure we are not energy independent.

[Gene Cash]

> They shill for Russia. They want to disrupt Western economies, sow divide and ensure we are not energy independent.

I don't think Greenpeace is actually that bright. Or could actually execute on a long-range plan that well.

[elsergiovolador]

They don't need to be bright - actually the more gullible the better, but their handlers is a different question.

[blackcat]

Lets just leave this here

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just leave this here

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/global-warming-policy-foundation-net-zero-watch-koch-brothers/

[blackcat]

So both sides take money from the fossil fuel industry, oh great shock :)

The upside being they are not taking money from the rooskies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says they do not? Legatum has links with Mother Russia/Gazprom, no?

[W.S.Gosset]

That link's accidentally hilarious.

General safety tip: good idea to READ your "references" before slapping them on the table with a flourish.

[Dan 55]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking

Not that fracking is the answer, but evidently Russia opposes anything that isn't Russian gas. As it says in the sub-headline. Surprise, surprise.

Also at the end of the article from 2014, there's quite a prescient quote:

Andrew Pendleton, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, added: “Perhaps the Russians are worried about our huge wind and solar potential and have infiltrated the UK government.”

[Spazturtle]

Greenpeace is part of the voluntary human extinction movement, convincing people that humans need to go extinct to save the planet is their mission. Nuclear energy undermines so many of their arguments which is why they spread FUD about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop last century pro-nuclear ideology

"Never been convinced they are that sensible: their anti-nuclear approach seems totally at odds with their mission."

The nuclear "solution" to global warming is the worst imaginable "solution". How can a "solution", that is affordable to only a few countries, be a "solution" to a global urgent problem,

Every country can spend a little bit of money on some solar panels and a battery to power some remote off-grid village in the middle of nowhere and immediately park petrol-hungry generators. No need to wait 10y for a new multi-billion reactor to come off the ground. Some people need to get a real. We're in 2023. 425 ppm out there, people.

[blackcat]

Re: Stop last century pro-nuclear ideology

Sorry, more climate misinformation.

Bangladesh is building 2 nuclear power plants.

Egypt is building 3

India has 19 and building 8

Pakistan has 6, building another 1

Mexico has 2

South Africa has a couple.

Iran has one although that is controversial :)

Nuclear power is not limited to the rich nations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Stop last century pro-nuclear ideology

Thanks but this is still tiny compared to the electricity needs. What about the other 150 developing countries? Please admit that these are constructions decisions taken a long time ago, when renewable energy were still not the obvious go-to choice.

> Bangladesh is building 2 nuclear power plants.

Contract signed in 2011. Still nothing operable. 90% financed by Russia.

> Egypt is building 3

Decision taken in 2015. Still nothing to see. 85% financed by Russia.

> India has 19 and building 8

Nuclear is 3% of total electricity production. But good enough to harvest Pu-239 for military uses, I guess.

> Pakistan has 6, building another 1

Old news. 7th [Chinese funded] reactor is inaugurated (contract signed in 2013!!!). No new plans.

> Mexico has 2

30+ years old. No new plans.

> South Africa has a couple.

South Africa nuclear power is a total joke. Expensive and not working. South Africa has cancelled all new builds.

> Iran has one although that is controversial :)

Everybody knows this is not motivated by the merits of power generation.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Stop last century pro-nuclear ideology

Thanks but this is still tiny compared to the electricity needs. What about the other 150 developing countries? Please admit that these are constructions decisions taken a long time ago, when renewable energy were still not the obvious go-to choice.

But nuclear is the renewable energy go-to choice, especially if your requirements are large enough to support a decent fuel cycle and breeder program. The obvious go-fsck-yourself choice is what most of the West has been persuaded are 'renewables', ie wind and solar. Wind has proven to be extremely expensive and unreliable, as has solar. Both have the obvious drawbacks we've known about for thousands of years. Both wind and solar are intermittent.

More recently, more lies have been exposed. So the 'renewables' scumbags had been trying to convince consumers and politicians that wind was cheap, and could only get cheaper. The UK's capacity auctions had bidders at £44/MWh! Of course then the bidders said Ah, we.. can't actually deliver at that price and much prefer to sell at the 'market' price, generating massive windfalls for themselves. That's of course too bad for UK consumers and businesses who have some of the most expensive electricity in the world! Poor people must be sacrificied to save the planet.

Then of course the 'renewables' scumbags demanded more money before they'd bid in the next rounds of CfDs, and the useless shower of shite we have in government said 'Ok!' instead of prosecuting them for fraud.

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn PHYSICS and ENGLISH.

>>> nuclear is the renewable energy go-to choice

Nuclear is NOT renewable. Unless Uranium is created by the energy of our star. Please get a grip on physics and English.

Besides, Nuclear is the MOST EXPENSIVE, the SLOWEST, the MOST COMPLEX, the DIRTIEST, the MOST RISKY technology available.

Worse the, IPCC in their release 6 report ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS VULNERABLE TO CLIMATE CHANGE ITSELF because of its reliance on vast quantities of water for the cold source in the thermodynamic cycle.

End of story.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Learn PHYSICS and ENGLISH.

Nuclear is NOT renewable. Unless Uranium is created by the energy of our star. Please get a grip on physics and English.

Ooh! I've attracted a swivel eyed loon! Must cross this off my twitching list. I knew this would happen if I used the right bait. But have a clue-

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

A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material than it consumes. These reactors can be fueled with more-commonly available isotopes of uranium and thorium, such as uranium-238 and thorium-232, as opposed to the rare uranium-235 which is used in conventional reactors.

Which also means the right fuel cycle can also recycle all that radioactive waste that we need to stop Greens chewing on for hundreds of thousands of years. Oh, and produce medical and industrial isotopes that save people's lives. Greens don't like that idea. They just want to leave the sick and the poor to die.

Besides, Nuclear is the MOST EXPENSIVE, the SLOWEST, the MOST COMPLEX, the DIRTIEST, the MOST RISKY technology available.

Citation needed. More people have been killed by 'renewables' than have by the nuclear power industry. Mainly because the nuclear industry is paranoid about safety, and 'renewables' involves people who may have previously fitted double glazing badly now installing HVDC systems. Or involve working at heights, or offshore etc. Given the ever increasing price of 'renewables', and the way activist/lobby groups like Greenpeace load costs onto rival technologies, nuclear could be made cheaper & faster if the endless objections raised by the 'renewables' promoters were just ignored. And sure, it's complex, but people in the nuclear industry generally know what they're doing. People in Greenpeace are just clueless.

Worse the, IPCC in their release 6 report ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS VULNERABLE TO CLIMATE CHANGE ITSELF because of its reliance on vast quantities of water for the cold source in the thermodynamic cycle.

OhNoes! Yeh, this could be a problem. We're living on Arrakis, desert planet.. No, wait.. a blue-green oblate spheroid made up of roughly 2/3s oceans... Those vast quantities of water that can be used for cooling. Meanwhile, guess what this is-

https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/hurricane-maria-virgin-islands-5-rd-jt-170929.jpg

A solar panel array destroyed by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, is pictured Sept. 25, 2017.

https://ipswich1prd.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Solar-damage.jpg

“Once again we’ve been reminded of the dangers of storm season,” the Premier said.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/15/storms-uk-weather-wind-turbine-blown-over-wales

Residents of the village of Gilfach Goch, near Bridgend, were woken at 6.50am on Monday when the £20m turbine – double the height of Nelson’s Column – snapped apart and crashed into the valley below.

etc, etc, etc. Oddly enough, the containment buildings used for nuclear power stations are.. rather better at surviving natural weather events than windmills, or fields of solar panels. Except perhaps in Germany given Germany's Greens thought their nuclear power stations might be vulnerable to tsunamis, and closed them. Can't quite remember when Germany last had a tsunami though...

[blackcat]

Re: Learn PHYSICS and ENGLISH.

Careful, the AC's computer is about to short out from all the frothing.

The issue with the French reactors is they cheaped out and didn't build cooling towers and relied on the rivers for 100% of the cooling. The upside is very little water loss, the downside being a large delta between inlet and outlet.

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

> The issue with the French reactors is they cheaped out and didn't build cooling towers

No cooling towers in French reactors? WTF? Do you ever double check before typing this kind of nonsense?

Paluel, Gravelines, and Penly don't have hyperboloid cooling towers (because they are on the sea side, precisely). And so does St Alban (on the Rhone). All other NPPs have cooling towers. Again, facts are not your friends.

[blackcat]

Re: WTF?

And Saint Alban was one of the affected plants due to the river water temperature.

Bugey was the other affected site and there is this key bit of into about that plant:

"Some of the cooling comes from direct use of the Rhône water (units 2 and 3) while some is done by the use of cooling towers (units 4 and 5)."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: WTF?

You should upvote my posts when you admit I was right and you were wrong.

[blackcat]

Re: WTF?

I was not wrong. They cheaped out on those 2 power plants and those were the ones that had the heat issues last summer.

They've also had issues with Fessenheim in the past, now decommissioned, again no cooling towers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop last century pro-nuclear ideology!

You were dead wrong. Many more than the "circuit ouvert" are shut down during heat waves.

Conclusion: nuclear energy is not the solution to global warming (in addition to being the most expensive and the slowest to deploy).

[Anonymous Coward]

Breeder reactors... LOL.

Breeder reactors are a figment of your imagination. They make a nice argument for nuke bros, but they are nothing more.

There are only one or two commercially operating in the whole world. All other attempts have been decommissioned. If you knew your stuff, you wouldn't hide behind that narrative. The "miracle solution" simply doesn't interest anybody.

Even breeder reactors can't indefinitely reprocess the same MOX. After a few iterations it's unusable. #Science.

The rest of your FUD against RE is irrelevant: renewable energies attract hundreds of billions of dollars of investments every year, even if guys like you swear they have witnessed solar panel explosions.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Breeder reactors... LOL.

There are only one or two commercially operating in the whole world. All other attempts have been decommissioned. If you knew your stuff, you wouldn't hide behind that narrative. The "miracle solution" simply doesn't interest anybody.

Like I said, if you get the fuel cycle right. We (as in the UK) tried to do this with BNFL setting itself up as a nuclear fuel reprocessing centre. The Ecofreaks of course went ballistic at the thought of the UK being a world leader in recycling and opposed the idea at every stage. Then one G.Brown Esq flogged off most of the UK's nuclear industry to help prop up EDF, where his brother happened to work.

T'other issue is that it's currently cheaper to use once-through fuel instead of reprocessing it or recycling it. Well, except maybe extracting some depleted uranium to turn into weapons. And also on a fuel cycle note, there's shedloads of thorium laying around in spoil heaps around the world because previously it had no real economic value. Except of course now it's considered 'nuclear' rather than just waste, there's more paperwork to use it.

Even breeder reactors can't indefinitely reprocess the same MOX.

I never said they could. But such is the style of argumentation I've come to expect from the dishonest ecofreaks..

renewable energies attract hundreds of billions of dollars of investments every year, even if guys like you swear they have witnessed solar panel explosions.

Huh? You have a very vivid imagination. Sure, 'renwables' scumbags have pocketed hundreds of billions of dollars every year. They still can't produce a single GWh of electricty on a cold & frosty winter's night. But investors follow the money. The energy market has been rigged with billions in subsidies to reward 'renewables' investors, so they've piled in. Our electricity prices and inflation have rocketed as a result.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the data say

>>> they still can't produce a single GWh of electricty on a cold & frosty winter's night.

Ever heard of interco, of synchronous networks, of entso-e? But yeah, thanks to Brexit, the UK has left entso-e.

>>> Our electricity prices and inflation have rocketed as a result.

Oh right! Now I understand where inflation is coming from: "It's the renewables of course, stewpeed!" Weird that the wholesale prices of electricity (as seen on EPEX) have consistently decreased in the 10 years before COVID when Germany and Denmark were building up their renewable capacity. Surely the data must be wrong.

[blackcat]

Re: What the data say

Generally if it is winter in the UK it is winter in a large part of Europe. Brexit didn't cut off the interconnects to the rest of Europe so we still benefit from lots of clean and slightly garlic scented nuclear power from France.

With the advent of HVDC having a synchronous grid has become less of an issue. Heck, the USA doesn't have one (no, its is not because of Texas) and Japan couldn't decide on 50 or 60Hz so uses both.

[Anonymous Coward]

When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Winter is, precisely, the period of the year when the yield of wind farms is at it's highest. Above 50% for UK offshore (around 50% yearly average).

So if you thought winter was a period of low power generation in the UK, that was wrong too.

The UK did not get much garlic scented power from France in 2022 when half of their aging nuclear fleet was down. Thankfully the 2x700 MW link with Norway came at the right time. Now the same capacity is imminently to be commissioned from Denmark (Viking link). So, long story short, our estimated friend Jellied Brain calling on the "frosty nights" to highlight renewable intermittency turns out to fizzle out. Simply because electricity does not have to be produced where it is consumed.

[druck]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Winter is, precisely, the period of the year when the yield of wind farms is at it's highest.

Financial yield perhaps, as they get paid when the wind blows and they generate electricity, they get paid when the wind blows too hard and they don't generate electricity, and they get paid when the wind doesn't blow enough and they don't generate electricity. The latter being their favourite time, as less break then, and you don't notice the 25% which never seem spin anyway.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

So, long story short, our estimated friend Jellied Brain calling on the "frosty nights" to highlight renewable intermittency turns out to fizzle out

Hmm? Nope, you can see the fizzles in the generating data. Of course the scumbags like to gloss over this by confusing energy and power. So during a typical winter high pressure weather event, there will be very little wind, and cold temperatures. Windmills won't spin. Or they might, but mainly to avoid creating flats on their bearings. They may also end up consuming power to prevent their blades icing up and getting damaged. This low wind may continue for many hours and extend across Europe.

But to pretend this didn't happen, the 'renewables' scumbags will quote GWh over the month, or year which will produce a large number and impress the gullible idiots sitting on both sides of the house. There'll be plenty of hours when there's not enough wind to cover the GW demand, but that just means gas turbines will probably fire up instead to deliver what 'renewables' cant.

Simply because electricity does not have to be produced where it is consumed.

Wow! You've actually got something right! But have you looked at how much those interconnectors cost? And how much the electricity costs on the spot market? And the effect of electricity at say, £3,000MWh has on the UK's energy market where electricity's priced at the highest participant? Again this is how windfalls are generated, not electricity, and it's a market that was deliberately rigged to subsidise the 'renewables' scumbags.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another figment of tour imagination

>> So during a typical winter high pressure weather event, there will be very little wind, and cold temperatures. Windmills won't spin.

Surely, that kind of remarkable event, when all the wind farms are stalled "across Europe" and producing nothing must be in the news. We must have missed it, though. Do you have any data? Any source? Any reference? How often does that happen?

Or is it another myth, like the scores of breeder reactors?

[W.S.Gosset]

Re: Another figment of tour imagination

>must be in the news.

You're deranged, on top of being ignorant.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=dunkel*+german+windless+days&ia=web

eg https://www.energynetworks.com.au/news/energy-insider/2021-energy-insider/its-dark-its-still-its-dunkelflaute/

>Whether you’ve heard of it or not, dunkelflaute (dunk-el-flout-eh) is a challenge our energy systems will need to manage. Dunkelflaute is a German word that literally means dark doldrums or dark lull. It describes events where there is minimal or no sunshine and wind for extended periods, usually occurring during winter.

Note the use of "usually".

[Anonymous Coward]

Try again

Thanks for the link. The OP stated ON THE WHOLE OF EUROPE. You're looking for proofs on a single country. Totally irrelevant. Try again. This time bring data applicable to the whole of Europe.

Do you even understand what is interco?

And don't lose your time with German. I was partly raised and educated in Germany, France and England.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Try again

Thanks for the link. The OP stated ON THE WHOLE OF EUROPE

Err.. No I didn't. Let me remind you what the OP actually stated-

"This low wind may continue for many hours and extend across Europe.

And I'm guessing you've never seen a real weather forecast, hence why this weather & climate stuff is probably rather mysterious for you. Stuff like Ferrel Cells, Rosby Waves and even Hadley is unneccessarily complicated noise, when your world is dominated by a simply defined sky box.

I was partly raised and educated..

Well, there's your problem. Perhaps when you're fully raised and educated, you'll have more of a clue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feeding the troll

Yeah, everybody here wishes they'd know as much as you about CO2 absorption, the direction of photons, diamond synthesis, Hadley cells, real weather forecasts, Fischer–Tropsch, LCOEs, ghost breeder reactors, the windmills before the industrial revolutions, and probably having coded COBOL 77 in the 80s.

By any chance, do you sometimes have the feeling, changes on this planet are not going in the right direction and people should take your well founded opinions and your enlightened guidance more into consideration?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Feeding the troll

Yeah, everybody here wishes they'd know as much as you about CO2 absorption

It helps being semi-retired, naturally curious, and having spent far too much time around sales people, a pretty well developed BS detector.

and your enlightened guidance more into consideration?

Well, there's this thing called 'due diligence' that can be a really handy skill to develop and avoid being sold stuff like perpetual motion machines. Many climate sceptics became that way because some useful idiot made a claim that sounded like BS, and decided to take a closer look. So knowing a bit of history around the times of the LIA, MWP, RWP it was quite a suprise to be told that despite all the evidence, those didn't actually exist because they couldn't be detected in some wet behind the ears, tree-botherer's wooden thermometer. There are also classics like this-

While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar sites).

From possibly the world's greatest living climate scientist. Except-

https://climateaudit.org/2007/10/12/a-little-secret/

Pete Holzmann (Mr Pete), who lives in Colorado Springs, agreed with this satire and this led to what I’ll call the Starbucks Hypothesis: could a climate scientist have a Starbucks in the morning, collect tree rings through the day and still be home for dinner?

One of the reasons why I think climate 'science' is so dire is that a lof of the scientists really have no idea how the world actually works.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL Citing Steve McIntyre - says it all, Nigel.

>>> From possibly the world's greatest living climate scientist. Except-

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steve_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre is the primary author of the blog Climate Audit, noted for its many articles skeptical of climate change. He is a prominent critic of scientific studies of temperature records of the past 1000 years that show increasing global temperatures.

McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant""

McIntyre was also a headliner at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th, 2009.

McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor."

[Jellied Eel]

Re: LOL Citing Steve McIntyre - says it all, Nigel.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steve_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre is the primary author of the blog Climate Audit, noted for its many articles skeptical of climate change. He is a prominent critic of scientific studies of temperature records of the past 1000 years that show increasing global temperatures.

Says it all really. So lefty hatchet mob attacks the man, not the message. So far, so normal for climate 'science'. Billions in dark money from slush funds like the good'ol Tides Foundation funneled into misinformation providers like The Center for Media and Democracy. Meanwhile, back in the real world..

Many years ago, some chap decided making thermometers out of wood was a really smart idea. This lead to the infamous Hockey Stick, used to pretend global warming was real, modern warming was 'unprecedented' and the LIA and MWP absolutely did not exist, because CO2 dogma can't explain those. The Hockey Stick was plastered everywhere and used as 'proof' of global warming.

Except of course wooden thermometers don't work. And even lead to some lawsuits between Mann and others, one of which is still slowly working it's way through the legal system, and may be tested in court real soon now. This summarises a lot of the background-

https://climateaudit.org/2023/10/23/was-michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-post-climategate-investigations-as-was-decided-by-the-dc-court-of-appeals/

but more interesting is..

https://climateaudit.org/2023/11/24/mbh98-new-light-on-the-real-data/

The famous MBH98 reconstruction was a splice of 11 different stepwise reconstructions with steps ranging from AD1400 to AD1820. The proxy network in the AD1400 step (after principal components) consisted 22 series, increasing to 112 series (after principal components) in the AD1820 step. Mann reported several statistics for the individual steps, but, as discussed over and over, withheld the important verification r2 statistic. By withholding the results of the individual steps, Mann made it impossible for anyone to carry out routine statistical tests on his famous reconstruction.

Which is one of the reasons why Mann's science was junk science. Especially as tabloid rags like Nature heavily promoted the Hockey Stick, yet for 25 years have refused to allow MBH98 to be reproduced. This is very bad science-

Although Mann claimed statistical “skill” for each of the eleven steps, he did not archive results of the 11 individual step reconstructions. In 2003, we sought these results, ultimately filing a formal complaint with Nature. But, to its continuing discredit, Nature supported Mann’s withholding of these results. Despite multiple investigations and litigations, Mann has managed to withhold these results for over 25 years.

But now some of the final pieces of the puzzle have been figured out-

Soderqvist’s discovery that MBH98 used six North American PCs not only refutes Mann’s claim that he used two North American PCs, but refutes his claim that he used Preisendorfer’s Rule N to select two PCs. Soderqvist’s discovery raises a new question: how did Mann decide to retain six North American PCs in the AD1400: it obviously wasn’t Preisendorfer’s Rule N. So what was the procedure? Mann has never revealed it...

The takeaway is that, for a large-scale temperature reconstruction, one should not use any PCs below the PC1. The reason is blindingly obvious once stated: the PC2 and lower PCs contain negative signs for approximately half the locations i.e. they flip the “proxies” upside down. If the tree ring data are indeed temperature “proxies”, they should be used in the correct orientation.

Again, a common problem in climate 'science', and also controversial given other pseudo-science like PAGES2K did the same thing. And also included the Hockey Stick stuff while claiming to be independent. But this is why climate 'scientists' hate McIntyre because McIntyre knows data analysis far better than they do, and had a frequent habit of making them look like idiots. So of course they attack him.

So good timing for the court case, and hopefully may finally mean MBH98 is retracted and consigned to the garbage bin of history. Except that Hockey Stick has cost us billions..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: LOL Citing Steve McIntyre - says it all, Nigel.

You realize nobody reads your diatribes passed the first 3 sentences?

[Anonymous Coward]

Data facts checking

>>> how much those interconnectors cost?

They were always needed and predate the advent of renewables. They run for decades. So, their cost, reported to the single MWh is totally negligible. Unlike that of nuclear power plans which shoots up LCOEs north of 100 pound a MWh. The cost of the Viking link is below two billion pounds. By comparison, that of Hinkley Point C is above 30 billion pounds. FIFTEEN TIMES MORE. Glad to see that you find this ludicrous. And glad to see you disagree with the government guaranteed price to EDF for its power.

>>> And how much the electricity costs on the spot market?

Renewable is consistently the cheapest on the spot market (day ahead spot) e.g. Denmark, Portugal. Highly subsidised French nuclear is most of the time among the 3 highest prices, side by side with Italy's coal-based electricity.

>>> and it's a market that was deliberately rigged to subsidise the 'renewables' scumbags.

It's called "merit order" by professionals and it determines the sequence in which power stations contribute power to the market, with the cheapest offer made by the power station with the smallest running costs setting the starting point. The consequence of the merit order is that renewable energy sources are prioritised because they are often the cheapest. The fact that it also makes old weirdos rant until their last breath is an unintended consequence (albeit an entertaining one).

[blackcat]

Re: Data facts checking

Hinkley point creates electricity, the interconnect only moves it. Somewhere it still needs to be created.

Hinkley point should not be costing what it is costing but due to government ineptitude, EDF being incapable of designing something that can be built and all the middlemen wanting to make lots of profit it is costing a fortune. Long ago we could make these things ourselves...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving stuff is so unnecessary.

>>> Hinkley point creates electricity

Hmm, actually no. Wrong again. Hinkley Point C does not produce anything. And it won't for quite some time. Most optimistic forecast is not before 2028. When green electricity from renewables will be both plentiful and dirt cheap. Well done nuke bros. Great sense of anticipation.

>>> the interconnect only moves it.

What matters is the cost break down at the consumer metering equipment. Interco costs are peanuts compared to generation and distribution. Simply because interco is a tiny fraction of what is consumed and inteco infra is 10x cheaper than generation infra.

>>> EDF being incapable of designing something that can be built

EPRs are designed by Areva. Not EDF. More mix-ups. Yeah. Nuclear power generation is complex. Not sure I mentioned that to you, already. But still some folks worship it. Makes them feel the smart ones above the crowd.

>>> Long ago we could make these things ourselves...

EDF had to decommission 3 power stations in last two years. Hinkley Point B, Dungeness B and Hunterstone B. "These things" were well past their prime. But, rejoice, The British wind energy industry is actually quite good.

"Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time" (BBC May 2023)

[blackcat]

Re: Moving stuff is so unnecessary.

'EPRs are designed by Areva. Not EDF. More mix-ups.'

The EPR is a joint design between Framatome, who WERE part of Areva, and EDF. Areva are not part of this effort any more (2017) and EDF are pretty much running the show. All the design updates come from EDF.

I have no doubt that if I'd said 'Areva can't design reactors' you would have said 'Nu-huh! its designed by EDF!'.

Interconnects still don't generate. There are going to be times when the people at the other end of the wire want their electricity for themselves as you yourself gleefully pointed out about the summer of 2022 when the French nuclear reactors without cooling towers had to be turned down due to lack of cooling.

The UK AGR fleet should all still be running. The standards being applied to them are not based on reality and the AGR has been a workhorse of the nuclear industry. They should run for at least 50-60 years. Like how the German anti-nuclear midwits decided that power stations in the middle of Germany might be subject to a tsunami after Fukushima.

As for these dirt cheap renewables you speak of... hasn't the govt just doubled the offer price? If they were dirt cheap why would that need to be done? Why is Siemens wind turbine business losing huge amounts of money? Vattenfall is stopping work on a wind farm as 'energy costs are now too high'. This 'dirt cheap' electricity generation method you seem to like sure costs a LOT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop digging

>>> The EPR is a joint design between Framatome, who WERE part of Areva, and EDF. Areva are not part of this effort any more (2017) and EDF are pretty much running the show. All the design updates come from EDF.

Lame escape to avoid conceding.

>>> I have no doubt that if I'd said 'Areva can't design reactors' you would have said 'Nu-huh! its designed by EDF!'.

Lame strawman

>>> Interconnects still don't generate.

The milkman does not milk the cow, he brings the milk to you. And? Nobody understands the point you're trying to make.

>>> French nuclear reactors without cooling towers had to be turned down due to lack of cooling.

More mixup, The reason reactors are turned off because of heat waves is that the elevation of temperature they cause is an environmental hazard FOR THE FLUVIAL ECOSYSTEMS. It affects both those without cooling towers ("circuit ouvert") and with towers ("circuit fermé") which also reject warm water to the rivers, albeit in smaller quantities. Coastal nuclear power plants are unaffected.

>>> They should run for at least 50-60 years.

Says some clueless guy on the Internet. Why don't you tell EDF you know better than their experts?

>>> [confusing contradictory "evidence" about the price of renewable today to counter my claim that renewable would be dirt cheap in 2028 when HP 3 is supposed to go online]

As usual you're mixing up things.

The reason why AR6 max CfD strike prices were increased is because AR5 saw no contract signed.

BUT from from 2015, to 2022, the strike prices agreed during auctions dropped by almost 70%. So the AR6 increase has to be put in this perspective of a previous drop by 70%.

Nevertheless, thanks for bringing this up: the numbers show that the CfD strike price for nuclear is much higher than for offshore wind farms and for solar.

Contract for Difference for Hinkley Point C: £92.50/MWh (2012 prices) So well above £100 in 2023 - This is a fixed strike price. There is no auction.

Contract for Difference MAXIMUM Strike prices for AR6:

- wind offshore : £73/MWh

- solar: £61/MWh

During auctions, the effective strike prices will be lower than the maximum (as per auction process).

So QED: renewables are much cheaper than nuclear (whenever it happens).

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Data facts checking

Unlike that of nuclear power plans which shoots up LCOEs north of 100 pound a MWh.

You.. don't really know what an 'LCOE' is, do you?

But-

https://renews.biz/89521/uk-hikes-offshore-wind-cfd-price-cap-by-66/

The Administrative Strike Price for fixed-foundation bidders in Allocation Round 6 will be £73 per megawatt-hour, up 66% on the £44/MWh in AR5 that failed to attract any entries.

..Floating wind's price ceiling will be set at £176/MWh, up 52% on the £116/MWh in this year’s tender that also did not result in any bids from eligible developers.

Don't ask why we're building floating wind when that's so astronomically expensive, and previous projects have sunk both physically and financially. Those prices are also in 2012 money, so in today's money offshore's already around £100/MWh and by the time they're commissioned, will probably be £120+. Yet the 'renewables' scumbags keep telling us their garbage is cheap, and constantly getting cheaper.

Hinkley C's strike price was £89.50, but this is where the LCOE games are played. Comparing wind vs nuclear is not a like-for-like comparison because wind is intermittent. So for every MWh of wind capacity, you also pretty much need another MWh of stand-by capacity for when windspeeds are too low, or too high. So traditonally that's been wind + CCGT. So-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-generation-costs-2023

1MWh of wind actually costs £44/MWh for wind, plus £114/MWh for the CCGT stand-by, or nearly double the costs of nuclear. Now that wind and gas have become even more expensive, nuclear makes even more sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Data facts checking

Hilarious how you ask whether I understand LCOEs (a global concept) and you immediately branch out on CfD maximum strike PRICES (picking up your preferred numbers) that have nothing to do with LCOEs (COSTS) and are a UK only concept.

Average LCOEs are published by many analysts. The most famous are Lazard, who by the way, clearly state that their calculations don't include externalities (e.g. the processing of wastes during centuries). So, sorry, but that was more agitated crackpot gibberish from your side.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Data facts checking

Average LCOEs are published by many analysts. The most famous are Lazard, who by the way

For the UK, and the UK energy market, I'd suggest the LCOEs that matter are the ones in the link I gave you to the official government figures used in their calculations..

From the level of ignorance and dishonesty you demonstrate, can I safely assume you work in the 'renewables' industry?

[Anonymous Coward]

The eel from Digital Spy

From the pseudo and the climate denier diatribes, can we assume you're the same "Jellied eel" who also contributed in "Digital spy".

- Citing Russia Today.

- Citing Joanne nova climate change denier.

- Citing Steve McIntyre (again).

- Posting tons of dishonest anti-EV comments.

- Citing Sabatier and learning about Fischer-Tropsch (again).

- Citing Breitbart news

I mean. We're blessed you posted 33K+ comments on digital spy and only 4k in The Vulture.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: The eel from Digital Spy

From the pseudo and the climate denier diatribes, can we assume you're the same "Jellied eel"

Yep, and? It's why I'm very familiar with the the argumentation used by climate trolls. I am also other persona in other places and used to rebutting the lame old 'talking points' that gullible people take straight from SkS.. Which includes the dealing with the frequent use of ad homs from climate trolls who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

But such is politics..

[Anonymous Coward]

6th of January

So according to you, what happened on the 6th of January 2021 in the US Capitol?

Was it...

a] - an attack by rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election?

b] - nothing more than a legitimate rally of citizens demanding a reassessment of the election results dishonestly portrayed by antifas as a coup attempt?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: 6th of January

So according to you, what happened on the 6th of January 2021 in the US Capitol?

Err.. what's that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting Greenpeace was behind it? Or it was anything to do with energy policy, or global warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 6th of January

Trumpists and climate deniers go hand-in-hand. Poor things.

Your idol McIntyre (or is it you?) texted on Twitter it was all the antifas fault. LOL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Again this is how windfalls are generated, not electricity, and it's a market that was deliberately rigged to subsidise the 'renewables' scumbags.

Spain and Portugal severed the link between gas and renewables in 2022. Result - electricity generated from gas remained expensive and electricity generated from renewables was cheap.

[blackcat]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Hmm.. numbers show that Spanish and Portuguese wholesale and domestic electricity costs have not really dropped at all from historical averages.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Translation of a recent article:

The electricity market, also known as the pool, sets prices through a marginalist system, which means that the last and most expensive technology needed to cover demand sets the price of all the others every hour of the day. Some generation technologies known as infra-marginal (renewables, nuclear and hydroelectric) enter the market at zero price, so when the production of these energies is sufficient to cover all the expected consumption, the price remains at zero euros.

This is what has been happening for several hours almost every day this week. So far this year there have been 85 hours of zero euros in the electricity market and there have been hundreds of hours in which prices have been below one euro. The confluence of times of lower demand and the increasing weight of renewable energies in the mix of electricity production in Spain are causing these episodes to recur more frequently. Zero-price hours are concentrating on weekends and public holidays due to lower electricity consumption.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Guy who posts no sources for random assertion gets two upvotes, guy who translates source explaining why there is free wholesale electricity from renewables in Spain generates two downvotes.

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see you through, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Agreed. Upvoted you and AC.

In addition blackcat objection is irrelevant: what are 'historical averages"? As soon as Spain and Portugal dropped the linkage between gas and renewables (at the height of the energy prices crisis), consumers got much better prices COMPARED TO IMMEDIATELY BEFORE. Every market observer knows that.

Blackcat (nuke zealot) and jellied brain (climate change denier), the two downvoters, have performed a textbook contrarian show in [and polluted] the whole thread, indeed in true pig-headed manner.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: When was winter ever an issue for wind farms?

Blackcat (nuke zealot) and jellied brain (climate change denier), the two downvoters, have performed a textbook contrarian show in [and polluted] the whole thread, indeed in true pig-headed manner.

'pig-headed' would be the typical climate/concern troll who uses ad homs because they're incapable of making a coherent argument. They also often believe in conspiracy theories and aren't at all bothered by evidence. Why would you assume I've downvoted you? I think in my time here, I've downvoted probably 10 times, or maybe less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speciation in Homo sapiens sapiens. Live!

Hilarious to read accusations of conspiracy theories and trolling in the posts of a Trumpist, pro-Putin, climate denier, anti-mask, anti-vax, pro-"herd immunity", anti-renewables, anti-EV, anti MSM, etc... You guys are really differentiating fast.

FYI, Downvotes appear simultaneously with your posts in this thread. So, nice try.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Learn PHYSICS and ENGLISH.

Ooh! I've attracted a swivel eyed loon!

Maybe.

But doesn't really change the observation about posting your bollocks about Nuclear energy being in anyway renewable. It's a viable source of energy for the medium term but it ain't renewable in the accepted definition, Tufton-Boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whataboutism... again

> The electronics industry is responsible for about 6 million tonnes of CO2 (0.8% of global emissions)

> Whereas the cement industry is responsible for about 60 million tonnes of CO2 (8% of global emissions)

Let's not care about plane safety, there many more casualties from road traffic accidents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Whataboutism... again

False dichotomy.

We should put more effort into improving road traffic safety, as that's likely to show the most benefit. Doesn't mean we should stop also improving plane safety.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chewing gum and walking at the same time

Well then Greenpeace are perfectly founded to emphasize the CO2 foot print of tech giants (as do others e.g. especially AI, crypto, etc.) if they OR others also point at the cement, steel, alu, fertiliser industries, to name a few.

[Zibob]

Footprints?

The same greenpeace that, also in the name of climate issues, illegally entered the prohibited areas of the Nazca Lines in Peru and according to the local.government did lasting damage to them.

Yes somebody should hold the polluting corops to task but it is a little galling to come from them.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

I am shocked at the comments here , its like the Trump supporting morons on the other forum I frequent!

Man made climate change is a real thing

something needs to be done

picking holes in what other people are doing is not "doing something"

[Anonymous Coward]

something needs to be done

Hello, Mr. Politician. Do you have any insights? A real plan? Anything?!?

[blackcat]

Sadly the plan appears to be 'just spend MORE money'. It is all very short termist and we have to endure such claptrap as wood pellets shipped across the Atlantic as 'green'. Carbon cap and trade just created a way to extract short term profit and hasn't done anything long term. The 'dash for gas' again went for short term 'we must do something NOW' and has left us exposed longer term. The billions spent on renewables has mostly ended up in China.

The reality is that in Europe we have reduced energy usage per head quite dramatically over the last 30 years and reduced the CO2 output of that energy as well, so a win-win. However we have lost our ability to actually do stuff and offshored a lot of pollution to the far east.

A stupid example being the steel for the offshore windfarms around the UK. The UK steel makers are uncompetitive as they have to comply with pollution requirements so the steel comes from Poland as they are not beholden to the same regulations. The reality is that the total pollution is the same (maybe slightly worse from the Polish factories) so offshoring the production to Poland has not resulted in cleaner steel production.

Rather than fixate on westeners (ok, maybe the on the yanks) we need to work on getting clean power to the emerging economies as they are consuming more and don't give two hoots about CO2.

[veti]

The "emerging economies" point out, not unreasonably, that it's the developed countries that have produced nearly all the CO2 to date, and them talking about emissions in the developing world smacks more than a little of (a) pulling the ladder up after them and (b) rampant hypocrisy. If America and Europe and Asia, with all their wealth and infrastructure and knowhow, still can't bring themselves to cut carbon emissions, then what gives any of them the right to demand that Africans do it?

Yes, sure, providing clean energy to the developing world would be great. But unless you can suggest a way to provide it at the same (or lower) cost as coal-fired power stations and in unlimited quantities, you can't blame them for taking as much as they can get and also building more fossil-fuel-powered capacity to top it up.

That's why it's the west that needs to clean up its act. It has all the advantages, it needs to develop the technologies and methods to provide a decent lifestyle for everyone with net-zero, or something close to it, emissions. Once we've shown it's possible, then developing countries can adopt (or improve upon) those innovations. But until then, it's not reasonable to ask them to bear the burden of cleaning up our mess.

[blackcat]

We HAVE cut CO2 emissions.

The UK is about 50% of the per capita amount from 1990. Germany about 40% down on 1990. France only down about 25% but they had a low starting point.

Canada not so good, maybe 20% down. Heck even the USA is 25% down. Shocking, I know!

China is 4x their 1990 level.

China is at an estimated 250 billion tonnes of CO2 total. The UK is 78 billion and the US 400 billion. As China is defined as being in the 'global south' it likely rates as a developing nation.

China has produced more CO2 than France, Germany, Canada and the UK combined and they are busy catching the USA.

We have developed the technologies but the Luddites don't want us to use them.

[Anonymous Coward]

You did it, all right. By relocating all your poluting factories in third world countries and buying all that CO2 certificates scam.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

exactly , China has those stats because China make all our shit .

Thats OUR co2 output

[blackcat]

Then send your iphone back :)

China is a net exporter of emissions by about 9%. About the same as Canada in % terms. It isn't as bad as is being made out.

[Anonymous Coward]

True...

> China is a net exporter of emissions by about 9%

...they said so on Fox News.

[blackcat]

Re: True...

Actually that data is from Oxford University.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

[Anonymous Coward]

Cherry picking

I guess that makes MIT wrong then...

> "Approximately 22 percent of China’s carbon dioxide emissions are the result of net exports. These emissions are categorized as “trade-embodied” emissions because they are produced as a result of goods and services that are exported.

[blackcat]

Re: Cherry picking

That MIT study is from 2014. Looking at the Oxford numbers 2011 - 2014 the difference they show is in line with the MIT study.

But today is 2023.

[Anonymous Coward]

Goto economy-101

>>> China is 4x their 1990 level.

>>> China has produced more CO2 than France, Germany, Canada and the UK combined and they are busy catching the USA.

>>> We have developed the technologies but the Luddites don't want us to use them.

Nice piece of Trump talking points. Easy to debunk though.

- in 1990, the GDP per capita in China was 300 dollars. Today it's 12500. FORTY TIMES increase. So a 4 times increase in CO2 emissions is a cheap price to pay.

- China CO2 emissions per capita are the same as in Germany. And are 2/3rd of that of USA only. Considering their industrial output, it's not that bad. It's a trope to state that the reasons we decreased our CO2 footprint in the West has a lot to do with deindustrialisation to China. This is well accepted. Omitting it only reveals your bias.

- China is at the forefront of renewable energy technologie. So not sure where that Luddites piece comes from.

What you could have said is that Chines local regional entities still build coal-powered power plants like there's no tomorrow. That's true. But the data you cite are just nonsense.

TBH, I'm praying every day for the CCP cronies to be ousted but let's give back to Caesar...

[blackcat]

Re: Goto economy-101

As I said in an earlier post, China's CO2 export is only about 9% of their total. 91% of the CO2 they produce is from local consumption. Even without all the exports they would still be a HUGE CO2 producer.

The simple fact is that as a species we have become incredibly energy reliant. If you think back to 1990 how many TVs did the average household have? Very few people had computers. Heck even offices didn't have that many computers. There was no internet as we know it. Certainly no streaming services. No 'always on constantly connected' life.

The fact that we have massively electrified our lives AND (in the UK at least) halved our per capita CO2 is good going.

[nojobhopes]

Have you compared the population of China with the UK?

[blackcat]

Yes. They have a lot of people which is why they make a lot of pollution.

[Spazturtle]

Greenpeace are one of the organisations most responsible for climate change. Without them we would already be carbon neutral / negative.

[sabroni]

re: Greenpeace are one of the organisations most responsible for climate change

What, by noticing it?

[blackcat]

Re: re: Greenpeace are one of the organisations most responsible for climate change

No, by advocating for policies that have done more harm that good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Less rants. More data please.

> No, by advocating for policies that have done more harm that good.

Here we go again. Nuke bro rant again.

- Power generation IS A F.R.A.C.T.I.O.N of CO2 emissions

- Nuclear power IS A F.R.A.C.T.I.O.N of power generation

Most countries decommissioning their nuclear power have used the money to decrease their CO2 emissions more efficiently and are on the way to the Green H2 society. Green H2 has benefits way beyond power generation. This is the only way.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Less rants. More data please.

Most countries decommissioning their nuclear power have used the money to decrease their CO2 emissions more efficiently and are on the way to the Green H2 society. Green H2 has benefits way beyond power generation. This is the only way.

Hahahahahahaaha <cough>. You've capitalised 'Green H2'. Care to show me any industrial scale 'Green H2 society' that can produce H2 in anything like the volume, and price that a society would need to replace CH4? Especially as producing H2 requires a lot of energy, or a lot of energy and CH4. In which case it's turning methane feedstock into something more expensive to distribute and less efficient to use.

But that's Greens for you. If only they'd save CO2 and Just Stop Breathing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Less rants. More thinking, please.

>>> Especially as producing H2 requires a lot of energy

Yeah that's the point of energy storage. If you need a lot of energy to create a chemical bond, then you get a lot in return when you break it. Just like if it takes a lot of energy to fill up your battery, then it also stores more. The phrase you're looking for is "storage capacity".

No response on the "Stop breathing" lame² comment. Daily mail has lots of interesting articles for you.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Less rants. More thinking, please.

The phrase you're looking for is "storage capacity".

Actually, there would be several. Cost. Efficiency. Conversion losses. Storage losses. Transport losses. Or even just energy density, for which there's an xkcd-

https://xkcd.com/1162/

Kinda why solid and liquid fuels have always been better for that stuff. Then again, you could try liquid or solid H2 to boost storage capacity, just.. not near me please.

No response on the "Stop breathing" lame² comment.

But it's scientifically proven to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, providing the waste is disposed of in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner.

[Anonymous Coward]

Economy 101

The efficiency of a PWR NPP is around 3%. Yet you worship it.

Energy density has never been a guarantee of commercial success. Offer and demand are.

You're just picking a characteristic you like, ignore all others, and wave it as a proof of the correctness of your "reasoning". You're the kind of guy who predicted solar panels and wind turbines would never be commercially viable. Yet they are now the cheapest sources of energy. Because learning rate is a thing.

Green H2 is on its way to drop below 2$/kg already. Cheaper than grey H2. That's the whole point. There's a reason why Green H2 attracts so much investments. The Illuminati, the reptilians, and the aliens have nothing to do with it. People who understand economy, sciences and techniques have everything to do with it.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Economy 101

The efficiency of a PWR NPP is around 3%. Yet you worship it.

Citation needed. Both on efficiency, and worship. No Gaia worship here..

Energy density has never been a guarantee of commercial success. Offer and demand are.

Oh, you really are the gift that keeps on giving. Energy density is part of commercial success, ie how easy it is to transport fuel, or potential energy. Much easier and cheaper to store a big stash of joules as diesel or petrol than it is as electricity. This is, of course handy for 'offer and demand', or supply and demand as it's usually known. Which is again the problem with your beloved lawn ornaments-

https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind

minimum: 0.419 GW maximum: 16.587 GW average: 9.291 GW for the month to date. So when demand > 0.419GW, something else needs to generate that electricity because there's no wind. Obviously this has been gas, and thanks to EU and UK sanctions on gas, gas has now become very expensive. So then has our electricity. If the wind's blowing harder and 16.587GW exceeds demand, the wind farmers get paid 'constraint payments' not to deliver it. Normally in economics where there's an oversupply, price falls. But not the UK energy market because some fat fck by the name of Ed Davey rigged it that way.

On the other hand, 1GW nuclear would generate 1GW 24x7x365 give or take planned maintenance. If demand is lower, then the surplus energy could potentially be used to produce H2, or modern nuclear plants are better at load following.

You're the kind of guy who predicted solar panels and wind turbines would never be commercially viable. Yet they are now the cheapest sources of energy.

Now, this is why we really should have fraud trials. Do you seriously believe this? Especially after this?

https://renews.biz/89521/uk-hikes-offshore-wind-cfd-price-cap-by-66/

The Administrative Strike Price for fixed-foundation bidders in Allocation Round 6 will be £73 per megawatt-hour, up 66% on the £44/MWh in AR5 that failed to attract any entries.

Various industry bodies, including RenewableUK, and developers, including RWE have welcomed the development.

Floating wind's price ceiling will be set at £176/MWh, up 52% on the £116/MWh in this year’s tender that also did not result in any bids from eligible developers.

I'm.. not suprised these scumsucking parasites have welcomed an indexed 66% and 52% subsidy increase, making the offshore strike price even more expensive than the Hinkley and Sizewell nuclear prices. And of course for the 'renewables' scumbags, that £176/MWh doesn't include batteries, back-up generators, grid tie-ins etc etc. Of course when gullible governments offer scumbags free money, those scumbags pile in.

Wonder why energy costs so much in the UK, businesses are so uncompetitive and our inflation rate is so high?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Less rants. More thinking, please.

providing the waste is disposed of in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner.

aka packing all the green idiots into a rocket and shoot it into the sun.

[Bbuckley]

Re: Less rants. More data please.

Anonymous Coward says it all.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: re: Greenpeace are one of the organisations most responsible for climate change

A long way back, there was a Greenpeace representative interviewed on BBC News night - this was with Jeremy Paxman as interviewer, so shows how long ago it was. Also, I think it might have been when we didn't have climate change, but had global warming instead, so it really is going back.

Anyway, Paxo let the activist make his point - global warming was the biggest threat to mankind ever, and we had to pay any price to stop it, without exception.

Paxo being Paxo, he gave the guy the rope -

'absolutely any price?' 'Yes'.

'Without any exception?' 'Yes'

'so you support nuclear power' 'Oh no...'

Apparently, not accepting nuclear power wasn't an exception, but was a price that Greenpeace were not willing to pay.

Greenpeace have been adamant that 'we' have to pay any price, but 'they' don't have to give up any of their ideology or make any concession. Nuclear is low carbon (zero carbon at point of generation), but we can't have it / haven't built much if any for 30 years, because Greenpeace and their ilk have blocked it. So instead, we've burnt coal, oil and gas, and released huge volumes of CO2 which we could have avoided and, were it not for Greenpeace, would have avoided.

[Steve Button]

Sorry did someone offend your religion?

[veti]

Yep, they're back.

It's sad. Back in 2016 this happened. This forum had usually been a reasonably balanced, sensible place, but suddenly you couldn't say anything disparaging about Trump without people jumping down your throat. People who would have been (were) completely silent if you'd said equally (or more) rude things about him a year or two earlier, mind you.

In 2020, for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Sure there were some Trumpists around, but not many, certainly not enough to compete with an overwhelmingly anti-Trumpist consensus.

But now, they're back. Climate denialism is one of the big fronts on this particular forum, so every story that touches on it will draw them out. And I assume it's only going to get worse for approximately the next 12 months. Oh well, we've had about seven years of near-normality; now hunker down, they'll mostly be gone by December 2025.

[Jellied Eel]

But now, they're back. Climate denialism is one of the big fronts on this particular forum, so every story that touches on it will draw them out.

Indeed. Climate deniers post as story about how we're all doomed. Climate sceptics point out that we're not. Life goes on. What you've yet to realise is that you are the climate denier. The sceptics know the climate has and always will change, and the shysters blaming CO2 are just in it for the money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't look up.

Hey Jelly brain, if you petition for the MAGA cap icon to be added to the collection, we will all support.

[Anonymous Coward]

But now, they're back. Climate denialism is one of the big fronts on this particular forum, so every story that touches on it will draw them out. And I assume it's only going to get worse for approximately the next 12 months.

Now we can see what's been scuttling around under the rocks in Ireland and it isn't pretty. Naturally the question everyone's asking is how did we get here? The answer is, of course, social media, where everyone is funneled into an echo chamber and a good few come out a few years later actively wanting to destroy the same society they're part of after being fed a diet of lies and misinformation.

[blackcat]

'Naturally the question everyone's asking is how did we get here?'

Oh its very simple. 2020 summer of love. When BLM rioted and burned cities you likely cheered for 'social justice' etc.. Now when there is unrest after 3 kids and their teacher get randomly stabbed in broad daylight it is suddenly a terrible thing.

'actively wanting to destroy the same society they're part of'

These towns and cities in the US where the BLM riots took place are wastelands and shops don't want to be there any more. Parts of LA have never recovered from the 1991 riots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprise surprise...

The pro-nuclear, pro-plastic, anti-wind power is also anti-BLM...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> I am shocked at the comments here , its like the Trump supporting morons on the other forum I frequent!

It's just two or three rabid commenters, reveling in the same pseudo-scientific nonsense. Some of their comments are just unreal (like the guy questioning the speed of light - LMAO). I think the mention of "Greenpeace" in the article title attracted them here like ants are attracted to jam.

At some point they will go back suckling Fox News "information", and the adults will be able to converse politely and serenely again.

[blackcat]

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/putting-einstein-theory-relativity-test

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331150-200-cosmic-uncertainty-is-the-speed-of-light-really-constant/

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15017484

[Anonymous Coward]

Mashups and mixups

Thanks for confirming your attraction for fake news and contrarian theories.

1/ FYI, the 2011 OPERA experiment was never reproduced and the authors came back one year later explaining the discrepancies by some misconnected fibre (and apologised to the community).

2/ FYI, the M87's jet superluminal motion observation is another relativistic illusion. It's all explainable.

3/ FYI, Varying speed of light theories are like the Loch Ness monster sightings. You can hear about them every 10 years or so, but nobody ever captured one. Quite honestly we would have to rewrite most of today's physics if they were true. Maxwell equations included. But yeah, some people have a tropism for all these anti-establishment theories. Mostly people starving for recognition. Food for thought for psychologists.

[blackcat]

Re: Mashups and mixups

"Mostly people starving for recognition"

Says the person frothing at the mouth and slinging insults around :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ricky Gervais' quote

"Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right."

[Rich 2]

WTF????

This thread has been completely hijacked by utter morons. No wonder we’re all heading for complete ecological collapse when we have idiots like this in the world.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted

[Chris Miller]

Re: WTF????

How very dare people post opinions I disagree with. I demand my subscription back! Oh, ....

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: WTF????

Man made climate change is a scientific fact

So is the non renewable status of oil

You cant have a different "opinion" about the value of Pi , or the speed of light , or pythagoras' theorum.

[blackcat]

Re: WTF????

Consensus does not make it fact.

The earth was flat by consensus until it was discovered to be a sphere.

The earth was the centre of the universe by consensus and they even had beautiful mathematical models that proved it, until it was discovered that it wasn't.

And the speed of light is actually a disputed issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consensus does not make facts...

... but is a good way to identify crackpot contrarians. As per the definition of contrarian.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: WTF????

So is the non renewable status of oil

Err.. wut? Lemme just throw this out there-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

The Fischer–Tropsch process (FT) is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, known as syngas, into liquid hydrocarbons.

and

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

The Sabatier reaction or Sabatier process produces methane and water from a reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures (optimally 300–400 °C) and pressures (perhaps 3 MPa [1]) in the presence of a nickel catalyst.

Or perhaps you thought oil really was dinosaur juice? But those are just a couple of ways to make oil 'renewable'. We can take H2 and CO2 and make methane and oils. Then if you're a Green, you could take that methane and oil and turn it back into H2 and CO2. Perfectly renewable, and sustainable, if you just.. gloss over costs and efficiencies. But that's the way 'renewables' usually work. Give me the money and I'll produce ultra dense carbon fuel (ok, diamonds) from CO2. Then we can burn them, recapture the CO2, and perpetual energy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicolas Flamel strikes again

In the hilarious series "how my little cousin is always right", we learn that we can make renewable diamonds from CO2 (It just costs a bit of "money, but hush).

>>> Give me the money and I'll produce ultra dense carbon fuel (ok, diamonds) from CO2

Why don't you also make renewable gold, jelly brain, all you need is the number of protons, neutrons and electrons. Which is public information...

Ah, you might also need a bit of money.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Nicolas Flamel strikes again

In the hilarious series "how my little cousin is always right", we learn that we can make renewable diamonds from CO2 (It just costs a bit of "money, but hush).

Oh, how little you know. I used this as an example of how crazy a lot of Green schemes like Green H2 are. But then someone went and did it-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/30/ecotricity-founder-to-grow-diamonds-made-entirely-from-the-sky

Dale Vince, the founder of green energy supplier Ecotricity, claims to have developed the world’s only diamonds to be made from carbon, water and energy sourced directly from the elements at a “sky mining facility” in Stroud.

I.. don't think these 'sky diamonds' are still in production though.

[Steve Button]

Re: WTF????

"we’re all heading for complete ecological collapse"

Have you got any evidence for that, or do you think if you just shout it in a shrill voice everyone will believe you?

I'm more concerned about pollution. Sewage in the water, heavy metals polluting fish, pesticides, etc. etc.

CO2 is not pollution.

The problem is that the people who fund the studies into Climate Change Religion only want to hear more bad news, and so it's the bad news studies that get more funding. It's a scary positive feedback loop. If there was not much to talk about, how could they justify flying an entourage off to COP28 in a private jet, where they'll eat ... bugs? Veggies?

The thread has been hijacked by people who have seen through all the bullshit.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: WTF????

i'm sick of hearing this "private jet" bullshit .

If a 1 world leader flies to COP on behalf of 100 million people on the specific business of reducing emissions , the fuel for the jet is below neglible.

Somebody pointed out the other day that wind turbines use oil in the gearbox - as if that was some sort of justification for scrapping wind power.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: WTF????

Somebody pointed out the other day that wind turbines use oil in the gearbox - as if that was some sort of justification for scrapping wind power

I don't think so. The best arguments for scrapping wind power are ones our ancestors gave us, ie when we transitioned away from the Age of Sail to cheaper, more reliable steam. But yes, there are a lot of oils used in windmill gear boxes, transformers and turbines. These sometimes leak and pollute the land the windmills are on, or create oil spills if they're offshore. Or just burn, releasing potentially harmful toxic chemicals.

However. A bunch of idiots are busy increasing traffic pollution in the guise of 'Just Stop Oil'. Ok, so suppose they win, and we do. Where does the oil for the windmills come from then?

[blackcat]

Re: WTF????

The biggest issue of oil in turbines is what has gone into the resin used for the blades. At least you can recover the gearbox oil, assuming it hasn't leaked or caught fire :)

My major gripe with wind turbines is that they have been made into a disposable device. Blade leading edges worn, scrap the whole thing. Bearings nearing end of life, scrap the whole thing.

Part of this is the subsidies system. After a certain time it makes more financial sense to build a new one as then the subsidies restart.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: WTF????

blackcat,

There are some interesting (well, to me) developments now, where 'expired' wind turbine blades are being used as structural elements for things like footbridges. The idea seems to work, though obviously, long-term durability has yet to be proven.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that the concept of having an end-of-life plan for a structure (ie how to dismantle it and recycle as much as possible) has been mainstream for some time, so it's depressing that we are in a position of 'what can we use these blades for now?', rather than having thought it through before we built the things.

A more significant issue, which doesn't seem to have been picked up as much by press and activists, is what do we do with the foundations of life expired off-shore wind turbines?

I believe that the licencing conditions for construction wind farms is that at end of life, all elements are to be removed from the sea bed.

An offshore wind turbine foundation is typically a mono-pile - these can be a couple of meters in diameter and are typically (high) tens of meters in length. The frictional resistance to pulling these things out of the sea bed is huge, so how can they be removed?

These seems to be driving a lot of work to extend turbine life (on the grounds that it is easier to extend life than deal with the licencing condition at end-of-life).

Of course, we could just change the licence conditions, and allow the old piles to be cut off and left in place - but is that environmentally friendly?

Politicians and activists shout and scream, but it's the poor put upon engineers that have to actually make the insanity work....

[blackcat]

Re: WTF????

I fear that end of life considerations often get missed from contract negotiations. Farmers in the US are miffed that the companies who rent their land for wind turbines are not removing the concrete foundations. They should have hired better lawyers and not just focused on the $$$.

My guess would be the offshore piles end up like the old oil rig supports, left to rot.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: WTF????

A more significant issue, which doesn't seem to have been picked up as much by press and activists, is what do we do with the foundations of life expired off-shore wind turbines?

The way the contracts are structured usually provides clues, and it's the same problem with on-shore windmills as well. So basically they become someone else's problem. Any revenues and profits are sucked out via a suitable SPV, and the assets left to go bankrupt or become the landowner's problem. Then again, sometimes that can be a way of turning greenfield land into brownfield, and then making real money by building housing developments. Neat thing about that is the land already has some foundations, road access and utilities.

Some councils have tried to get restoration escrow accounts created, but scumbag 'renewables' developers usually oppose having to pay any clean-up costs.

An offshore wind turbine foundation is typically a mono-pile - these can be a couple of meters in diameter and are typically (high) tens of meters in length. The frictional resistance to pulling these things out of the sea bed is huge, so how can they be removed?

Det cord?

Of course, we could just change the licence conditions, and allow the old piles to be cut off and left in place - but is that environmentally friendly?

Very little about the wind industry is. Whether that's visual impact, bird and insect effects, or just massive clunking/clanking vibrators transmitting sounds into the seas. So AFAIK a lot of the clean-up is basically out of sight, out of mind and as long as it's not a hazard to navigation, it's just left there. Especially as with onshore wind, the owners go conveniently kaput and avoid liabilty anyway. But there could be some future benefits, ie using the piles with a bunch of gabions and maybe even old blades etc to create new, offshore islands. Unlikely to get the tax breaks or UN recognitions, but still potentially lucrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: WTF????

> "A more significant issue, which doesn't seem to have been picked up as much by press and activists, is what do we do with the foundations of life expired off-shore wind turbines?"

Oh wow... I had no clue the fish were complaining. While we're at it, let's also remove all these ugly natural big rocks at the bottom of the sea... LOL.

Now seriously, in case you did not know, shipwrecks, oil rigs and offshore wind turbines are diversity islands. It starts with algae deposits and plankton, then smaller fish come, then larger ones, and before a few years, a small ecosystem develops. That's how "polluting" wind turbine foundations are.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: WTF????

According to Greenpeace, the sea is not a dustbin:

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/47744/brent-spar-the-sea-is-not-a-dustbin/

If we are not supposed to leave our rubbish in the sea, then we are not supposed to leave our rubbish in the sea.

Personally, though, I quite agree that a large lump of steel stuck in the sea bed is a low risk item in relation to environmental damage.

It's a slightly bigger risk in relation to development of off-shore wind (or sea bed cables, pipelines, etc, or other as yet unforeseen development), since it's a potential obstruction to future installation of bigger-and-better turbines on the same site (Re-use of old foundations is a thing, and can be done, but it's surprisingly not so common - there are complications with doing it). I suspect it is this factor that is the driver for the requirement to remove fully all parts of the turbine's structure at end of life.

I also doubt there will be many fished-based ecosystems developing below the sea bed (foundations do tend to be below ground level).

But it doesn't change the fact that under terms of licences (at least in some cases), the foundations are supposed to be removed. It is for the wind farm industry to develop the techniques and technology, and to pay the cost of meeting the regulations that affect their industry. And that looks to be a challenge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's all thank Greenpeace.

Thanks for reminding us that we owe it to Greenpeace that the nuclear industry is not allowed to dump their nuclear wastes where we catch our sea food anymore.

[Alumoi]

Re: WTF????

I wonder if all those politicians have even heard of video conferences. You know, when you settle your arse in your favorite chair, wearing only your briefs and a shirt with tie, looking into a camera and speaking into a microphone.

They don't fucking need to meet in person. Think of the savings in fuel, food, services, drugs, hookers, booze and so on they can save.

[blackcat]

Re: WTF????

Same with Davos. They like the spectacle and standing on stage in front of a throng of ass kissers.

Oh and the food, booze, hookers and blow!

Remember the Met Gala where AOC was in her Tax the Rich dress (made by the person who didn't pay her staff or pay her taxes, that is another matter) and all the venue staff were wearing masks but the guests were not. Very much the 'us and them'.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: WTF????

"seen through all the bullshit."

So theres no problem ? nothing needs to change ?

All I hear is is people either outright denying climate change or just pickimng holes in any attempt to alleiviate it - without making any constructive suggestions themselves .

"OOH then electric cars are shit mu peugout can do 800 miles on a tank , and even though i've never driven it more than the 20 mile commute in one go that is a reason to write EV off"

[Jellied Eel]

Re: WTF????

All I hear is is people either outright denying climate change or just pickimng holes in any attempt to alleiviate it - without making any constructive suggestions themselves .

This is normally how reality works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Obviously this isn't helpful if you're in the business of trying to flog massive windmills. Most people with a passing knowledge of history know we used to depend on the vagueries of the wind & weather for power prior to the Industrial Revolution. Up until recently, that was seen as a GoodThing(tm) that allowed may people to prosper.

But now in the glorious 21st century, reality has been modernised. Now, to save the planet, you must buy really large and expensive windmills again. Siemens & Vestas shareholders need you! Save the planet, tilt at windmills! Of course if global warming isn't a serious threat, then there's no need to do anything quite so stupid and we could just build nuclear and modern coal power stations instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: WTF????

> "Of course if global warming isn't a serious threat, then there's no need to do anything quite so stupid and we could just build nuclear and modern coal power stations instead."

May I suggest the coast of Japan for a nice building site. All safe. LOL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Internal contraditions

>>> I'm more concerned about pollution. Sewage in the water, heavy metals polluting fish, pesticides, etc. etc.

How will these issues not cause ecological collapse either? Are we not witnessing arthropods populations collapse in intensive agriculture lands already? Aren't arthropods among keystone species?

[blackcat]

Re: Internal contraditions

Those are legitimate and serious issues but we focus on just one gas. And there is also plastic and microplastics.

We still work on a victorian mindset when it comes to rubbish and sewerage. Even with recycling. Out of sight, out of mind. And we go from knee-jerk reaction to knee-jerk reaction. Paper bags have a higher CO2 footprint than plastic (and are no good when you're cleaning up hairballs). Paper straws are more toxic than plastic straws. Oft the proposed solution is worse as the people screaming 'we must do something' are not very smart and they are asking people who are really very dumb (politicians) to do the 'something'.

Stopping the dumping of raw sewerage into the sea is a must. We're not living in 1850s London. And we could make biogas from it too.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: WTF????

No wonder we’re all heading for complete ecological collapse when we have idiots like this in the world.

Nope. Luckily most plant and much animal life evolved when CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher than today. Not sure what you mean by 'complete ecological collapse', but if you're concerned about CO2 levels, you could do your bit. Every adult (I mean physically, not mentally) produces around 250kg of CO2 per year, just from respiration. So rather than supergluing themselves to roads, people who think they're already doomed could make a noble sacrifice and Just Stop Breathing.

Sadly, some people did buy into all the doom & gloom spread by the Greens and did do this. Kids are apparently increasingly suffering from depression because they're told they don't have a future. Remember St Greta and her 'how dare you thing?'. Greens dare because they're neo-luddite, virtue signalling scumbags who have no shame.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: WTF????

...neo-luddite

Real luddites use pointed sticks to break up spinning jennies, looms, nuclear reactors and crypto mines.

New fangled pitchforks my arse

[Bbuckley]

Re: WTF????

One nutter's "utter morons" is another person's "thank God not everyone is an eco-nutter"

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it was Taiwanese manufacturing giant Foxconn, maker of Apple's iPhone and other products, which was shamed by Greenpeace for having the highest emissions and electricity consumption.

Well that's to be expected when everyone outsources their emissions to you, then claims they've cleaned up.

[Bbuckley]

I call out Greenpeace as anti-democratic ideological nutters. Can I sue them?

[Jellied Eel]

I call out Greenpeace as anti-democratic ideological nutters. Can I sue them?

Probably, although you'd need a lot of money to hire some brave barristers who'd be willing to go up against the Green Blob. I think it should be possible to bring a private prosecution for fraud against the 'renewables' industry given repeated false claims for stuff like falling prices etc. Given the government (both Tories and Labour) are unlikely to prosecute, private would probably be the only option. An alternative would be to copy a tactic used by Greenpeace against it's competitors and try a Judicial Review. Also expensive, but a tactic Greenpeace used to stop the construction of a clean(er) coal power station at Kingsnorth, and also used against the nuclear industry.

Personally I think a successful fraud trial would be the best option given it would have the potential to allow for the termination of CfDs and other contracts, if they were based on false/misleading claims.

[Potemkine!]

Greenpeace is farcical

If Greenpeace was serious about Climate Change, it would promote nuclear energy instead of fighting against it, and it would fight against coal seriously. A coalition with Greens accepted to reopen coal power power just to close nuclear power plants in Germany, with the approbation of Greenpeace.

During the cold war, it was said that " Pacifism is in the West and Euro-missiles are in the East". Now, Greens are in the west, most of CO2 production is in Asia and North America.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good idea...

>>> If Greenpeace was serious about Climate Change, it would promote nuclear energy instead of fighting against it,

Very good idea... if we had unlimited budget and if we could persuade the laws of physics to pause for another 50 years, to give us a bit of time to double the number of nuclear power plants.

Oh wait, even doubling the number of power plants would have very little effect because nuclear is only contributing 10% of our electricity production globally. And electricity production is only causing 25% of our CO2 emissions.

Long story short, nuclear is a dead end. Most governments have acknowledged that and are redirecting investment and effort towards renewables. But yeah, as odds as it may seem, some immature geeks still unable to do the math keep on trolling about it. Thankfully, they are totally irrelevant and not part of any decision process. Have a good day.