Electricity
- Thread starter Digit
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Smudger
Established Member
Ah, but you see, it wouldn't be them, it would be you.
They have a fantasy going on in which we all stop using power. And 75% of us die...
They have a fantasy going on in which we all stop using power. And 75% of us die...
Smudger":pa43c19m said:
There was a programme on Radio 4 t'other day about green issues. One of the most significant points under discussion was a kerb on the human population. Apparently, having children is the least "green" things you can do.
Cheers
Karl
perhaps my thread on global warming wouldn't have been so controversial after all !
build them - burn it - are we (humans) so arrogant that we think we have changed the global climate in 150 years !!!!
in the grand scheme of things, the planet will look after itself ! with or without us
build them - burn it - are we (humans) so arrogant that we think we have changed the global climate in 150 years !!!!
in the grand scheme of things, the planet will look after itself ! with or without us
With all due respect Dick, levity will not help us here, we desperately need a national debate on utilities and the sooner it starts at a local level such as ours on this forum for instance the better, regardless of who the government of the day is, they are beholden to us to provide power, be it electricity, gas or solar etc etc, they cannot say it's not their fault because the utility is in private hands as this is a clear dereliction of duty to the populace. if one were to have an alternative, such as making ones own power and supplying ones own water then that's a different matter, but we don't, we are a "captive audience" and must pay what the suppliers say, I dread to think what it's going to be like for the elderly when it DOES get cold.
Regards,
Rich.
Regards,
Rich.
The answer to that Tusses is yes to most people. Lack of knowledge about solar radiation, the movement of the equinoxes, past history, all add up to the majority of people knowing no better.
On 'the weakest link' the other evening a fellah thought that winter began in September.
Another thought the reference the 'season of mists and mellow fruitfulness' referred to Spring.
Another thought the animal that 'lowed' was a Sheep.
Combating ignorance on that scale is mind boggling.
Roy.
On 'the weakest link' the other evening a fellah thought that winter began in September.
Another thought the reference the 'season of mists and mellow fruitfulness' referred to Spring.
Another thought the animal that 'lowed' was a Sheep.
Combating ignorance on that scale is mind boggling.
Roy.
Smudger
Established Member
I wasn't being lighthearted.
First of all, global warming exists, and we have caused it. That is beyond question. Anything else is wishful thinking.
But that isn't the argument here, exactly. The question is, whatever is causing it, what do we do about it? What do we do about dwindling resources?
There is an element of 'green' that genuinely believes that we have to curtail our power use to such an extent that we will have to radically reduce the population in order to accommodate it.
The alternative is to employ increasing amounts of technology to counteract the energy shortfall. That may well mean nuclear in the medium term, and coal in the short term. The challenge is to do so in the least environmentally damaging way possible.
First of all, global warming exists, and we have caused it. That is beyond question. Anything else is wishful thinking.
But that isn't the argument here, exactly. The question is, whatever is causing it, what do we do about it? What do we do about dwindling resources?
There is an element of 'green' that genuinely believes that we have to curtail our power use to such an extent that we will have to radically reduce the population in order to accommodate it.
The alternative is to employ increasing amounts of technology to counteract the energy shortfall. That may well mean nuclear in the medium term, and coal in the short term. The challenge is to do so in the least environmentally damaging way possible.
Sorry Dick I disagree. 19 computer models have been run on this subject that I know of and not one predicted the current downturn in temps.
And to be honest I doubt very much that any computer programme will get it correct as the people who conduct the programming currently assume that cloud cover is unimportant, that CO2 rises precede temp rises, they don't, that the movement of the Equinoxes are irrelevant, and likewise variation in Sunspot activity and solar output are of no consequence.
Remember Dick, Garbage In Equals Garbage Out!
Does anyone on this forum know of ANY prediction made on this subject that has proved to accurate?
Roy.
Take a look at this...
http://www.sankey.ws/globalwarm.html
this is just one 100s of similar reports.
Roy.
http://www.sankey.ws/globalwarm.html
this is just one 100s of similar reports.
Roy.
To me it's very simple, power is the same as currency or wages, if your outgoings are more than your incomings, then there is a problem, it would certainly help if those who should'nt be here were removed, that might not make a great difference, but it would help, altering GMT to suit would help although it may play havoc with ones body clock, the small countermeasures are endless, but they all add up to a significant power saving if adopted nationally, at least we are here discussing it which is more than the government is doing at present.
Rich.
Rich.
If we shut down the coal fired stations as dictated by the EU to meet our agreed CO2 reductions the lights will start to go out as early as 2010.
What bloody fool in government agreed to this when they had no plans to replace the lost capacity.
Please do not mention wind power Rich!
There is more useful hot air released from the Palace of Westminster than we can obtain reliably from wind power. :lol:
Roy.
What bloody fool in government agreed to this when they had no plans to replace the lost capacity.
Please do not mention wind power Rich!
There is more useful hot air released from the Palace of Westminster than we can obtain reliably from wind power. :lol:
Roy.
There is no fear of me advocating wind power Roy, but, it is at least an alternative, I agree with Smudger that more technology should be sought to harness solar power, we would'nt have to rely on any foreign government or oil suppliers for power then, if only successive governments would leave the dogma of high taxation behind and let people spend what they have then more money would circulate in the market place making for a richer society, making people pay a premium for a neccessity will only make them cut back on spending elsewhere thereby reducing the circulation of disposable income within the economy, it's a vicious circle and dejavu is ringing loudly in my ears.
Rich.
Rich.
Maia28
Established Member
Interesting one this. I was pleased to read today that Centrica may buy British Energy. I agree with Rich that we need to control our own energy production. With the cost of energy increasing, coal is looking like it could well become economic to mine again and we can always use that to make town gas. Our limited oil reserves are also now worth exploring again and two new wells have opened up within a few miles of me. I don't think we can realistically look beyond a 20 - 40 year generating horizon though and we have enough energy reserves for at least 200.
On the subject of computer models, we cannot even predict the molecular trajectories in a cup of coffee over a 1 minute time-span so I'd have very little faith in models built using the sparse data set of past history that we currently have predicting beyond a very short time period. They may describe the past data but that is not validating their predictive capabilities.
Andy
On the subject of computer models, we cannot even predict the molecular trajectories in a cup of coffee over a 1 minute time-span so I'd have very little faith in models built using the sparse data set of past history that we currently have predicting beyond a very short time period. They may describe the past data but that is not validating their predictive capabilities.
Andy
Smudger
Established Member
Maia28":3ssrxlz6 said:
This is a common, but complete fallacy. Because A cannot be proved/explained, then how can we prove/explain B?
That isn't how it works. The tasks are different (in fact the prediction of climate change would be simpler by several levels of magnitude).
Maia28
Established Member
Dick,
It seems that you and I are not going to agree about anything tonight. If you think that predicting the response of a system from an initial state at sometime in the future to a set of disturbances is easier than describing the properties of a closed system with well described dynamic properties then that's up to you. In fact, the molecular interactions in a cup of coffee are exactly the same as those that would occur in the sea temperature models, albeit at a smaller scale. The sea models currently in use as part of the global models make a huge number of simplifications such as a continuous depth, boundary and initial condition and gross simplifications of the Langevin dynamics. There is simply not enough data to describe any dynamics with the neccessary accuracy to explain how, e.g., CO2 today will influence temperatures next decade. The uncertainty and confounding factors are unbounded, interactions between elements of the models are unknown or poorly understood and make the model meaningless except in an academic sense. If you want to believe these models as they stand at the moment then you might as well use Bohr's model of an atom instead of quantum physics.
Andy
It seems that you and I are not going to agree about anything tonight. If you think that predicting the response of a system from an initial state at sometime in the future to a set of disturbances is easier than describing the properties of a closed system with well described dynamic properties then that's up to you. In fact, the molecular interactions in a cup of coffee are exactly the same as those that would occur in the sea temperature models, albeit at a smaller scale. The sea models currently in use as part of the global models make a huge number of simplifications such as a continuous depth, boundary and initial condition and gross simplifications of the Langevin dynamics. There is simply not enough data to describe any dynamics with the neccessary accuracy to explain how, e.g., CO2 today will influence temperatures next decade. The uncertainty and confounding factors are unbounded, interactions between elements of the models are unknown or poorly understood and make the model meaningless except in an academic sense. If you want to believe these models as they stand at the moment then you might as well use Bohr's model of an atom instead of quantum physics.
Andy
In fact currently we do not know sufficient about planetary climate to actually feed accurate info in a computer model. As I said GIGO.
No one has yet even been able to, for example, use info on the run up to the 'Little Ice Age' to reproduce the 'Little Ice Age'.
None of the highly accurate info of the twentieth cent when fed to a computer predicted the current downturn in temps.
Roy.
No one has yet even been able to, for example, use info on the run up to the 'Little Ice Age' to reproduce the 'Little Ice Age'.
None of the highly accurate info of the twentieth cent when fed to a computer predicted the current downturn in temps.
Roy.
RogerS
Established Member
Digit":3ae67rph said:
Ah...at last a use for the windpower generator marketed by B&Q. On the unit, there is a clearly marked label saying 'For Internal Use Only'
Similar threads
