* Posts by codejunky

5934 posts • joined 24 Oct 2011

Now's your chance, AI, to do good. Protect endangered eagles from wind turbines

codejunky Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Didn't say that. But it happens."

Yes you did- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/09/21/germany_ai_eagles_turbines/#c_4535971

In your response to normal day to day operation you said- "Um, yeah, snow is pretty normal in this (and many other) countries".

"Didn't say that. But it's pretty reliable most of the time."

Aka you agree it doesnt work as we have spent the last however many comments discussing. That it requires batteries to actually provide useful reliable power to the grid. Instead it needs a gas power plant which provides actually reliable energy on demand when the wind wont do.

"Oh, sure. Never gone out rambling in the countryside for a day?"

I guess I have been lucky with where I travel. I know there are places where signals dont reach but I cant say I have had that issue in the UK or in Europe. As for battery I kinda cheat as I only buy phones with high capacity batteries and my last dumb phone had a spare. But also when it runs low I charge it.

"Okay, mobile phones are rubbish technology. They don't work. We shouldn't bother manufacturing or using them. Because (like windfarms) they don't work (sometimes)."

You really need to buy a better phone. If yours is so bad its comparable to a wind farm in terms of reliability I can only hope you have a dud.

"Please look up "irony" and "sarcasm"."

Actually I was being sarcastic when I said- "In normal operation you carry a satphone? ... Wtf planet are you on?". I would have been surprised if you meant you did.

"Cars. Mobile phones. Jumpers."

Still being sarcastic and ironic or am I laughing at you being serious now?

"Indeed, hands up, and I apologise. That's why I suggested we tone down the language."

It happens and sure. To be fair I have only been responding recently to see what the next ridiculous comment you make is. Thank you for making me laugh while I finish these boring jobs off.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Um, yeah, snow is pretty normal in this (and many other) countries."

I am in the UK. I dont know where you live to have snow all the time as the norm. Or to have so much snow as normal not to be able to drive. You talk about the channel but sound like a guy I know living in Canada.

"(And, BTW, you might describe the wind not blowing in the Channel as pretty abnormal ;-))"

So the power output is reliable and doesnt need a gas backup then! Or no? Is it a variable output that requires the gas generation to make up the shortfall as normal operation?

"Don't know about you, but it is hardly uncommon to find oneself in a situation where your battery is going to run out even if you started out fully charged."

Never not once but I can believe it happens. Normal operation is to charge the battery if you expect the battery to work. Do you stand on the coast and blow to keep the turbines spinning?

"And it is pretty normal (in this and other countries) to find yourself in an area where there is simply no mobile (or mobile data) reception."

And when that happens what does it mean? (Read my previous comment but I will repeat) your phone doesnt work!!! People even say it when it happens!!!! How is this difficult to get?

"and you need expensive back-up options like mobile chargers and satellite phones."

In normal operation you carry a satphone? Definitely out of touch with reality. And how expensive is your phone charger? And do you keep buying new ones every time your gonna charge your phone? Wtf planet are you on?

"Hm, that's not what the instructions said. They said it would keep me warm, nothing about "extreme cold"."

You get instructions when you buy a jumper? I want you to know you have me laughing my arse off. This is funny.

"Okay. Not all technologies work all the time under "normal" (whatever that means) situations."

Try again. So far yet to give an example.

"PS. Were you not accusing me earlier of ad hominem abuse? Perhaps we can both tone down the language (sarcasm entirely acceptable, though)."

No that was John Sager. I called you a sandwich board nutter shouting about the end of the world. And Johns comment about your ad hominem abuse was in response to your insults to me so dont expect respect where you dont give it (although there is often a healthy amount of sarcasm in my comments).

codejunky Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"And you have accurately costed the economics and worked out CO2 balances? I don't think so."

Interesting that you put '[some hokey 'analysis']' to the entire section that burns down your piss poor argument and shows clearly that your beliefs dont make any sense. That you would moronically assume I would need to cost the economics of *your approch* expensive vs what we have already done previously is humorous but stupid.

"Less CO2 than what, exactly? According to whom? Sorry, don't buy it."

Not sure what you find confusing but here is some data for you- https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel

"I completely disagree. That's disingenuous goalpost-shifting."

Its goalpost shifting to insist the technology we are to rely on works? And to point out technology that doesnt work? You might disagree except for your comments agreeing the technology doesnt keep your lights on, it 'mostly' does while relying on fossil fuel (gas).

"Would you say that your car doesn't work because sometimes there's too much snow on the road to drive safely?"

Would that be called normal operation? I am not talking about extreme situations I am talking about normal, day to day.

"Or that your mobile phone doesn't work because sometimes the battery runs out and you've no available recharging point, or there's no reception where you happen to be?"

What is it people say when their mobile has no reception? 'My mobile isnt working'! Failing to maintain your battery as not putting fuel in your car is not normal operation. Come back with the goal posts. If your mobile works intermittently it is considered not working!

"Or your favourite jumper doesn't work because sometimes it's just too cold?"

How is it not working? It is working just as a T-Shirt would be working but you are not using it correctly. Not normal operation. Getting it yet?

"Sorry, that's a rubbish argument."

Good luck with your next set of claims.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"You asked "What science?" - deeply disingenuous, since you obviously knew the answer. You then replied with... I don't know, a response to a different question?"

I ask what science because as you point out in this comment, your on about doom. You seem to have the media if not the greta version of climate change which is why I am not convinced you are talking from the science.

"Hmm, for various values of "doom"... let's agree It's not looking like increasing the total sum of human (or any other) well-being."

Why would I agree to that? The climate changes and historically we have been even less prepared for the changes yet managed to survive through it. Climate change back towards an ice period would be deadly, a little warming improved life on earth.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Oops, my bad (to be honest, that was so verbose and incoherent I don't think I even realised you were actually attempting to answer my questions)."

I thought you were a scientist, surely you read? I could understand you asking for clarification if I wasnt clear about something or disagreeing with me, but that you would ask my view and then not even read it doesnt increase my opinion of random stranger on the internet claiming to know stuff.

"Of course there is backup from the fossil-fuel and nuclear grid when the windfarm is not generating sufficient power. But, of course, for the majority of the time it is functional, that means less gas to burn. How is that not a good thing?"

That is a good and valid question. So to run the wind farm it needs gas backup, which means not only having to construct the wind farms but also a gas power generator to produce enough power to cover the unreliable supply. By itself increasing costs with the only 'benefit' being a reduction in gas burning.

However instead of efficiently running a gas power plant which reduces costs further there is increased wear and tear on a gas power plant for ramping up and down. Yet based on the 'science' gas power gives off less co2 and so meeting targets could be achieved with more gas generation without the wind farm.

"So... around we go again: most of my power is supplied by renewables most of the time. How that is twisted into "doesn't work" is quite beyond me."

I say wind doesnt work (until the storage problem is solved) because (for example) if you had a working car you would expect it to take you from A to B under normal operation. If your car was intermittent it wouldnt be working. This is energy supply which isnt an intermittent requirement, its a requirement for our civilisation. It could be argued its less like a car and more like an ambulance.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Oh, great. I need to be lectured to by an alt-right non-climate-scientist culture warrior misrepresenting climate science?"

Yeah ok I think I can see why you hold your beliefs as you do. Guessing you got stumped for a decent response or you also find him verbose and incoherent.

codejunky Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Thanks for selectively failing to quote the bit where I said that my local offshore windfarm is functional most of the time"

Most!=all. So answer the question- "So your computer falls off when the turbines dont provide enough power?". We know the answer and it does you no favours.

"and that I did not expect an immediate full switch-over to renewables"

As it doesnt work. See Germany. See energy bills rising as energy production didnt thanks to... renewables. It isnt even about a full switch over to only using renewables, its the bloody tech doesnt work. See your PC not turning off when the power drops.

"In the mean time, renewable energy is working."

Derp. No. Again still waiting on battery technology to make the renewable tech work. Without that it dont. This is reality.

"You have still pointedly failed to answer my earlier questions; in brief:"

Wow you lie. Not even grey area you lie. See below-

https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/09/21/germany_ai_eagles_turbines/#c_4535162

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"The question was risible. Shall I spell out the answer? The science is, as always, in the scientific journals* and reports. But of course you knew that."

Which does not spell out doom.

"But of course you knew that."

Yup

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Seriously?!? Well, there go the remaining shreds of your credibility."

You say that without answering the line. Your credibility is with you standing quietly with your sandwich board on the street corner. The fact that you failed to answer the comment but again run away with insults again doesnt make me feel like I am losing anything.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"However, we actually do know rather a lot about climate science"

Yes. We know we dont know enough. The doom stories keep changing and falling away after enough time facing reality but the self inflicted damage is very visible and very real.

"The evidence for anthropogenic warming and its consequences has been steadily accumulating for decades"

And the failed predictions again and again and again. The same old same old crackpots shouting doom and still only causing problems with no results.

"And I most certainly do not treat climate science as a religion"

Congrats. So the 'science' has been caught pants down false, failed and abused. Its paraded around with a meat shield little girl as if its a challenge to reality. That is the reality of the so called 'science'. Any actual science is lost behind all that garbage and the pushed solutions dont work. Why would I take that seriously? How can you?

"It seems very much to me that the climate-change denialist lobby has spun its very own anti-climate science mythology"

Or just observed the claims, how crazy they are and them failing to come true. The rebranding exercises to cope with the failures while continuing with the same stupidity. Note how you call not believing in this bull 'mythology' when this garbage is tall tails on half truths.

"There you go. A religious belief, against all real-world evidence, that renewable energy technologies "don't work" - as I sit here writing this on a machine powered by my local offshore wind farm."

So your computer falls off when the turbines dont provide enough power? Its a statement of fact that the technology doesnt work, it cant work until energy storage is solved. I quote you elsewhere in this comment section- "Plus there are some promising energy storage options on the not-too-distant horizon.".

You believe that something that may or may not turn out to work will make the unreliable and currently doesnt work technology work. Is this science or belief? For how many years have we deployed technology that doesnt work? How long until this new technology works and is scalable?

Here is a good one for you. Schools were considering opening for only 3 days because of energy costs. 25% of our energy bills was green madness and the gov put even more into it behind the scenes. Vast investment in green energy and less energy, more expensive, energy poverty, etc. These are the observable reality. Is this worth your mythological fear?

Next problem is the solutions deployed dont fix the problem. Wind and solar need gas backup because it doesnt work (see your power supply). The majority of green energy in the EU is burning wood! Something considered more polluting in Co2 terms. Obama and co believe so badly they bought property next to the water they claim will go under with sea rise.

I suggest you sit back, relax and enjoy this amusing clip- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBf2PU_Bvog

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"So to what extent should we "believe" science?"

Everything you said above this point seems to demonstrate why we should be critical of the climate bull spouted so far. You talk about stuff that works, which is very different to the climate stuff we are talking about.

"Ultimately, current science -- pretty much by definition -- represents our best state of knowledge about a given field given the available evidence to date."

I agree. Very good. And if we dont know enough then that is the current state of the science.

"But ask yourself: can you, even in principle, do better than current knowledge based on up-to-date evidence?"

Thats fine, if the answer is we dont know enough then we dont burn ourselves assuming an answer.

"So if you choose "not to believe" current science, where does that leave you? Well, I suppose you can just throw up your hands and say "the science is rubbish - we know nothing about such-and-such". But that would simply be wrong, because in reality we (probably) do know quite a lot."

Agreed. We await facts instead of abusing what little we know and then spinning it into a religion with its own messiah. This has moved away from being science. We have politicians telling us we have x days to save the earth (blown past these a few times) and even had adverts of drowning cartoon dogs if we didnt turn out the lights. We are throwing out energy generation and replacing it with technology that doesnt work.

codejunky Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"So following mainstream science is now some sort of extremist position? Depressing."

What science? Mainstream media and politics yes but where is the science? That you think you are peddling science is depressing.

"PS. My sandwich board actually reads: "I'm really quite concerned about this"."

Thanks for letting me know. If I spot you on a corner I will recognise you. Do you just stand there or shout out to try and save souls?

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"<sigh>Dammit, first it was the flat-earthers, then the creationists, then the 5Gers and anti-vaxxers... I know there's no point trying to reason with science-denialism, yet I fall for it every time. Just can't resist a tin-hat challenge, I guess.</sigh>"

Sorry to hold up a mirror but your standing on a street corner with a sandwich board shouting 'the end is nigh'. Kinda like a lady I used to pass in town with a loud speaker shouting about how Christ is coming back soon.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Well, I stand corrected on "undoing" CO2 levels in the atmosphere - seems we're basically stuck with what we've got for millennia."

If it makes you feel any better these are the model predictions which might again change tomorrow when they account for the next natural process they didnt realise.

"Seems like a damn good reason to cut back on emissions with great urgency."

If you want to go ahead. You are going to emit something and you are going to affect the world around you by merely existing.

"That said, I am not going to even attempt to argue your science-denialism"

Thats fine, that denialism has already brought you to realise a science mistake you acknowledge at the start of your comment, and you have so much faith in your belief you call science that it cannot be challenged (the antithesis of science) I dont feel any loss.

"but I admit to being somewhat morbidly intrigued in what exactly it is that you do believe"

>The climate changes naturally. It does, has done and continues to do so.

>It is possible (even potentially probable) we have an affect of some sort but we are still trying to understand what.

>MMCC theory has left the world of science and is now politics and religion which is why there is so much propaganda and constant stream of bull that any actual science is lost in the noise.

>People are so eager to believe whatever fast lie leaves the gate that the 'science' looks stupid by the constant rebuttals by truth and science.

>The entire 'propaganda' is so fragile they allowed a child to be scared by fiction (she can see Co2 in the air!) and put up as a meat shield who cant be criticized due to her age and disability no matter how much garbage she spouts.

>If the pushers of the fiction believed in it they would not be acting counter to the 'science'. How green is burning wood chips from new trees shipped from around the world? Why buy beach front property where it will be washed away in the great floods? The 'science' says we need economic growth yet so much effort to hamper it. A heavy push back against gas and nukes even though they are ways we can hit Co2 targets in favour of technology that doesnt work.

>Wind and solar were deployed without being able to do the job. Bills went up to support the deployment of monuments to a sky god in hope he farts. Solar works in parts of the world where it works. Spain built a concentrated solar plant to make plenty cheap energy only to find it will never pay for itself. But we tax and bill payers support inflated prices fed in from a solar panel on top of some rich/upper middle class roof in the UK.

The unreliables of course rely on gas as a backup, so we need to inefficiently run a gas power station to provide the power we dont get from them and here we are reliant on foreign gas but unwilling to look below our own feet. That wouldnt be green.

"so do you believe (against all evidence) that global temperatures are not rising?"

This is a question you should look at seriously for a while (seriously). Think about it. You would think that was a climate change denier, I know I would. Instead a climate change denier is someone who doesnt believe in the current half baked theory of MMCC. Look at how incorrect that is, how stupid, how wrong.

"Or, if you at least accept that, do you believe (against all evidence) that a few degrees of warming will not have serious consequences?"

As with everything there will be trade offs. One serious consequence is being better for life on earth. I am not stupid enough to command the tide out.

"Are you content that we go about business-as-usual with fossil fuels?"

Yes and no. Increasing efficiency, less tolerant of actual pollution and modern civilisation which requires cheap and plentiful energy. The part I say no to is the vilification of energy production while demanding energy that we need,

"Are you unconcerned about the social, economic and political consequences of flooding, drought, fires, storm devastation, sea-level rise, crop failure, etc."

Very shaky beliefs there sorry. Plenty of fire, flood and drought has been through political mismanagement (here in the UK, over in the US etc). Trying to claim crop failure on MMCC is funny but neglects being better conditions for growing crops. You say storms but previous claims of increased activity got shot down by a lack of increase. I like how you put sea level in there when I keep mocking about commanding the tide back, it wont listen to you!

However mitigation is an option. And increasing the prosperity of people on the globe makes it easier for mitigation technologies to be applied where needed. Instead of praying your monument to the sky gods will stop the climate from changing (that seems close to climate change denial).

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@imanidiot

""Ice age" got a lot of media attention but was never really broadly supported by climate scientists (warming trends were already predicted and known in the 80s!)"

Kinda like x number of days to save the earth I expect. Or various others- https://extinctionclock.org/

I would hazard a guess that the new messiah (Gretta) says plenty the scientists dont back too. Nor back the media rush to blame weather events on MMCC. Nor adverts of a drowning cartoon dog if you dont turn your lights out.

"Global warming isn't abandoned as such but was (again) a media phrase and inaccurate."

And yet you had to be a heretic to disagree with it! Yup outside the world of science. Just as a lot of this garbage is outside the world of science.

"Which some people (possibly like you) were using to dismiss the whole thing outright"

Nope. But I dont believe in religious political bull. Or as you called it inaccurate media phrases.

"Run away climate change isn't really abandoned"

They couldnt figure out how to cause their nightmare scenario in the real world because they kept missing bits of how the world works. The model would claim doom and the world would not do so.

"Which is immediately linked to the "we're all gonna fry" mantra. Which we might well still do."

Even by its own 'science' the answer to that is no unless we time travel back and then burn everything. Not realistic, just a framing device in a chart. Kinda like the extreme one at the other end where the temperature magically cools because we magically suck all the GHG out. Framing device.

"particular point about this graph"

That starts at an ice age and shows warming? Using what we know of (very little) historical global temperatures going back to... the ice age. Knowing bugger all for the variations that naturally occur but knowing that warmer temperatures are better for life than colder ones. So based on bugger all knowledge we should assume this is weird?

"yes there will have been some short term swinging around but upsweeps as seen in the last 50 years are VERY unlikely to have happened without being detectable by the methods used to get this data in the first place."

So you know there will have been short term swinging, but you think this one is odd based on extremely limited data over an almost nothing timespan for the event? I struggle to buy it.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @John Sager

@Yet Another Anonymous coward

"And gas is only cheaper"

We have gas. We choose not to dig it up but we have gas. Think Germany does too and a few others.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Sorry, not religious, don't deal in beliefs. As a scientist, I'm much more comfortable with evidence."

Excellent so you can clearly call your previous statement hyperbole or plain bull- "Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going"

Assuming I understand your comment as hyping up the doom of MMCC co2 theory *all bow now*.

"And as a human, I am genuinely concerned for the future of human and other species."

Cool. I am human too and also have those concerns.

"If anyone's to be "lashed" for "beliefs", that lashing will be climate-induced, and those "beliefs" will be anthropogenic climate-change denialism"

Oh damn there you go with a belief in a myth. ACC has gone when they found their models missed out how things work in the real world and they couldnt find how to cause a tipping point into runaway climate change (previously run away global warming, previously global warming, previously global cooling). The modern one is climate change where we fear between 1-3C and not any time soon.

"Wind, solar, and other renewable/sustainable energy sources are extremely effective"

Back to beliefs. Sorry but nope. Solar works in places where it has enough sun to work and is applicable during daytime hours. Wind is very intermittent, goes dead over vast distances and fails to provide power when it is needed. That is why the 'saving grace' is energy storage if they can ever figure out a way to make it work and then make it cost effective.

"and already cheaper than fossil fuel generation"

Eh? In what world? It is currently cheaper than gas, and thats because we choose not to extract gas. Instead we claim to be green, beg Russia and others to dig theirs up and then condemn them for not being green. The hope in the UK was to frack thereby concealing the cost of green energy until greenies didnt like that either. That is why energy bills had been rising and 25% of our bills was green crap even though we were spending stupid amounts on monuments to a sky god.

"Nor do I discount nuclear, since you didn't ask."

Thats good. I dont bother asking because one green and the next cant agree if its good or bad. In fact we would have more nukes if the green nuts didnt stop them being built all the way back to when labour was in charge (and probably before too). Clegg's fighting against building them because it would only come online by 2022 should bring serious criticism considering the situation today.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@Tom 7

"I live in an area with lots of turbines and lots of birds. The turbines dont seem to bring down many birds"

Cool. Glad to hear it. The Germans seem to think they do kill birds according to the article hence the point of the article.

"One thing that baffles me is if they make all this noise people complain about why the bird dont avoid that. I wonder if little whistles on the blade tips might help."

No idea, and maybe if they did make more noise it could help birds avoid them. The question worth starting with however is if we should be mass deploying these things anyway and thats not a positive answer. And if we shouldnt be mass deploying monuments to a sky god then this entire issue goes away pretty quickly.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@Tom 7

"I dont know if you heard of the Severn Barrage plan"..."wont be migrating through there in 30 years because of sea level rise."

I did not. But not migrating through there and the birds being killed are two extremely different things.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"As a statistician and scientist myself, yes, I am reasonably sure - certainly sure enough to be very, very worried."

Worried about what? Which bit? The ice age was abandoned. The global warming was abandoned. Run away climate change was abandoned. The apocalypse we all gonna fry still occasionally gets mentioned but isnt realistic. So now we dont want the world to warm a couple of degrees so we must embrace communism and mud hut lifestyle depending on the version of nutter proposing the 'solution'.

Also as a statistician and scientist you must surely be aware of the severe uncertainty and large gaps in knowledge for the claim. You must also be vastly aware that the topic left science and is now politics?

"The evidence to date most certainly does not support that conclusion - quite the opposite!"

Eh? Evidence to date is that the economic impact has been ignored and that mitigation needs to be looked at because it is likely more cost effective and realistic. Evidence to date is that monuments to a sky god dont work and we aint generating enough electricity, never mind dreamily moving towards electric vehicles.

"In time (measured in human years), yes - that would reverse the evident (i.e., measured) change."..."Failed to parse [some weird stuff no-one is suggesting]."

You failed to parse? Really? So nobody is suggesting going veg to save the planet? How do you think we support the population without enough energy being generated (the problem of these monuments instead of power generation)? Remember this is about your fanciful comment about reversing the climate change. Something as fanciful as the 'all gonna fry' scenario.

We dont have the technology to undo what was put out, we dont have the technology to generate the so called 'green' energy which has to be revised to include burning wood chips from half way around the world and nuclear.

Instead of the question being how do we get birds to avoid the bird choppas, we should start asking if we should be putting up the bird choppas in the first place. It quickly resolves both questions with one answer.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going."

Aka you feel guilty for whatever religious sins you hold in your head and not only wanna lash your own back in repentance but want everyone else lashed for your 'beliefs'.

"and indeed have chipped in with interesting and plausible suggestions."

To not munch up birds, but why are the birds being munched? For monuments to a sky god to make you feel better while the gas generators are fired up to provide the energy to keep lights on. The monuments are a problem because they are applied as a solution but they dont work in the first place.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Yes, yes it has... over timescales measured in 10s - 100s of thousands of years, rather than the decades we are seeing now (see icon)."

Are you sure? Remember you are working on very few decades of what we consider accurate data and a lot of much more fuzzy data which leads to the conclusion that within huge error bars we dont have much to worry about.

"Yup, we can reverse the change"

I command you tide!!! Back I tell you!!!

"by ceasing to pump gazillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere."

And that would reverse the theoretical change already made? Is this will a mass extermination of life on earth? I say life not just humans as cows and sheep are attacked for their 'gasses' so should we cull most of the life on the planet? Or should we not be so stupid?

codejunky Silver badge

@Naich

"If you are worried about birds being killed by wind turbines, you will shit yourself when you realise how many birds are going to be killed by climate change."

Guessing that would be around the bugger all number of the migratory variety, But then the climate has always changed yet I assume you believe you can stop it? Command the tide back!!

codejunky Silver badge

@John Sager

"We could, of course, can this shit and remove the wind turbines"

And admit this stuff doesnt work, ha! The green madness continues, energy prices rise and the return to dirtier forms of fossil fuel generation is the chosen way. But gives em the feel goodz

Tesla Megapack battery ignites at substation after less than 6 months

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Look to Dinorwig

@Hairy Spod

"you mean funny how alternative energy sources were not needed until we over used fossil fuels"

Not alternate energy sources but unreliable ones. And when did we overuse fossil fuels? By overusing unreliables countries are falling back to the dirtiest methods of burning fossil fuels. Doesnt sound like a win

Biden administration to dole out $900m for electric vehicle infrastructure

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Good

@jake

"What colo(u)r is the sky on your planet?"

Right now blue with a couple of white clouds. Why? What does that have to do with a business man being such a threat that the president before him and after him wan and are so desperate (even weaponising the state) to keep him out.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Good

@MrMerrymaker

"Shame some folks want the insane tangerine man back"

To be fair to those people the orange man is between Biden and Obama's presidencies which makes him look good.

Climate change prevention plans 'way off track', says UN

codejunky Silver badge

So?

Are they now gonna tell us how many days to save the earth this time?

Demand for software experts pushes tech salaries higher in UK

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Diversity should be a consequence, not a goal.

@msknight

"Sadly, seeing the posts and the relation of upvotes against downvotes, it looks like there are many in the industry who would rather it stay that way and not change."

Possibly but could it not be that people dont want forced change? Its one thing for people to freely choose to do what they want to do and another to be manipulated, coerced, discriminated and otherwise demeaned into change?

Some people still believe in merit and getting the job because you are actually capable and qualified to do it. Possibly even resistance to terrible discriminatory practices... which is often the justification used for applying these discriminatory practices.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Diversity should be a consequence, not a goal.

@msknight

"I had a woman from one supplier actually break down on my shoulder because one man at her office was very vocal about how women shouldn't be in I.T. and he made her life a misery; and he did this in full view of every one else in their office. No one stood up for her."

So one man in an entire office upsets a woman because he is a dick? I can believe that. I am a guy and I have worked with some dicks too. And others around dont tend to stand in the way either.

"I left my last job because my new colleague (at the same level as me) with only five years basic experience in I.T. wouldn't listen to anything I told him"

Lucky you. You got someone with some experience and no listening skills. And they wernt the same level they got put ahead of me. So I left.

"Why he hated me so much, I don't know."

Some people are just that way. Not worth the effort trying to understand what is wrong with them. Not even necessarily hatred, some people are just wired wrong.

"You want to see more women in male dominated fields? Then stop driving them out. You can't drive women out of these jobs and then turn around and ask, "Where are they?""

In my opinion for the first question I dont care. Just as I dont care about males entering female dominated fields. I dont drive anyone out, nor push anyone in.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Diversity should be a consequence, not a goal.

@Freddie

"However, I could see (as with male nurses in (hopefully) times gone past) that women would feel uncomfortable to enter the tech sector. They would they become part of a tiny minority. Of course, they *could* enter it anyway but a good number would be put off."

Except they wernt. Coding was womans work, it was predominantly women. Then it transitioned to being male dominated.

Nadine Dorries promotes 'Brexit rewards' of proposed UK data protection law

codejunky Silver badge

Re: UK rejoining the EU?

For anyone interested in a debate by someone very pro and someone very anti euro-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6rN60Mp2hE

codejunky Silver badge

Re: the flexibility to protect personal data in more proportionate ways

@Snapper

"I have to say that confirms my impression that not many people were paying attention, especially how the Leave claims changed as the older ones were challenged."

You should have tried challenging remainers. Either the goalposts ran away or the responses stopped as they had no answer. Even just pointing out basic contradictions in remain or their viewpoints would bring about amazing mental gymnastics or silence as they had an aneurysm.

"I'm near retirement, and my kids are just starting their careers with a mountain of student debt."

How is the student debt related if it is (no worries if not, just checking I aint missing some connection)? But then who took out the loans and did they have intention of paying them back for a service (education) that they felt was worth it?

codejunky Silver badge

Re: UK rejoining the EU?

@Philip Storry

"You're either purposefully twisting my words or you're misunderstanding them."

Slight extradition of your words as I dont think anyone is dumb enough to think its "amazing and glorious".

"Nobody said refuse. There are already conditions for joining the Euro, we likely won't meet them."

Erm... in the comment I wrote that you are replying to I quoted you directly- "Honestly, this "We can't rejoin we'll have to join the Euro" rubbish is exactly that - rubbish.". You even used Sweden as an example and literally said we should "just drag our feet.". That sounds like refusing to join the Euro.

"The simple fact is that whilst our economy benefited from being in the Single Market, it's dissimilar enough that we may not benefit from the Euro."

I would put it another way that while there may be some benefits to a single market the Euro is a bloody mess.

"The last thing that anyone in the EU wants is a repeat of Greece, where a country lied to get into the Euro club."

Who had private debts to various rich member countries banks which ended up with the banks in the rich member countries being paid and the debt made public debt used to beat the Greeks into submission.

"So we don't need to refuse or outright lie as you state. We can be reasonable partners who understand each other's positions and agree on a pragmatic compromise."

Saying we will join the Euro then intentionally dragging our feet sounds like refusing. And since when has this been a reasonable partnership of understanding and pragmatism? Think the covid crisis if not the brexit negotiations. NI is going well with the pragmatic and understanding balls up on the continent.

"Because the people who told us it would be great to leave were either liars or incompetent."

Why? Seems to be going pretty well for the short time we have been out. Alternatively the fire and brimstone FUD we were told would happen if we left didnt. It was an amusing damp squib to watch as remainers cling to the next hope and prayer of damage they can try to claim on brexit. Its so desperate that any issue is jumped on as a brexit problem only to be pointed out the problem is in various countries in or out.

"Go speak to hospitality and entertainment about red tape."

I think that was more of a covid lockdown failure that hit those.

"Boris Johnson led one of the campaigns, and he's a liar. Not even an accidental liar, but a man who lies as easily as he breathes. His name is attached to the Brexit project."

Yes. And remain had Blair, Mandelson, Cameron, etc. I accept the official leave campaign was a bunch of liars. I have often said I at first thought the official leave campaign group was chosen as a trojan horse. Then I saw remain and realised they were both incompetent liars.

"The people are fickle, and I'd bet money that when the histories are written Brexit will be seen as a doomed failure sold by liars and incompetents."

I see people clinging to this desperate hope. Assuming the EU is still around by then.

"Either Brexit's supporters start delivering all those promises, or Brexit will continue to be a failure."

First of all I agree there was plenty bull being spouted (both sides). But delivery was not an instant result since the UK market was vastly distorted by membership. The good news is covid demonstrated solid instantaneous benefits people could see right away and affected their lives. They could see how badly the EU acted and how incompetent they were. The petty failure of leadership which didnt harm just a country but countries! It got so bad even the fanatical EU nutters from within were turning on the commission publicly and despair at how the UK was doing better.

"What quitlings fail to understand is that it won't just be a campaign to rejoin, it will be a campaign to regain what we lost. What they gave away. And that is far more quantifiable than "sovereignty" and "control" ever will be - as this article so amply demonstrates."

Eh what bull? Regain what? The argument was that there is no going back, it would be a rejoin without the opt outs (that wernt good enough to secure remain) nor keeping our own currency (the Euro being poison we rejected). As for what we gave away being more quantifiable than the very benefits demonstrated immediately from brexit is just insane.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: UK rejoining the EU?

@Snapper

"Voting usually means you can change your mind about what's important later."

Of course. And so it would take a huge change of mind to get the majority (leave) and the remain voters who would only stay with the opt outs to vote to rejoin. Not likely I expect

codejunky Silver badge

Re: UK rejoining the EU?

@NeilPost

"Objectively… would Euro membership for the UK have been a bad thing…

Objectively, evidentially… not ideologically??"

Yes. With no ideology the Euro doesnt work particularly well which is why it is in constant crisis.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: UK rejoining the EU?

@Lars

"But what I find so very English is the deeply inbuilt assumption that joining the euro would be a bad thing.

Seriously, what is that based on."

Reality. Seeing it in action. Recent history and the current situation. Economics and an entire history of learning economics the hard way and watching as the Eurozone seems to aim for harm.

Bye bye BoJo: Liz Truss named new UK prime minister

codejunky Silver badge

Re: How can anyone think...

@Mooseman

"There are ways to get out of recession - one is to stimulate the economy, get people spending, create jobs and thus creating actual wealth."

Stimulating an economy and creating actual wealth (productivity) was hit by lockdowns and restrictions and printing money while stopping people from producing. So stimulating the economy would in that case be for the gov to spend less and get out of the way.

"The other way is the Tory way - cut services to the bone, implement austerity, drive people further and further into poverty while the wealthy accrue even more money."

Implement austerity when? I remember the Tories talking about austerity, then they continued to increase spending. What services will be cut to the bone? The public service is forever expanding and yet the service to the public sucks. Not defending the Tories here because they are not implementing austerity since they have been blowing out the deficit no better than Labour did.

"The government haven't spent your tax to stimulate anything but their own wealth."

They havnt even been spending the tax money but borrowing incredibly as well.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

Just to continue the problem with defining 'green'-

Few realize that the majority of renewable energy the EU counts toward its legislated targets is from burning wood, which, per unit energy, emits more carbon pollution at the smokestack than burning coal.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-eu-climate-energy-crisis-renewable-energy-must-stop-burning-trees/

codejunky Silver badge

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

"Insulation already works, green already works, nuclear already works, fossil fuels and gas generally do not come from stable countries and have no long-term future."

Insulation works to a point. We are pretty much at that point. Due to how buildings have been made historically we are limited in how far this can go without creating mushroom farms or tear down vast quantities of housing and rebuild.

Green works is an odd statement as its an umbrella of technology from burning wood chips imported from the US (and Russia so I hear), wind and solar (which dont work) and arguments if nuclear is green. There is obviously a lot more such as hydro and so on so not all green works and has various problems for implementation and definition.

Nuclear works but takes a decade plus to deploy (hence Clegg rejecting nukes 10 years ago as it would only be online this year being notable but labour refused to get on with it before then). There are discussions about types of nukes and waste which are again political problems which can be dealt with fairly easily providing even more power.

Fossil fuels and gas coming from unstable countries is by choice. We have gas, we have coal, we have oil. Also it is worth noting the lack of Russian gas is because the west chose to reject it (sanctions) which has the unfortunate consequence of China and India buying it then reselling to us at mark up prices.

"Labour signed off on eight reactors before leaving office in 2010."

In their entire 13 years in office not a single nuclear power station had started construction. Not one. Add that to 12 years of Tories where no new plants have been completed and we have a problem.

"The last four governments were all Tory in the past 12 years."

And before that 13 years of labour, and not one of those a coalition. This isnt one or the other, both failed. The failure wasnt over the last decade, we have mismanagement for 2 decades at least. Money for power generation has been put into monuments to a sky god that increased our dependence on gas while reliable power generation was allowed to fall. We have targets to reduce Co2 and use more electricity (cars) but without the technology nor supply nor infrastructure to support it.

"The preferred solution of the Tories, after lobbying and donations, is more of the same - continue with fossil fuels and gas which are at end of life and give billions in taxpayers' money to legacy energy providers who already have record profits. If that is not open corruption then I don't know what is."

Again you say tories, I point out governments for over 20 years. Look at what happened in Germany, push to green and ended up subsidising fossil fuels just to keep the lights on. Ridiculous amounts of money given to the green madness and we are now wondering where that money is. We will reject fossil fuels but are so dependent on them for electricity because it actually works (especially gas right now). We even have governments trying to close coal power plants while showing an absolute need to keep them running (winter).

codejunky Silver badge

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

"We will not invest in an alternative until we have an alternative? There might be a problem with that plan."

That depends what you mean by invest? R&D yes. Deploy something that doesnt work as the forced replacement to what works, terrible idea.

"To your other point - no, actually Cameron screwed up, then after that Cameron screwed up again, then after that May screwed up. If the country had gone in the opposite direction (nuclear rollout, green rollout, more storage) we wouldn't be in this position."

Also before them. Remember Clegg not wanting nuclear, or labour backing out of it.

When you say more storage do you mean of gas or electricity? Electricity storage is still very immature right now. Gas storage is not worth investing in due to the serious anti-fossil fuel rhetoric. It takes decades for it to pay for itself yet politicians are insisting we will stop using them.

"At every decision Tories gonna Tory."

This isnt just a Tory thing, this is politicians. This is the last bunch of governments. Remember the winter fuel allowance brought in to cover up government inflicted damage.

"It stinks to high heaven. The UK is in this position because of wanton incompetence and corruption."

I dont know about the corruption bit, only because I dont think they have the organisational capacity. But I will agree incompetence got us to this point. We should not have energy supply problems.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: @werdsmith

@Mooseman

"Still repeating that rubbish?"

Beware the mirror, it may hurt.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

"We hold these three truths to be self-evident:

1. Gas supply is low and currently comes from unstable countries. Any proposal to try and find more sources of gas is merely flogging a dead horse as it is a finite resource close to being exhausted anyway."

Agreed it currently comes from unstable countries. This is of course a choice and we have a ready stable supply available to us that we choose not to extract. Since we currently have a lot of gas generation we do, at least in the short term, need gas.

"2. By now energy producers should have divested away from unreliable sources and they haven't."

By unreliable do you mean unreliables (wind/solar)? To run those required gas generation so if your not a fan of that I agree as I would prefer gas to mostly be piped to where it is used.

"3. Energy producers are charging energy suppliers record high bills to generate record excess profits. Clearly energy suppliers are acting as gatekeepers and profiting from it."

The price of energy has gone up. It was going up before the invasion, it is going up after the invasion.

"This can be fixed by:

1. Investing in non-gas energy sources on energy producers' behalf if they won't do it themselves. That means no further gas and also no further fossil fuels, because both are evolutionary dead ends."

This is where I think we disagree. We cant move on from fossil fuel until we have an alternative. Nuclear is an alternative if thats what you mean but cheap and plentiful energy is necessary for civilisation.

"2. Changing the energy market so it doesn't follow gas spot prices so suppliers pay less to producers."

This is where I would strongly consider fracking and keeping the gas for domestic use, at least in the short term to keep the lights on. Beyond that I dont excessively care where the energy comes from as long as its cheap and plentiful.

"3. Any loan from the state/taxpayer bailout to lower bills is just passing on the wealth of the nation to energy producers who will just add it to their profit line, and taxpayers will be left with a loan to pay off which is completely the wrong course of action."

I agree with you on that 100%. Prices exist for a reason and are necessary for markets to react to change.

"Taxing energy producers excess profits and using it to hold customers and business' energy bills down at no cost to the nation or to taxpayers is the right way to do things."

The reason for the profits is due to state idiocy. The state mandated green and left us energy insecure. Again if we use that to artificially drag down the price of energy people will use more of what we dont have. As a supply issue I think the supply needs to be increased.

"It is bad because they are tanking the economy in pursuit of their own profits. This is not a true free market and if no action were taken then the UK would get plunged into recession."

That is true about it not being a true free market. If it was we would see action and we wouldnt have been so heavily reliant on unreliables.

"They've already had the chance to invest knowing supply is limited and they've screwed up, instead they've decided to profit from the current scarcity"

Supply of what is limited? If you mean gas, the gov was promoting fracking (before banning it) because it would allow them to pretend the cost of green was less. Winter demonstrated this isnt a supplier issue but a state issue as coal had to be fired back up over winter to keep lights on which was due to close due to government. Government has mandated we have a lack of supply.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

I suggest if your going to quote me you dont miss out the meaning. Your quote "we wish to keep gas going." yet what you are quoting is "if we wish to keep gas going". That single word 'if' matters because it changes from me making a statement to me asking the question.

You dont have to agree with me, you literally asked to hear my solution. My solution is pretty simple, generate electricity and provide enough gas to keep people alive and well.

"No, we don't wish to keep gas going if there's a supply issue, that's just postponing the inevitable and a recipe for continued unsustainable energy costs in the future."

There is a supply issue why not resolve the problem by increasing the supply? It is there, we are choosing not to access it.

"Also, UK energy producers are forecast to make excess profits of £170bn."

Will they or is that projected? Why is that? And is that bad? This comes back to supply and the security of the supply.

"Windfall tax that, allow them to keep the profits they were perfectly fine with before, and use that excess profit to hold energy bills down and accellerate other sources of energy"

So we should increase tax on suppliers when we want them to invest in more supply... to artificially reduce the price of energy bills causing greater use of the limited supply? While I agree with other sources of energy I am not sure we agree on the types of energy generation.

"But as it seems you've cribbed Tim Worst-all's back-to-front homework, I guess you think that this perfectly obvious solution is unreasonable and being in hock to fossil fuel energy interests is a wonderful thing."

Not sure why you feel you need to cry and throw your toys. Clean yourself up, wipe your eyes and come back when your feeling a little calmer and more mature.

codejunky Silver badge

@werdsmith

"If you really don't believe that immigration was one of the motivations for many people voting for Brexit then you are totally deluded."

For some that may have been a reason just as fear of foreigners motivated some of the remain group.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

"I'd like to hear codejunky's solution first."

This is a supply issue. First we are funnelling money into low/unreliable supply and we need a secure supply of gas. First thing is to not shut down our available coal, we need the electricity supply. Remove the green levy on energy bills and they come down a little already but fracking must be explored if we wish to keep gas going.

In the longer term abandoning ditching of fossil fuel targets will make it attractive to build gas storage and building some actual power generation from whatever supply we are willing to build but it must be cheap and plentiful electricity.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Uncle Slacky

"Nationalisation."

Oh god no I hope not

codejunky Silver badge

Hmm

"Underscoring Truss's tendency towards low tax, low intervention government,"

We will see. I am already reading there 'may' be an announcement of an energy price freeze for 2 years.

Trump and Biden agree on something – changing Section 230

codejunky Silver badge

Hmm

I am surprised to see Biden/democrats wanting fake news stopped.

Taking CHIPS Act cash? You're banned from planting advanced fabs on Chinese soil

codejunky Silver badge

Words to fear

We are from the government. We are here to help.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022