CEO of UK's National Grid warns of datacenters' thirst for power John Pettigrew, the CEO of Britain's National Grid, warned on Tuesday that datacenter power consumption is on track to grow 500 percent over the next decade. In a speech delivered to the Aurora Forum in Oxford, Pettigrew mentioned growing demand for energy to power datacenters, alongside increased adoption of electric cars and …
Energy generation won't be the primary concern, but delivering it will be.
The Netherlands is a good case study. We are generating more than enough power, got plenty of wind farms nicely ruining our views, and EV chargers all over the shop.
So what's the problem? Well, we can't use it all.
It is overloading our old infrastructure, bottleneck after bottleneck. Not enough manpower to upgrade the capacity, and not enough manpower to realise new connections where the infrastructure can actually handle it.
It slows economic growth, it slows the energy transition, and it affects the housing problems (there are a couple of places where they finished housing, but they cannot get electricity there, so the nice sustainable induction stoves and heatpumps don't work.)
We have committed to laying off natural gas and combustion vehicles, and genuinely did a pretty good job with pushing sustainable energy (other than the ugly wind farms but can't have it all eh?), but in typical government fashion a success has to be overshadowed by a collossal cock-up because they didn't look ahead at all.
It seems that you're not quite at that stage yet in the UK, so listen to the warning signs and act upon them.
There are dozens of new renewable energy projects on hold because of the crumbling infrastructure that can't handle it.
We're already there.
As for the 'nimby' comment about 'ruining the view'... so what. A nice view of a burning planet is preferable to a few wind turbines in some peoples minds. Suck it up and accept our selfishness has to take a back seat for a change.
Sigh.
The trouble with you snowflakes is you are completely deluded that Net Zero is achievable or even worth achieving.
If the climate scientists are correct, then the world is already doomed. No amount of CO2 reduction is going to save it now, we are well past the tipping point.
If they are wrong, then all of this is rather pointless.
The only thing driving it is money. Huge bungs for curtailment of energy we don't need or can't store/transmit to where it IS needed. Huge bungs for burning trees cut from virgin forests in Canada and South America. Huge bungs for oil companies promising to make Hydrogen or stuff some CO2 down an old well. Bungs for Russian companies building solar farms or HVDC interconnectors that are highly unreliable and could be remotely shut down or reversed with the press of a key..
However, i agree with you that pylons spoiling some bumpkin's £10m view is a price worth paying for grid resilience.
We don't just need a system that can barely cope with increasing demand, we need one that is resilient to failure, even when deliberately attacked by an enemy. If we can build that, then the enemy hopefully won't bother attacking it. But currently our electric grid looks a lot like a rickety bridge across a globally important shipping lane.
It's probably fair to say that a citation is required on both sides of that argument, since nobody really knows if we can stop the problems we've created.
Thankfully, something will stop it. The planet. It tends to be good at self correcting its problems. Overpopulation - which is the fundamental challenge - have a pandemic. More to come I expect.
Usually, people calling someone else 'snowflake' are insecure and projecting. See also the use of 'sigh' and 'completely deluded', terms which basically mean 'I don't want to engage with you as a peer'.
At a guess, I'd say that maintaining a belief that climate change is not a real problem is getting harder and harder, resulting in the need to display inflated certainty.
If I was insecure or not wanting to engage as a peer, then I'd be posting as AC..
It's also not that I believe climate change isn't a problem, it's more that I find the idea of modern-day CO2 emissions being the primary cause questionable. There are plenty of other reasons for it to be happening. Methane, solar activity, etc etc. (see Jellied Eel posts ad-nauseam).
I also find that the prioritisation of reducing CO2 emissions above all other things has become something of a quasi-religious cult, a sort of cognitive dissonance. We are told that by releasing CO2 we will cause the world to go on fire, we will go to Hell. That stuff irks me.
I also worry that by betting the farm on renewables, net zero, carbon capture, smart grids etc, we are both weakening our economy (by spending on ultimately frivolous projects, unsustainable markets and subsidies) and weakening our resilience to a major crash. We all know that world wars start when large economies crash, and WWIII is looking perilously close.
Sorry for using a post-modern curse-word, but the trigger-phrase that made me use it was "burning planet". Obviously, the world is NOT on fire. But it will be when we have crashed the economy and start lobbing nuclear warheads at each other.
-- Usually, people calling someone else 'snowflake' are insecure and projecting. --
Or its a way of reacting for years of "denier" or a shorthand way of describing someones view of the world and inability to accept that reality has some small part to play in life.
-- terms which basically mean 'I don't want to engage with you as a peer'. --
Ever watch a climate debate and noticed that the ones doing the shouting down are not those trying to have a rational discussion but rather those like yourself.
"We don't just need a system that can barely cope with increasing demand, we need one that is resilient to failure, even when deliberately attacked by an enemy. "
if only someone invented smart community grids.
> If the climate scientists are correct, then the world is already doomed.
If MIT are correct (their research validated 1970s forecasts, and a circa 2021 review revalidated with current economic data) then our entire resource and energy hungry economic system falls apart in circa 2040…
The interesting thing, was the MIT research applied science to the economic models and policies being promoted by the pseudo science of economics and being used by politicians to run economies. What is noticeable is how the economists have been totally unable to fault the MIT work and instead ignore it…
You are suggesting windmills are the only viable source of sustainable energy. They are not.
We use about the same amount of solar energy as we do wind energy (CBS, 2022). I have never been bothered by solar panels.
I realize we need windmills right now. I accept windmills, that doesn't mean i like them, nor do i think they will solve the sustainability problem. We are running out of places to put windmills, and they are only contributing 4% of our total energy usage (solar does 3%, biomass about 8%). They are not a solution, they are a temporary fix to a permanent problem.
I also don't agree with the decision to put them right next to areas where large bird populations live.
But until new methods of energy generation become viable, or they decide to reopen our nuclear reactor(s), we are stuck with it. It's a shame they'll never disappear, because they won't let the infrastructure go to waste.
There is no perfect solution, but of all imperfect solutions, windmills suck the most imo. (unless you think burning more dinosaurs is a solution, that would be the worst)
Biomass 8%
Or as its correctly titled
Cutting down North American forests, grinding them into pellets, transporting said pellets 3000 miles by bulk freighter, then burning them in Drax power station........
Can we have 10 Hinkley C power stations please? (or even Sizewell B stations for that matter).. lots of power no CO2
Drax is quite interesting, a couple of months back I did some maths. For Drax to be “sustainable” it would need an area the size of East Anglia wholly devoted to growing wood. Now look at the number of power stations the UK needs and you very quickly run out of land…
Who needs to grow wood when you can just chop down forests in other countries, dry it out and make it into pellets at great energy cost, ship it over to the UK in diesel-powered boats, belch out CO2 and carcinogenic particulate smoke in the UK but attribute all the emissions to the country you just deforested, and collect billions in carbon-credit subsidies! Trebles all round!
Biomass has been the greatest con in 'renewables'. Paper mills and other wood processing facilities have long been using waste as fuel including a byproduct called black liquor which can be used as a diesel alternative. In 2005 the US govt decided to introduce a tax credit on blended fuels so the paper mills started mixing the black liquor with fossil fuels as they could get money from the govt meaning that fossil fuel use went UP.
And then we have the NI 'cash for ash' debacle where you could install a pellet heater in an uninsulated barn and profit from the govt handouts....
The initial idea sounded great... A power station burning waste wood and using carbon capture reduce the carbon footprint...
The 'carbon capture' went by the wayside after pilot trials and the 'waste wood' is now millions of tons of imported perfectly good wood, including some from questionable off-limits virgin forest
"Can we have 10 Hinkley C power stations please? (or even Sizewell B stations for that matter).. lots of power no CO2"
Yes you can, and in fact that's roughly current government policy of achieving 24GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, albeit they've not firmly committed to anything beyond Hinkley C. But that means a bill of around £400-500bn at current prices (and probably a lot more) and quarter of a century to achieve - before the inevitable delays.
Building any form of infrastructure in this country has become unfeasibly expensive, whether it's £10bn for two short road tunnels under the Thames, £90bn+ for a hundred miles of half-baked high speed railway, £50bn for a single nuclear power station, etc etc. We need a Royal Commission to investigate the reasons for this, to get all concerned into a room and bang their heads together to reverse the cost creep that's been incurred for the past fifty years or more, which will mean giving up on certain luxuries (for example the 359,000 pages of the planning documents for the lower Thames crossing, or the delays for beard-and-sandal archaeologists to scrape around with toothbrushes). Or, we can just keep doing what we're doing until we're either bankrupt, or the lights go out.
Yes you can, and in fact that's roughly current government policy of achieving 24GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, albeit they've not firmly committed to anything beyond Hinkley C. But that means a bill of around £400-500bn at current prices (and probably a lot more) and quarter of a century to achieve - before the inevitable delays.
We've kinda, sorta committed to the new Sizewell NPP though, haven't we? But part of the problem with government is they do stuff like 'committ' to catchy, media friendly dates like 2050 without understanding the consequences. Fools rush in and all that. Especially as government can also control demand, ie delay decarbonising heating, cooking and transport until after we have the generating infrastructure and can support the increased demand.
"We've kinda, sorta committed to the new Sizewell NPP though, haven't we? "
Not really. Lots of warm words and statements of intent, all of which mean nothing until a company of consortium sign on the dotted line with an agreed strike price that's guaranteed by government.
As for generating infrastructure, indeed they commit to catchy stuff, and no they really understand little of the consequences. But then again, MPs are on £90k a year for doing jack shit, plus as much in expenses as they can shovel, so why would they care? There's no concept in the Westminster bubble that energy has to be not merely affordable, but competitive with other countries, and as a result our politicians commit to any stupid "low carbon" idea on offer, regardless of the cost and consequences. NOTHING is being done to make energy cheaper, but LOTS of things are being done to make it more expensive, and that will mean that it will make manufacturing in Britain less and less competitive. Away from energy, the same morons are currently consulting before rubber stamping a bill that will introduce carbon related import taxes (conveniently in 2027) on things like iron and steel, aluminium, cement, ceramics, fertilisers. So that'll put up the costs of farming, of construction, and of manufacturing. Clearly the belief set is "Housebuilding is too cheap, we must make it more costly! Food is too cheap, the inputs need to cost more! Business is evil, we must exterminate it!"
Meanwhile China is constructing new coal fired power stations at a rate of roughly one a week (218GW of new coal plant approved in the past two years).
> Yes you can, and in fact that's roughly current government policy of achieving 24GW of nuclear capacity by 2050
Dream on.
> But that means a bill of around £400-500bn at current prices (and probably a lot more)
With that kind of money we can get a lot more renewable, H2 storage and grid upgrade. So, this will just remain what it is: a pipe dream.
"With that kind of money we can get a lot more renewable, H2 storage and grid upgrade. So, this will just remain what it is: a pipe dream."
Renewable H2 is merely a tree-huggers wet dream. The economics make nuclear look like a budget option. I base that on working in the energy sector for over a decade and participating in industry working groups looking at options for system decarbonisation, and working for the company who built the first sizeable "power-to-gas" plant in the world.
> "I base that on working in the energy sector for over a decade"
"I'm a nuke bro who can't wrap his head around the fact that no government (not even the nuclear-cult champions in France) can fork that amount of money under any circumstance (France new [vastly under]estimated budget is around 60 BGBP).
> "Renewable H2 is merely a tree-huggers wet dream."
"I'm a nuke bro who can't wrap his head around the fact that so many governments are having multi billion dollar green H2 support plans: they must all be wrong!"
> "The economics make nuclear look like a budget option."
"I'm a nuke bro who can't wrap his head around the fact that, except for China for dual-use reasons and France for ideological reasons, no major government seriously pursues the nuclear energy option and that many advanced economies are actively dismantling their nuclear infrastructure (Including the UK). They must all be wrong!"
> "and working for the company who built the first sizeable "power-to-gas" plant in the world!"
"I work at Swedish state-owned Vattenfall who shut down 40% of their nuclear facilities in Sweden since 2017!"
"I'm a nuke bro who can't wrap his head around the fact that, except for China for dual-use reasons and France for ideological reasons, no major government seriously pursues the nuclear energy option and that many advanced economies are actively dismantling their nuclear infrastructure (Including the UK). They must all be wrong!"
Grow up, you sad name calling twerp. You might want to check out that Jordan, UAE, India, Korea, Bangladesh, Turkey all have reactors at advanced stages of construction. It's only the sclerotic western nations who struggle with nuclear power.
"I work at Swedish state-owned Vattenfall who shut down 40% of their nuclear facilities in Sweden since 2017!"
Wrong company, but since you don't know much about anything and have to resort to insulting people I shouldn't be surprised.
> Grow up
Yeah. After a nearly 40y engineering career, after having supported the nuclear industry in France, from the inside, I've come to the conclusion that this is now, a dead end. It was OK when there were no renewable alternatives but now, in 2024, it's a waste of time, money and precious grey matter. At a time when all these are scarce resources. But who am I to tell this to young folks with simple convictions who believe they can still plan a 30 year career in the industry? Assuming you're more than just an IT engineer.
> You might want to check out that Jordan, UAE, India, Korea, Bangladesh, Turkey all have reactors at advanced stages of construction.
- Jordan has absolutely nothing to show. They've knocked every door for the past 20 years and haven't made any decision or started any construction. All they know is that they don't have oil and they have a bit of Uranium (which is not much of an advantage at current commodity prices). As far a I know there is nothing in construction yet.
- UAE is a multifaceted story. Whereas Abu Dhabi goes on nuclear (all 4 APRs are live actually), Dubai is full on renewable. But admittedly, all 4 reactors took "only" 10 years each to build.
- India's nuclear power delivers just 1.6% of total power generation. Less than Germany in 2023.
- Korea is at it's peak with an aging fleet. Granted, they scrapped their 2020 decommissioning plan (nuclear energy is a conservative creed, see Japan, Poland, Sweden, France,...) but that does not change the fact that their fleet is aging and the new generation of engineers are unfortunately not attracted by the industry. They've already cancelled 4 reactors.
- Bangladesh? Nothing is running yet and Rosatom is behind schedule. The program was incredibly cheap, 90% financed by Russia and now the BAEC is negotiating with Chinese actors. So don't hold your breath.
- Turkey is also mostly a Rosatom story with unclear earthquake risk assessment. Another Japan in waiting, probably.
In summary, most of your examples are unconvincing. They're often the result of decisions made at a time when renewables were not mainstream and by the time construction is complete, the terms of the economic equation have changed significantly. But you have a point, construction is not halted. Egypt is another one.
> It's only the sclerotic western nations who struggle with nuclear power.
In the mean time, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, and Taiwan (a well known western nation) are phasing out their nuclear program. Whilst Germany, Italy and and Lithuania have already completed their exit.
The reason for this is that in western nations, political parties alternate faster than nuclear construction programs. At some point, conservative governments restart "energy-independence" programs that eventually hit the financing question and get scrapped when another government realizes the weakness of the business case. France only got its nuclear fleet because there was an uninterrupted sequence of right wing governments for decades and when nuclear power was making perfect sense. Today, large hierarchical power grids with only a few generation nodes are not mandatory anymore. Technology has evolved in such a way that power generation can be totally decentralized and much more responsive to consumption requirements (in addition to a lot cheaper and a lot faster to deploy). That's inescapable. But technology always evolves faster than minds.
> But that means a bill of around £400-500bn at current prices (and probably a lot more)
With that kind of money we can get a lot more renewable, H2 storage and grid upgrade. So, this will just remain what it is: a pipe dream.
i'd rather pay the £500bn for proper nuclear and grid upgrades then we can talk about transition to electric from chemical fuels
> i'd rather pay the £500bn
That's money you/we don't have. Paying that amount of money would be at the expense of so many other budgets that this will never happen. You're talking like a guy who can't tell the difference between a billion and a million.
> for proper nuclear and grid upgrades
delivery in 2050 at the very earliest (assuming we start now), when the world will be at 500ppm and well over 1.5°C. Nice plan.
> then we can talk about transition to electric from chemical fuels
then we can talk about the lost opportunity of spending this kind of money more wisely with more immediate results.
I am reminded of a UKIPper that asked the question "what happens when renewable energy runs out"?
To which the only response apart from laughing square in their face is, of course, that "we have other problems as a species if we survive that long".
It's funny, we have a family member who has been nobbled by the GB "news" / conspiracy brigade, but he knows where I work professionally. He tends to shut up and listen when I talk of energy policy.
I am reminded of a UKIPper that asked the question "what happens when renewable energy runs out"?
It's much more fun to ask a neo-luddite what happens when wind speeds fall. Then point them at the Met Office or IPCC reports that say average wind speeds have been falling, and the IPCC predicts both more calm days and 'extreme weather'. Then ask why we're wasting billions on a generating system that's entirely dependent on, and vulnerable to the weather and 'climate change'. Meanwhile, NPPs don't care. We're an island surrounded by a massive heat sink after all.
but he knows where I work professionally.
McDonalds? An on-site security guard at an off-shore windfarm?
Burn some gas, is what happens. Or import from offshore.
Storage works just fine to get through such lulls. Sure, we need more, but it’s coming. 150 odd GW on the books.
As for your jest about employment, I have yet to be persuaded where you are? Perhaps one of the oil companies running shit scared of the change that they could be part of? And instead choose corporate suicide over a long enough time frame.
I am reminded of a UKIPper that asked the question "what happens when renewable energy runs out"?
Most places solar runs out every night and starts again the following day, wind turbines run out when the wind stops.
Some places solar runs out for months at a time, other times its almost constant for months.
problems can be found all lover when you look
Most places solar runs out every night and starts again the following day, wind turbines run out when the wind stops.Some places solar runs out for months at a time, other times its almost constant for months.
problems can be found all lover when you look
And last week, it was Damon, Texas-
https://www.newsweek.com/thousands-solar-panels-texas-destroyed-hailstorm-1883546
Thousands of panels on a solar farm southwest of Houston, Texas, were damaged by a powerful hailstorm on March 15.
Aerial footage showed rows of cracked photovoltaic cells at the Fighting Jays Solar Farm near Needville in Fort Bend County, local news channel KTRK reported on Saturday. Baseball-sized hail stones were observed falling in the area overnight, as per the Houston Chronicle.
Oops. Sorry Texans, the AI can't see you now. Well, it can't see anything because it's gone dark. This is one of the most bizarre aspects about the great Global Warming scam. We're told if we don't 'invest' in 'renewables', there'll be even more 'extreme' weather events. Yet common weather events happily destroy 'renewable' projects like this. I guess what they really mean by 'renewable' and 'sustainable' is projects like this solar farm create revenue in constantly supplying replacement panels.
Global warming is a scam?
A Texas setup breaks - let's give up and burn oil! A brilliant idea!
Typical MAGA anti-science conspiracy theory rubbish. No wonder you're a brexiteer. I know someone quite dumb who voted for brexit, but even he now realises he was wrong.
As I said before "Don't look up, brexiteer"!
Global warming is a scam?
Yep.
A Texas setup breaks - let's give up and burn oil! A brilliant idea!
If you say so. Where have I suggested burning oil though? What's wrong with 'burning' uranium?
Typical MAGA anti-science conspiracy theory rubbish. No wonder you're a brexiteer. I know someone quite dumb who voted for brexit, but even he now realises he was wrong.
Oh my! The omnirant! I keep posting about science, anonymongs keep foaming at the mouth. But I also know of some peope who were quite dumb. One lot believed in a Jewish anti-science conspiracy theory and luckily for us, that mean we set up da bomb before they could. Another lot believed in a chap called Lysenko, and you lot are now busily following his methods. The only science is neo-Lysenkoism! Ban ICEs, build moar windmills.
Facists like you have rarely bothered with science, and more often in history have done exactly the same thing.. demonise, denounce and sometimes just simply execute anyone that disagrees with them
If you follow the science, we should be mounting the panels vertically and back to back; the panels are typically 5% more performant in this configuration than the pitched installation currently in favour. This permits the panels to be mounted several metres off the ground with fewer supports enabling the land to be used more productively.
With electric vehicles sheep can graze the road verges and the meat be fit for human consumption…
Hahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Tell that to the 4kw of solar panels on my roof combined with 15kwh of battery storage. In March alone , we generated 310kwh and used 298kwh of it directly 3 times in March we ran the house entirely from the system for 48 to 75hrs. We averaged 10kwh of generation per day. We use an avg of 14-15kwh a day.
Last year, it saved us over 3000kwh on a the same 4kw panels and only a 5kwh battery, plus we exported 1100kwh... We still imported 2200kwh of energy though, which is why I tripled the battery storage. So far, the data I'm seeing means that as soon as we have good weather, we can get our energy import down to near zero*. Even on a wet day like today, we still generate 4-5kwh.
Last year we generated in excess for 4000kwh of energy, roughly an average of 11kwh per day.
*Zero is an arbitrary term, there will always be a tiny trickle as the inverter switches from solar/battery/grid depending on the load. These switches mean that for up to 10seconds at a time, it might draw directly from the grid instead of the battery/solar. Over a 75hr period a couple of weeks ago, this meant we imported 1.5kwh of energy.
A nice view of a burning planet is preferable to a few wind turbines in some peoples minds.
Relax. Despite what the ecoterrorists at the Bbc and elsewhere tell you, neither you nor the planet are going to catch fire any time soon. You may die in poverty and the cold thanks to their policies though.
But-
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
Convincing people they're going to die would seem to fit the definitions of intimidating the public, and advancing political, religious or ideological causes though. Just don't hold your breath that the CPS would ever prosecute the Doomsday Cultists who've brainwashed you. Especially if Starmer ends up in charge.
Relax. Despite what the ecoterrorists at the Bbc and elsewhere tell you, neither you nor the planet are going to catch fire any time soon.
Unless you live in Wennington apparently. Because wildfires in London are now an actual risk.
We're now in a record-breaking year - not 2024, but the fact that since 13 March 2023, the Daily Sea Surface temperature has been the highest on record for that day since 1981, and are more than 2σ above the average for that period (more than 3σ most of the time actually). So far temperatures for 2024 are comfortably exceeding the same day for 2023. Global average air temperatures are doing the same.
Being an educated group of technically-minded people here, I don't need to explain why temperatures being consistently more than 2σ above a (statistically meaningful) average for over a year are problematic. This is not simply "a hot summer". It's not simply "weather". This is a rapidly heating climate which has finally triggered a positive feedback loop and really start taking off in the past 12 months. I know people have been banging on about it for decades, but it's now actually happening. The inflection point has been reached.
Does this mean your house will spontaneously combust? Probably not.
Does it mean that your local lake will get a blue-green algae bloom and undergo total ecosystem collapse like the UK's largest freshwater lake? (paywall, run it through 12ft.io). Yeah, probably.
Does it mean the collapse of major ocean currents like the AMOC within the next 30 years? Yes.
Does it mean fisheries are likely to collapse? Definitely.
Does it mean crop failures and a rapid need for farmers to pivot to new crops that suit their new climactic conditions? You bet it does.
Does that mean massive migration, famines and civil disorder? Inevitably.
Convincing people they're going to die would seem to fit the definitions of intimidating the public
Not when they're correct.
Otherwise it would mean a firefighter is a terrorist for telling a member of the public "No, you can't go back into your house now the fire is out. It's on the brink of collapse and you'll die".
It would mean NCAP are also terrorists for convincing people they're going to die if they don't wear a seatbelt! By your measure, lobbying government to impose tougher crash-test standards counts as terrorism!
Good grief. You really are detached from reality aren't you.
We're now in a record-breaking year - not 2024, but the fact that since 13 March 2023, the Daily Sea Surface temperature has been the highest on record for that day since 1981, and are more than 2σ above the average for that period (more than 3σ most of the time actually). So far temperatures for 2024 are comfortably exceeding the same day for 2023. Global average air temperatures are doing the same.
Uh huh. From your Wennington Wildfire link-
Advance predictions were made that the UK's all-time temperature record could be broken,[15] which it was, with the highest temperature recorded in the country 40.3 °C (104.5 °F) in Coningsby, Lincolnshire,
That would be the home of RAF Coningsby, where the weather station is sited next to the flightline. This might be good for flight ops, but makes it a lousy weather station by WMO standards. But for around 10mins, ie pretty much 1 sample interval, CO2 set a new temperature record. Then temperatures promptly fell back to more seasonal, or just daily average tems. So somebody checked with RAF Coningsby and a flight of 3 Typhoons just happened to be taxiing and taking off at the same time. Their jet exhausts set records, not 'global warming'. But given the number of 'records' set at airports and other badly sited weather stations, it is clear proof that 'Global Warming' is man-made after all.
As for the rest, 1 year does not make a climate change. A 'climate' is 30yrs of average weather. So over 'climate' timescales, stuff like this gets averaged out-
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/26/hunga-tonga-volcano-cause-of-recent-high-temperatures-says-scientist/
Hunga Tonga was a massive subsea volcanic eruption that chucked a truly collosal* amount of water into the atmosphere. Volcanos have done this before, eg the Tambora eruption mentioned in the article. H2O is a far better greenhouse 'gas' than CO2 given the absorption points overlap, except for a narrow 'atmospheric window'. Which is also why CO2 dogma is much like homeopathy, so tiny amounts can have enormous effects. Just ignore the H2O used to dilute the memories of warming. But I digress..
This is a rapidly heating climate which has finally triggered a positive feedback loop and really start taking off in the past 12 months. I know people have been banging on about it for decades, but it's now actually happening. The inflection point has been reached.
Sooo.. what if it doesn't start taking off? Weather and climate aren't like a Typhoon. But this is also why events like Hunga Tonga are great for science, just not 'climate science'. Science theorises that increased water vapour due to that eruption could lead to warming. So far, that part of the theory appears to have been validated by multiple measurements. Next part of that theory is that as the effects of Hunga Tonga recede, temperatures will return to normal. Both water vapour and temperature can be measured reliably by satellite microwave sounders, weather ballooons and research sounding rockets.
So if temperatures start falling again, how do you explain that via CO2 dogma? For climate 'science', the usual answer is to just ignore, or worse, alter the data. That's explained here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJLEGVysy-c
NLP/the anonymong will be along momentarily to denounce Tony Heller, and ignore the inconvenient truth about the way historical temperature records have been deliberately altered to create an entirely fake and man-made historical temperature record for the US. 1921 went from being part of the widely documented Dust Bowl and Great Depression to a cold year, all with a simple and entirely unjustified spreadsheet hack. Normally, faking data in such a blatant way would be considered gross scientific misconduct, but different rules apply in climate 'science'.
*I have no idea how many swimming pool equivalents that would be.
Did you just "reply" to my discussion on GLOBAL sea surface temperatures by whinging about the UK record being set at Coningsby? Doesn't seem very good faith.
A 'climate' is 30yrs of average weather. So over 'climate' timescales, stuff like this gets averaged out-
Quite correct. The 30 years rolling average is pretty unequivocal. It's getting warmer.
Tony Heller
ROFL. Could you find me an independent fact checker who has anything nice to say about him? Anyone?
So if temperatures start falling again, how do you explain that via CO2 dogma?
If temperatures start falling, I'll be both delighted and open to data-backed explanations of why that might happen.
Of course there may be regional falls even as global temperatures rise. If the AMOC collapses, it's probable that northern Europe will become drastically cooler. The Caribbean and southern US will warm up as that energy stops circulating north, likely resulting in more intense hurricanes (wait, that's familiar?) and
Hunga Tonga
Yes. Big events like that (and the 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull) can cause climactic variation. These - as you say - average out in the charts. The drop in Mean UK temperature in 2010 is very clear in the Met Office data, which nonetheless shows a significant and ongoing rise.
Did you just "reply" to my discussion on GLOBAL sea surface temperatures by whinging about the UK record being set at Coningsby? Doesn't seem very good faith.
Yep. You mentioned the UK's record, but I chose not to quote that part and picked another element instead. But you're right. Reality deniers rarely act in good faith, and their dogma relies on absolute blind faith that whatever the occasion, CO2 is the causal agent. Even when there's no possible correlation, or physical process possible that allows CO2 to create the effect.
So this story all started here-
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
The University of Maine have got a model, and they're not afraid to (ab)use it. They also don't have a great deal of faith in their work, as the site's disclaimer explains-
The University of Maine and the Climate Change Institute make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability or completeness of any information on this website or data contained within.
How.. reassuring. But previously UoM grabbed media attention after claiming 2024 was the 'hottest evah'. Ecoterrorists just love a good scare story, especially when it's driving a hot topic and multi-trillion dollar industry like the Global Warming scam. But I digress-
This page shows daily sea surface temperature estimates from NOAA OISST v2.1
So it's a model of a model. As climate 'science' often is. Data may be missing, tampered with, errors accumulate, but a good scare story generates publicity, which attracts funding, and suddenly the world notices the UoM. But notice the website says nothing about attribution..
Quite correct. The 30 years rolling average is pretty unequivocal. It's getting warmer.
Than.. what? And why 'since 1850?'. Why pick the end of the Little Ice Age? Wouldn't you expect it to get warmer, if the LIA had ended? Of course the climate 'science' approach is to simply deny the LIA. Along with the MWP. Oh, and of course ice cores and other studies that confirm those, as well as CO2 levels rising following temperature rises. When effect (temperature) preceeds cause (CO2), then CO2 is obviously the driver.. somehow.
ROFL. Could you find me an independent fact checker who has anything nice to say about him? Anyone?
Could you find me an independent fact checker? You don't cite your sources, but I can imagine who they'd be. When in doubt, attempt to shoot the messenger rather than the message. But this is why climate 'science' hates Tony Heller. NASA alters their climate record to make 1921 cold. If they left the record intact, there wouldn't be such a nice warming trend, there'd be no correlation with CO2, and more people might start questioning the dogma. I'm guessing you didn't bother watching the vid, but if you did, you'll just see him whip out a bunch of newspaper articles contradicting NASA and exposing their blatant data manipulation.
But the bigger story is the hate been poured onto Durkin's latest movie, "Climate, the Movie". This has a bunch of actual climate scientists offering a different theory to CO2 dogma. That theory also potentially explains the SST event, when CO2 cannot. Plus that volcano again. Real climate is cyclical, effects like ENSO, PDO, AMO etc have different periodicities, so when peaks coincide, effects are increased. Throw in transient warming and SSTs aren't unexpected, or at all anthropomorphic. Hence why the reality deniers are so desperate to stop people watching that documentary.
Oh geeze. Are you trolling us now?
You are, if you think the Bbc is a reliable source when it comes to climate science.
The UK has very variable weather. But in recent years, climate scientists have observed periods of intense heat becoming more frequent around the world,
wtf does 'periods of intense heat' mean? CO2 has now gained function and the ability to self-organise into a CO2 laser now? But in some ways, the Bbc is slightly honest, eg the Coninsby record being man made. The author was a-
BBC<sic> climate disinformation reporter
So paid to produce climate disinformation. When they're not 'verifying' missile strikes in Sudan, terrorist attacks in Russia. And according to their LuckedIn profile, have no qualifications in any of those subject areas. Alternatively, read this-
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/exclusive-three-typhoon-jets-landed-next-to-measuring-device-when-britains-record-temperature-of-40-3c-was-recorded/
At 15:10, the temperature suddenly jumped by 0.6°C to hit the 40.3°C record at 15.12. Within 60 seconds, the record temperature dropped back by 0.6°C. At the time, the Met Office claimed that verifying the record had been a “rigorous process” and that all data was accurate.
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? So yes, the temperature record was 'man made', by the pilots of the 3 Typhoons. The actual record should have been caveated as +/- 1°C due to the weather station not meeting WMO siting standards, but the Met Office no longer cares about data quality, just publicity. And I guess you could argue it was CO2 given jet exhausts probably contain a fair amount of that.
> "wtf does 'periods of intense heat' mean? CO2 has now gained function and the ability to self-organise into a CO2 laser now?"
Self proclaimed climate expert doesn't seem to understand that local heat waves are multi-factorial phenomenons. In his mind temperature is a monotonous function of global CO2 concentration with no other variable involved. Amazing. With arrogance and scorn coming as a bonus. Quite a show.
Self proclaimed climate expert doesn't seem to understand that local heat waves are multi-factorial phenomenons
Sure I do. I'm the one pointing out the temperature record was set by jet wash, not 'global warming'. But you'll also note (or should) that I was questioning what was meant by 'intense heat'. The actual heat was pretty normal for a UK summer, and only 'intensified' to 'record' levels by a fraction of a degree. Hardly 'intense' is it? But then exageration is a characteristic of the pro-Global Warming terrorists.
Still not multi-factorial. Want to give it another try?
Playing guessing games with morons is always such fun.
But the temperature 'record' was a result of-
Jetwash
Poor station siting
Reflected temperatures due to the above
Radiant heat from the above
Temporarily increased temperatures due to Hunga Tonga and ENSO
Variations in albedo
Variations in albedo due to SEPs, CRs, or just general solar behaviour
CO2
Enough factors for you? But your nanobrain can only hold one variable, which is of course CO2. It certainly cannot explain how CO2 could cause a 0.6C temperature variation that allowed the 'record' to be set, even though it only lasted around 10mins. It certainly can't explain why the Met Office decided to validate that record, when according to WMO records, a weather station like that is only accurate +/-1C.
Politics, and of course the billions being made/wasted from the global warming scam provide an easy explanation for the way the Met Office does 'science'.
Ah... The old "they are not a reliable source" line, when I just picked one of many articles on the same issue.
It's not like I cited some fringe conspiracy site.
You know full well that the guys who actually record this stuff know what they are doing. And they are not part of the deep state global elite trying to tarnish the reputation of patriotic conservatives and oil companies s.
So, no sir, it is indeed you that is trolling.
Please stop
It's not like I cited some fringe conspiracy site.
Sadly, you did. You cited an article from the Bbc, and one of their disinformation specialists. Next you'll be telling me Minitrue is a reliable source. It was, after all based on the Bbc..
You know full well that the guys who actually record this stuff know what they are doing.
Of course they do. They know RAF Coningsby's weather station does not meet WMO siting standars, so accuracy should be +/- 1C at best. They know 3 Typhoons were active at exactly the same time as the 'Global Warming' record was set. They know exactly why there was a transient spike in temperature recordings because in this case, correlation is causation. They could probaby even confirm that because they could probably find out and model the effects of jetwash from 3 aircraft moving closely past their weather station.
So they know damn well this wasn't any kind of weather event, yet are happy to let the misinformation flow. Remove that temperature record, and it was just another average summer day. Include, and the Bbc and all the other useful idiots claim it's somehow proof of 'global warming'. And it's sadly true of a lot of the Met Office's 'global warming' records. Many of their weather stations are badly sited, and yet they do nothing about it.
Normally, this kind of deception would get scientists (or engineers) fired. One of the first things taught is the sanctity of the data. Get an unexpected result from your experiment or observations? Add a note explaining why you think this might be an error, or the reason. You don't do what NASA or the Met Office do and just 'adjust' the data because falsifying data is gross misconduct. Or just normal for climate 'science'. But that still leaves some procedural stuff. So a temperature record was set, the figure should stay in the data. But it absolutely should not be used as 'weather' or 'climate' data, ie for any weather stuff, replace the 40C with the average of the temperatures either side of that sample.
But the Met Office seems content to run with 'global warming' and allow the disinformation to spread. That just isn't science..
So, no sir, it is indeed you that is trolling.Please stop
Says the anonymong, not confident enough in what they're saying to put a name to their words. Or intelligent enough to understand why this kind of mis/disinformation is so dangerous. That's all about artificially influencing trends, and this deception allows idiots like the Bbc to claim 'global warming' when that can't actually be observed, or more importantly, attributed to CO2.
-- Being an educated group of technically-minded people here --
Wow since all of 1981 - you may be technical but you don't seem to have read much history. Floods, famines (caused by either no rain or to much rain), plagues have happened before. Still, according to St Greta "the science is complete" or whatever actual words she used.
Wow since all of 1981 - you may be technical but you don't seem to have read much history. Floods, famines (caused by either no rain or to much rain), plagues have happened before.
1. "Climate" is a 30 year rolling average. Citing data to 1981 (a 40+year dataset) improves on that and demonstrates the point admirably. Assumptions that engineers made in 1980, 1990 or even 2005 may no longer stand up to modern climactic conditions. What used to be a 1-in-100 year event may now be a 1-in-50 year event.
2. Floods, famines and single-year events disappear into that average.
Yes, floods and famines have happened before. The main issue is that our society is now more brittle than ever before. Russia invades Ukraine and the price of Nitrogen fertiliser quintuples overnight. One ship gets stuck in the Suez Canal and global supply chains fall apart. One ship bumps into a bridge, and the busiest RO-RO port in North America's Eastern seaboard causes a nation-wide bottleneck on the import/export of cars, agricultural and construction equipment.
Farmers drained the Tulare Basin and are now complaining that Lake Tulare is reforming and flooding their farms on the old lake bed. Yet they're simultaneously complaining about dry aquifers and a lack of water for farming operations (because they drained the place where meltwater used to soak into the aquifers and funnelled that water out to sea as quick as possible). That's not even building your house on sand. "I built my farm on a lake bed, and now it's wet".
To quote a local Water Management expert “This is a slowly unfolding natural disaster ... There’s no way to handle it with the existing infrastructure.”. And that's the crux of it - our infrastructure is built on an arrogant assumption we can manage natural weather events. But this is only true in a very limited manner, and becomes even more limited as the climate changes.
Places that used to flood are now facing wildfires. Places that didn't used to flood are going to flood. Mother Nature is winding back our clever schemes and telling us "No".
People are going to whine and bitch that this shouldn't be happening because we have built our society and infrastructure based on assumptions that are no longer true. Railways are tensioned for average temperatures or maximum summer temperatures that are no longer appropriate. Our society is deeply inflexible.
Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics should be able to understand that sustained departure from 2σ variation is notable, and likely to have substantial impacts on society.
Plenty of people employed in the sector fully recognise the problem. Lord knows I have been screaming about supply chain for parts and personnel for well over a decade at both the unions and on employee surveys.
But "preserve the divi" is king and so organisations will only run for the toilet when they're already touching cloth.
To be fair to JP, he's doing his job within the limits of what the incompetent DBEIZ/OFGEM/Government triumvirate will let him do. But to really live up to the ambition we need to do a LOT of speculative investment. Speeches like his are part of the drumming up the support for the necessary change.
To be fair to JP, he's doing his job within the limits of what the incompetent DBEIZ/OFGEM/Government triumvirate will let him do. But to really live up to the ambition we need to do a LOT of speculative investment.
Not a problem. That's what businesses are expected to do. Take risks, take the rewards. Except of course 'JP' isn't taking any risks in a rigged market where he knows he can shunt the investment risk onto his customers and then trouser the profits. NG Plc generates enough profits to take a few risks without asking for even more subsidies and rigging the market in it's favour. But then that's soo much fun when you're running an effective monopoly.
> It seems that you're not quite at that stage yet in the UK, so listen to the warning signs and act upon them.
Around here for the last 4 years they have been digging up the roads left , right and centre to lay new distribution cables as all the new housing and business parks have overloaded the infrastructure
They are but they can't get connected. It is taking many years to get a grid connection and there are ongoing issues relating to new building transmission lines needed to get the power from the new sources to where it is needed.
But that's good money for National Grid. The CEO has a point, ie DC's consuming too much energy for the benefit they provide. But if we build a parallel super grid to feed the DCs, NG is going to make bank. Then again, if it's to benefit DC operators, they could pay for the upgrades. But they won't do that, so the costs just get lumped on to our 'standing charges' and electricity bills. Usual probem with privatisation, socialise the costs, privatise the profits and CEO's get massive pay rises.
Better start building those small nuclear plants now.
The data centres are all moving in that direction, because renewables are simply pants for reliable power sources.
The grid is only setting up the data centres to blame for when (lack of) renewable energy crashes the grid completely...
Presumably datacentres, like EVs, can be asked (or paid) to suspend their jobs (not shutdown completely, just SIGSTP on the training process) if the grid is at risk of crashing?
Not so easy for Heat Pumps though
The issue will be that the DC operators will say that any downtime however brief hurts their bottom line, so that payment better be worth it.. And then the outright corruption starts when DCs with nothing useful to do start charging the grid for suspending their non-operations.
One of the key reasons that datacentres are building their own generators is that the cost of downtime vastly exceeds the additional overhead to add grid scaled backup power.
Do we really need a couple of kilowatts of power per person dedicated to trying to predict the next advert to throw at you? p/kWh is running at about 40p, this puts the "cost" of a targetted ad at somewhere about £4. How many ads do you actually follow through on? The hit rate is MUCH worse than one in ten.
Do we really all need to go cloudy and mass-power consuming? When did local backups become less cost effective than outsourcing everything? 99% of my documents for work don't need to be on any kind of shared storage beyond a reasonable backup strategy.
I'm not going to dispute the need for new transmission and distribution network, but where demand avoidance is possible that is a better answer. Transport and heating are not avoidable. Spyware / Ads / incompetent organisations most assuredly are.
"Transport and heating are not avoidable. "
A big slug of transport is avoidable because so much office worker commuting is non essential, and commuting usually acts as peak demand and is then a driver for wider infrastructure costs, not just energy. But C-suite and politicians want arses on seats outside their offices.
Build your bitbarns in Scotland. Scotland has 18GW of wind and a max power draw of 6GW. The B6 boundary has two 400kV lines (2.2GW each) and an HVDC link to North Wales (2GW). That leaves 5.6GW with nowhere to go.
OTOH, realise that this AI stuff is mostly overhyped bollocks.
As you know about the B6 boundary; I am sure you are aware that prices in Scotland are routinely negative. Literally being paid to take power away (if it's cheaper to do that than pay the constraint).
Similar is going to occur in the south west and south Wales when Xlinks comes in. 4GW of power split between two landing points; unable to get over the River Severn, past Bristol, or down the south coast routes which are swamped by interconnector traffic.
Heaven forbid we had some central electricity planning board to consider these problems rather than laissez-faire stupidity.
Being employed in the sector, I am sure you will appreciate the screaming-into-the-hurricane analogy when it comes to the incompetence of politicians (beyond ensuring their wallets are doing well).
The boundaries of who decides to invest in what between the NESO and the TOs are murky messes. They aren’t the independent whole system architect we need; for at the moment rudimentary considerations such as maintenance and asset replacements are not seriously considered leaving those decisions the TOs to try and get necessary work done despite NESOs false economy of availability being king at the expense of reliability.
NESO was formed because of suppliers getting uppity about NGET having perceived unfair advantages being both network provider and market operator (and legally, not a generator). However, in a distributed and unpredictable generation source land did we really need less integration? More red tape?
I note the Scottish TOs still get to be generators, network providers AND system operators. You don’t get complaints of the same variety about those monopolies!
I do agree though, ofgems existence is on the line here. Privatisation at all costs has blatantly failed the consumer; albeit making certain companies a packet. What’s more important? Working country or making a packet?
A big incident will sharpen minds again as to what’s important. When, not if, IMO.
Have you seen the TEC register? Approx 150GW of them coming in the next 10 years. And that is nothing compared to the 500+GW that's on the books for later dates.
For reference, a very heavy UK demand day "today" is about 50GW. Not much of the old network will be recognisable by the time that scale of shift is done.
Given the requirement is for data centres, and looking at the size of the major operators, I suggest the operators can easily afford to provide the capital needed to enhance the public infrastructure (yes you pay we own, it’s just a variation on the “ taxpayer pays private enterprise owns and taxpayer pays to again to use” paradigm).
"Better start building those windfarms now."
Not sure how tongue-in-cheek that is!! :)
But seriously, better start building those nuclear power stations now. Data centres can be built close to the power stations, so the need for grid upgrade won't be so dramatic (it will still probably need to at least double capacity to account for all the heat pumps and EVs)
It's power prioritys that are important!
Data centres will get priority, followed by government/ military and then industry . The pesents get to enjoy power bill's with numbers like the national debt, and all the fun of rolling brown outs that steadily get darker, until the black comes, you will be able to watch telly in your musk mobile if you remember to change it, when you are in the EU
No women-hating. I just hate the idea of AI being used to replace actual doctors.
Instead of training doctors, we will be uploading all of our health info into the cloud, for a machine to diagnose us instead.
Not nice finding out after all that slurping, that your cancer was just a 'hallucination'
"I don't understand AI" and "I don't understand medicine".
You seem to believe that AI cancer diagnosis will not be performed under the supervision of a human professional oncologist. What AI does is that it empowers oncologists with the experience of the millions past diagnosis included in the AI training program. As if your oncologist had already seen millions of real life cases along with their diagnostic (not practical without AI).
They're hoping it can replace the second person checking... which means potentially double the throughput.
Added to that the benefit of digital eyes being, at least in theory consistent in their analysis of a given image - the likelihood of major slip ups should go down, and the rate of very early detection should go up.
"AI responding is real-time, but AI training could, if you really wanted to, be shifted to off-peak times, or suspended when power prices peak"
If the proponents of flexible and smart demand for EVs have their way, then there will be such a massive volume of controllable demand (and even grid support from EV batteries) that the major price swings we see today may be all but eliminated, and the market value of flexibility will decline hugely, and linked with certain grid investments we could see the disappearance of negative wholesale prices. Price variation will still exist, but with far less volatility than exists now.
There's a big degree of optimism to hope for that, but it could reduce system costs, and automate a lot of grid balancing, meaning that electricity users can do what they should always have been able to do of using power when they want at a price they know in advance (and hopefully without crap-headed time of day pricing).
There's a big degree of optimism to hope for that, but it could reduce system costs, and automate a lot of grid balancing, meaning that electricity users can do what they should always have been able to do of using power when they want at a price they know in advance (and hopefully without crap-headed time of day pricing)
Don't forget surge pricing. That's become increasingly common. So now, instead of just having a simple 2 or 3 tariff system like off-peak, standard and peak rates at set times of the day that could be plugged into a cheap time switch, our brave new world happened. So now we'll need a 'smart' meter, 'smart' appliances and a 'smart' app that control all that and turn stuff on & off based on the current price per kWh.
None of that is readily available now, fault rates on 'smart' meters are horrendous and it'll all cost far more than a simple time switch we can plug appliances of our choosing into. Plus it'll all be controlled from the cloud, which means when the DCs or networks inevitably go dark, it'll all stop working. Now, if only there were truly 'smart' meters that could select the lowest tariff from a simple rates feed, it may actually encourage 'smart' meter adoption and price competition between suppliers..
Or is this topic a little disingenuous? Sure, datacentres take a fair amount of power. Sure, that demand is growing significantly (and in some places outstripping the grid provision in the area). But aren't we ignoring the pachyderm on the premises? Surely the real reason we're going to be a few amps short of a coulomb is the huge demand EV's and heat pumps are going to bring to the party. But we don't want to say that do we. There's absolutely no problem with everyone switching from petrol/diesel/gas to electricity, any problems are the fault of <quick, think of something. Ah yes> data centres!
(Anon, as I'll probably be voted down into the dust for daring to question the Grand Plan, but I just can't see how the numbers add up.)
Surely the real reason we're going to be a few amps short of a coulomb is the huge demand EV's and heat pumps are going to bring to the party. But we don't want to say that do we.
Some of us say it. But it's the cumulative effect on demand from Net Zero, decarbonisation and cloudybollocks. AI's the latest buzzword that our useless shower of shite have leeched onto to make the UK a 'world leader in AI'. Or tech. But what they don't seem to realise is building and running a DC isn't really that high-tech, or anything ground breaking or world leading. Plus most of the big DCs are run by non-UK businesses that will probably use AI for creative new tax minimisation strategies.
So it's a cost/benefit thing. We've succumbed to a popular delusion that achieving 'Net Zero' will actually achieve anything other than demonstrate our willingness to committ economic suicide. If we meet our 'legally binding' targets, the world won't notice. Decarbonisation will result in an unmeasurable* difference in CO2 emissions and thus temperature. It will, of course wreck our economy. Government doesn't care though because they're idiots who somehow think they're 'saving the planet'. Our champagne socialists could probably do more by simply banning, well, champagne and all carbonated beverages.. But despite the existential threat from CO2.. they haven't chosen that quick fix. Funny that.
So we're busily insisting on transitioning to a 'low carbon economy' and electrifying transport, heating, cooking etc. This will result in at least 3x the demand for electricity. And then there's datacentres. But AI can be used to create exciting new electricity tariffs, surge pricing etc that because of the artificial shortage will guarantee massive profits. The Enronification of the UK energy market is pretty much complete. Rather than electricity (or energy in general) being a simple utility, it's being steadily transformed into a luxury, with prices to match.
*OK, it might be measurable with very sensitive instruments, but given the huge uncertainty ranges in both natural and anthropomorphic CO2 emissions, it won't be attributable. At least not in normal science. Climate 'science' just makes stuff up.
I love how people like you are long on moaning and short on solutions. You want validation above everything else.
Climate Scientists are all idiots, unlike you. You are privy to special knowledge. Always the smartest person in the room, aren’t you? And yet, for some reason, no one takes you seriously.
Climate Scientists are all idiots, unlike you.
Not all of them. There are quite a lot of climate scientists who are experts in stuff like atmospheric physics like Prof Lindzen, but they get shouted down and denounced by climate 'scientists' like Mann, who believes that trees make excellent, high resultion thermometers.
But if you want an alternative explanation that doesn't mean wasting trillions on 'Net Zero', try reading this article and the papers it cites-
https://notrickszone.com/2024/03/14/new-study-satellite-evidence-shows-absorbed-shortwave-radiation-has-been-increasing-since-2000/
Investigation: Misleading blog in Germany fuels global climate change misinformation
The website downplays human influence on climate change through false interpretation of data from scientific research.
A blog site titled ‘NoTricksZone’ has been actively publishing articles regarding climate-related phenomena since over a decade ago. Its content, which ranges in topics from sea ice coverage to natural greenhouse gas emissions, all contributes towards a narrative that human activity does not have a significant influence on the climate and that climate policies are unnecessary. Based on online traffic analysis, the Germany-based website has amassed over 240,000 visits in November alone. An affiliated Twitter account also has a reach of over 19,500 followers. A majority of the published articles were written by two contributors – owner Pierre Gosselin and Kenneth Richard. Gosselin’s profile says he obtained civil and mechanical engineering degrees, while Richard does not have any background information about him on the website.
[...]
Despite being called out by different fact-checkers, NoTricksZone continues to disseminate climate-based misinformation on both its website and social media. Although Gosselin and Richard make use of legitimate scientific research papers in many of their claims, their conclusions are often distorted or misguided to support the view that climate change is not human-made.
etc... etc... Solid fact base debunking follows in that study.
etc... etc... Solid fact base debunking follows in that study.
Your problem, dear anonymong is you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions. But ad homs and strawmen are common amongst reality deniers. The article mentioned 3 peer-reviewed papers though. What is your considered criticism of those papers?
But such is 'journalism' in the 21st Century. Your citation isn't from any climate scientists, so they aren't really qualified to offer any kind of debunking. But see also-
This is what we're up against
Teams of lawyers from the rich and powerful trying to stop us publishing stories they don’t want you to see.
Lobby groups with opaque funding who are determined to undermine facts about the climate emergency and other established science.
Authoritarian states with no regard for the freedom of the press
OhNoes! From a begging letter from the Grauniad. They don't know what 'facts' are either, or they wouldn't have created their '97%' comedy series. And as for 'freedom of the press', they're fully committed to suppressing 'misinformation'.. which means sceptics comments aren't free.
You problem, JE, is that you start by picking your preferred conclusion and then only go ahead and hunt "facts" that prove it right. If, in the process, you come across facts that disprove it, you either ignore or dismiss them. Totally anti-scientific.
Uh huh.. Come rain or shine, wind or snow, the answer's CO2, so it must go. CO2, the miracle molecule that heats, cools, brought an end to the Little Ice Age and answered the age-old question.. How can we make money out of thin air?
But with a moment of introspection, you'd realise you actually hit on the problem. CO2 is the answer to any question. Any alternatives, like maybe, just maybe wooden thermometers suck is immediately denounced and denied. Any null hypothesis gets the same treatment. And you know I've long been a fan of Svensmark's theory, which CERN validated. Variations in albedo provide a much better answer to climate change than CO2.
But you're right, anything that might challenge CO2 dogma is immediately ignored or dismissed. That is indeed anti-scientific, but sadly it's exactly the method climate 'science' uses. Don't forget dear'ol Stephen Schneider who said (paraphrasing) it's ok to lie about the science because there's so much money to be made. NG boss wants another £10bn to build more grid. Oh happy days when he can get us to make that 'investment', and trouser any ROI. It's no wonder NG Plc is such a fan of 'renewables' when it generates so much new business, revenues and profits.
Oh, and you still haven't told me what you don't like about those papers. Are you ignoring, or just dismissing them because they challenge your world view?
I wondered when you’d surface to spout your usual rubbish.
Net zero is not economic suicide. In fact quite the opposite. Do you like sending 20-30 percent of GDP to oil and gas producers? The negative trade balance?
The strongest argument for wind and nuke is to say duck off to the Middle East. I didn’t list solar here because the supply chain for solar is Chinese. The latter is otherwise a good idea economically.
The modifications needed to get distribution networks up to speed are the biggest liability. If my analysis is right we basically need to upgrade most streets to three phase. All do-able. Though delivering that much work without destroying the road networks will require some thought. Small utility tunnels would be much better than conventional disruptive buried.
"an electric vehicle has a use in my life , large data centers less"
Except that your electric vehicle chats with its mothership all the time you're driving and that service is probably hosted in some large data centre. Without that connection, your electric vehicle may well either not work or have its performance downgraded. Every damn thing from your car to your toothbrush is now effectively dependent on large data centres, so they actually matter a lot to all of us while the "everything online" madness persists.
"your electric vehicle may well either not work or have its performance downgraded"
What a load of nonsense.
There will certainly be connected features that will break but that will have nothing to do with whether or not the car works or effect the cars performance.
Here's your tinfoilhat.jpg
Well, it doesn't HAVE to do so. A simple EV that does ONLY the job of transport would probably sell very well. I would contemplate such a thing.
In fact "connected" car bull is already a major turn off for at least two or three of the big German car brands. Subscription "unlock the sport mode" and the like...
I'm from New England in the USA. I have earned the privllege of complaining about National Grid's managers because they sell me my electricity too, as they do for you lot in UK.
Here's what the Nat Grid people don't get: Electrical energy distribution is becoming a fine-grain information business. The grid that works in 2050 will be one that can rapidly control a large fraction of its load, as well as deliver the energy.
EVs already have user interfaces where the user can tell the car, "I need you at 0700 tomorrow" and the car can draw power "off peak". All that's left for the smart grid to do is run auctions in real time (the way web sites do when showing me banner ads). And we'll have a grid that can use much less peaking generation capacity than it does now.
Come up witth auction-capable controllers for hot water heaters and other domestic loads, and it gets even better. Those things, at volume, should cost no more than twenty euros / quid / bucks.
Yes, big-system transmission capacity will help. But a smart grid will help a lot more.
As of now, all National Grid can manage is a little pilot program in a small city called Worcester, Massachusetts (we pronounce it in the English way, "wooster") with two rates based on time of day. Unnecessary AND insufficient.
(Ultility economics in the US guarantee a return on capital, so Nat Grid has much more incentive to do big capital buildouts.)
I'm from New England in the USA. I have earned the privllege of complaining about National Grid's managers because they sell me my electricity too, as they do for you lot in UK.Here's what the Nat Grid people don't get: Electrical energy distribution is becoming a fine-grain information business. The grid that works in 2050 will be one that can rapidly control a large fraction of its load, as well as deliver the energy.
Oh, they get it. And as you say, you're a reluctant customer of National Grid Plc after their purchase of New England Power Company. The mistake people make is NG Plc acts in consumer's interests, rather than their own and their shareholders. NG is fully aware that if they can get us to pay for a 'smart' grid, they can then use that to create exciting new tariffs that maximise their profits, and screw the consumers. And with a nett income of over $8bn, their business is booming, even if their consumers are suffering.
Better for whom?
Certainly not the consumer, who sees their essential utility priced as an optional luxury. But it's a capitalist wet dream. Can't afford it when you need it? Never mind, you can do without, right?
"Smart Grid" is the answer to the question "How can we get away with not building enough generating capacity and grid capacity, while trousering as much profit as possible?". People who pitch this crap seem fixated on pushing us into a dystopian hell, where our entire lives are at the whim of utility providers.
Like anything with a "Smart" prefix, it's anything but. No thanks.
The complexity of deploying them on land, because NIMBY, is such that if you’re going to do it you may as well build a proper, large nuke.
Nimbism is the main threat to JPs announcement on Tuesday, and the main obstacle in fixing up the distribution networks to be able to deliver a lot more than 60A per property.
NIMBYs are the problem with most things in the UK. wind farms, NIMBY, Solar Farm, NIMBY, Gas Power station, NIMBY, Nuclear Power station, NIMBY, Solar panels on roofs in conservation areas, NIMBY, plastic windows in conservation areas, NIMBY. Always moaning but never providing solutions. I wonder what the UK would be like now if we had NIMBYs in the industrial revolution
"I wonder what the UK would be like now if we had NIMBYs in the industrial revolution"
It'd be exactly like it is now. If you'd paid attention to your history lessons you'd be familiar with the Luddites. And whilst less feted, rich NIMBYs are the reason why London railway termini never got south of the Marylebone Road and there's no proper rail links across London, why many rail routes across the land took odd alignments, or were poorly sited for the towns they're supposedly serving. Sometimes it was the masses who opposed the development of turnpikes, canals, railways, or any other form of progress.
No matter what anybody wants to do, there will be somebody else who wishes to stop them.
So, huge bun fight here between x, y and z about DCs, AI, nuclear, green, net zero etc etc, but nobody appears to be suggesting we stop consuming as much power or even just using less of the stuff. I mean it's kind of embarassing that we're all fighting over how to power DCs to deliver social media, deepfakes, the best holiday itinerary and whatnot.
I was looking at one of the apps on https://planetarycomputer.microsoft.com * yesterday and trust me you don't want to be living in the US come 2090. You will burn!
* I've been slagging off MS for years now and then the come up with this. I love it.
So, huge bun fight here between x, y and z about DCs, AI, nuclear, green, net zero etc etc, but nobody appears to be suggesting we stop consuming as much power or even just using less of the stuff. I mean it's kind of embarassing that we're all fighting over how to power DCs to deliver social media, deepfakes, the best holiday itinerary and whatnot.
Yep, but at least MS is putting it's money where it's mouth is, and vice-versa. It needs affordable and reliable power, or it's entire business model of forcing everything into the cloud and milking customers for subscriptions isn't going to work. It also knows about stuff like this-
https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind
minimum: 0.16 GW maximum: 16.713 GW average: 9.321 GW
which are the YTD wind figures. Bit barns need reliable power. Wind cannot deliver this. Currently MS can greenwash their DCs and buy REGOs, but it can't run it's business on 'renewables' reliably. So it makes sense that MS has been looking at and investing in SMR designs-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#List_of_reactor_designs
One, single SMR can deliver more power than the entire UK wind fleet for much less cost. Obviously a single SMR becomes a single point of failure, so just buy a couple. They'll keep on generating at a constant rate, 24x7x365 and keep the DC's lights on. 'Renewables' cannot, and never will be able to do this. Even better, MS and it's generating partner can sell any surplus power, and with some regulatory changes, might even qualify for some of the Green subsidies offered to the 'renewables' scumbags. SMRs are, after all low carbon power sources.
Of course Russia and China both already have SMRs in operation, and don't have the insane regulatory environment or regulatory capture that the UK does. Our neo-luddites and 'renewables' scumbags absolutely hate SMRs because they offer the prospect of obsoleting their 'technology' once again. Last time it happened, we used coal to generate steam and spin turbines. The Age of Sail was replaced by the Age of Steam, and the Industrial Revolution happened. Now, nuclear can boil the kettles faster and cleaner than coal and gas, but the neo-luddites would rather we go back to pre-Industrial technology and lifestyles.
One SMR most assuredly cannot deliver 9GW average. The entire existing UK nuke fleet can’t even manage that anymore.
NIMBY will stop SMR at anywhere but already earmarked sites for nukes, at which point you are better off building a big proper nuke than a few sissy submarine reactors.
Why is the data centre not moving to the generator is perhaps the more obvious question. Former steelworks and aluminium foundries used to be near our big nukes at Wylfa and Hartlepool respectively. Fibre optics don’t make much for the difference between 1km and 100km being at speed of light and all.
Russia has enough land to site SMRs well over 100km away from everyone. Can you cite examples of where they do have them operational? China doesn’t give a shit about anyone. Neither are models of nice places to be a citizen.
Regarding kettles, 13A/240V doesn’t care if it’s wind or nuke sourced. There is no speed advantage. Did you write the marketing material for HS2 or something?
One SMR most assuredly cannot deliver 9GW average.
It doesn't need to. It just needs to produce consistent, reliable power 24x7x365, which 'renewables' will never do. So look at the minimums from either wind or solar. SMRs can easily, and more cheaply deliver the 160MW wind has achieved YTD. A single RR SMR can double the capacity the entire UK wind fleet can deliver, for a lot less cost. But then comes the solution from the 'renewables' scumbags. Just add batteries!
So figuring on lows, a 160MW battery would supply enough electricity for 1s, 160MWh for 1 hour, etc etc. Then once you've drained the battery, which usually takes <1hr, the DC goes dark. Then when the wind picks up, you need to recharge it again which takes power out of supply.
Why is the data centre not moving to the generator is perhaps the more obvious question. Former steelworks and aluminium foundries used to be near our big nukes at Wylfa and Hartlepool respectively. Fibre optics don’t make much for the difference between 1km and 100km being at speed of light and all.
Ah, politics. I tried to do this once-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransomes_Industrial_Estate
Given it was also close to international fibre routes that land on the East coast. Plus it was close enough to London and Slough for synchronous replication to work, and far enough to keep insurers happy. But we were outbid by other developers, which is the usual problem.
Russia has enough land to site SMRs well over 100km away from everyone. Can you cite examples of where they do have them operational? China doesn’t give a shit about anyone. Neither are models of nice places to be a citizen.
Neither is the UK as we struggle to keep our lights on, our cars, owning nothing except bugs and being happy. But I digress. I was looking at this list, which reckons it's mostly the power barges that are operational. But this also caught my eye-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITM-200
In November 2020 Rosatom announced plans to place a land-based RITM-200N SMR in isolated Ust-Kuyga town in Yakutia. The reactor will replace current coal and oil based electricity and heat generation at half the price. Technical design for this type of RITM-200 core should be finished in 2022.
And curious how the economics of that would work. Ust-Kugya pretty much meets the definition of 'ass end of nowhere'. But Russia isn't exactly short of coal or oil, so assumed 'half the price' was due to transpot costs. But on further digging, it's a mining region that produces brown coal. Oh, and gold, which I suspect is what makes the economics work. Or it may be the cost of shipping in materials to build a larger coal power station vs the requirments to house the SMR.
Regarding kettles, 13A/240V doesn’t care if it’s wind or nuke sourced. There is no speed advantage. Did you write the marketing material for HS2 or something?
I am not the ghost of Terry Pratchett. NPPs though are essentially kettles. Boil water, make steam, spin turbines, run AI deepfakes. But it's also a Brexit thing. The EU, in their infinite wisdom proposed limiting kettles to 1kW to 'save energy'. Physics really isn't their thing, hence the continued promotion of windmills over nuclear.
But only because we've closed down all of our heavy industry, and buy in materials or finished products from places where labour is cheaper, energy is cheaper, and standards are lower.
Transport energy use has roughly doubled since 1970, domestic energy use is about 10% higher, services use is about 15% higher, but industrial use is down by about 65% (and back in 1970, industrial use was about the same as the total of transport, domestic and services use).
I mean, who could have seen it coming that, in the epoch we have dubbed "The information age", where everyone runs around with a smartphone, and we stuff computers into everything from hydroelectric dams to underwear, there would be an increased need for the infrastructure to power all these things...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
