Climate change: World's hottest day since records began

Paulsie said:
I think you misunderstood.

They are not redoing connections as it is too expensive. They're also not replacing the turbines as instead of the old smaller 14, they would only be able to fit 4 new ones.

As such, they ARE decommissioning the whole insinstallation
Click to expand...
Yes, because compared to other. bigger, more efficient and more modern sites it's not economically viable to repurpuse. If this was a coal plant you people wouldn't blink about a basic economic decision on an old installation but because your cult hates renewables this is somehow a sign that renewables are a scam, bugger off dude.
 
Last edited:
Cray said:
Yes, because compared to other. bigger, more efficient and more modern sites it's not economically viable to repurpuse. If this was a coal plant you people wouldn't blink about a basic economic decision on an old installation but because your cult hates renewables this is somehow a sign that renewables are a scam, bugger off dude.
Click to expand...
The site that was deemed THE perfect spot 20 years ago is not feasible to reinvest in at the end of the useful life of the installation. Not only is it not viable to repurpouse, but it is also not deemed viable to reinstall with the latest technology.

Just like the current "bigger, better, more modern" sites will become unviable towards their end of their useful lives due to new technologies and inventions.

And that's previsely why the focus on wind and solar fully replacing coal and gas, preferably yesterday, is so ridiculous.

Instead of using solar and wind to supplement energy needs, we're canceling the most energy dense and abundant resource available, while making up stories about future sustainability of current technology.
 
Cray said:
https://science.feedback.org/review...g-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/
Click to expand...
Ja, well no fine. The FACT is that there are no more measurements being taken at these stations. The data is ESTIMATED from stations around the site. The ESTIMATED numbers ARE NOT real measurements, end of story! The details about which stations are affected is NOT easily available to the public, hence where the conspiricies start.

Now, it MIGHT be considered an acceptable technique by some but there is a huge amount of evidence that shows that the distortions that arise out of the process are enough to cast aspersions on ALL the data.

Especially if the ESTIMATIONS involve areas affected by the heat island effect, which WILL inflate the numbers upwards. Most of the sites affected by this ARE in fact, sites that were overtaken by development and hence the numbers no longer reflect what the stations would have measured in the original environment.

So, we need to agree to disagree -- there are those that accept this and there are those that don't.
 
Last edited:
Paulsie said:
The site that was deemed THE perfect spot 20 years ago is not feasible to reinvest in at the end of the useful life of the installation. Not only is it not viable to repurpouse, but it is also not deemed viable to reinstall with the latest technology.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the parts I quoted as to why it no longer viable now? Technology has moved on, competition is firecer as there are a lot more wind farms these days.

Old coal plants get decommissioned all the time because they are no longer viable but you look completely ignore that because you have an ace to grind about renewables.

Paulsie said:
Just like the current "bigger, better, more modern" sites will become unviable towards their end of their useful lives due to new technologies and inventions.

And that's previsely why the focus on wind and solar fully replacing coal and gas, preferably yesterday, is so ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Are you long on coal shares or do perhaps work at a coal mine? Because your arguments are so non sensible and one eyed that the only plausible reason I can find for your love of coal is some sort of vested interest.

Tell me, do you accept the idea that coal is a dirty way of generating electricity and that it is a finite resource?
 
Last edited:
Cray said:
Did you even read the parts I quoted as to why it no longer viable now? Technology has moved on, competition is firecer as there are a lot more wind farms these days.
Click to expand...
And they all have the same inherent shortcomings that have nothing to do with the age of the technology. Wind turbines age faster than other forms of power generation. The Capacity factor/load factor deteriorates virtually from the moment the turbine starts operating. By year 15, the factor is 15 - 20% less than it was when the turbine started operating.

Wind turbines are NOT green - The components are all built/manufactured using reliable 24/7 power, which is most often fossil-fuel-generated power. That is the biggest part of the scam. And that leads to the next frivolous claim about wind energy: it is NOT carbon neutral nor leading to a reduction in carbon.

The impact on the environment is horrendous and so often understated and under-reported. An action that is deliberate on the part of the industry.
Cray said:
Old coal plants get decommissioned all the time because they are no longer viable but you look completely ignore that because you have an ace to grind about renewables.
Click to expand...
No one ignores this, it can't be ignored. The problem is that the wind power industry tries to hide the negatives about their industry, or glosses over the negatives.
Cray said:
Are you long on coal shares or do perhaps work at a coal mine? Because your arguments are so non sensible and one eyed that the only plausible reason I can find for your love of coal is some sort of vested interest.
Click to expand...
There you go again, the veiled personal attack. The favourite gambit of the entire Climate crisis cult.
Cray said:
Tell me, do you accept the idea that coal is a dirty way of generating electricity and that it is a finite resource?
Click to expand...
There IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN ENERGY generation. It is a dirty business all round. And ALL energy generation is based on a finite resource. The limitations are just different for each resource. The wind does NOT BLOW 24/7, it is intermittent and hugely unreliable. It requires the ability to STORE the energy, which is just not there yet.
 
Cray said:
Are you long on coal shares or do perhaps work at a coal mine? Because your arguments are so non sensible and one eyed that the only plausible reason I can find for your love of coal is some sort of vested interest.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm a vaccine-hating coal miner with a love for Russian poetry.

There, I've saved you the effort of tapping into some of my other virtues assigned to me in other threads.

As for your other questions, Geoff has already made a far better job of answering them.
 
Geoff.D said:
There IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN ENERGY generation. It is a dirty business all round. And ALL energy generation is based on a finite resource. The limitations are just different for each resource. The wind does NOT BLOW 24/7, it is intermittent and hugely unreliable. It requires the ability to STORE the energy, which is just not there yet.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you have no issue with Wind/Solar power per se, just that it's hyped up too much, is that an accurate reflection of your feelings?

If we could create a basket of renewables combining Wind, Solar and Hyrdo that could successfully accommodate and cover for night time and when the wind doesn't blow, would you be okay with excluding coal generation from that?

I don't think any country has successfully weaned of coal completely. Currently Australia has the following energy mix...

  • Coal: Black coal accounts for 35% of Australia's electricity, and brown coal accounts for 11.5%
  • Natural gas: Natural gas accounts for 17.8% of Australia's electricity
  • Solar: Solar power accounts for 15.3% of Australia's electricity
  • Wind: Wind power accounts for 11.4% of Australia's electricity
  • Hydro: Hydro power accounts for 6.1% of Australia's electricity
  • Bio energy: Bio energy accounts for 1.1% of Australia's electricity
Do you have any major issues with the above?
 
Cray said:
Okay, so you have no issue with Wind/Solar power per se, just that it's hyped up too much, is that an accurate reflection of your feelings?
Click to expand...
It is not hyped up too much, It is downright based on lies and blatant deception about its manufacturing, installation, maintenance and ability to generate meaningful cheap reliable energy.
Cray said:
If we could create a basket of renewables combining Wind, Solar and Hyrdo that could successfully accommodate and cover for night time and when the wind doesn't blow, would you be okay with excluding coal generation from that?
Click to expand...
If only ----- the road to hell is paved with "If only" statements, claims and pie-in-the-sky claims.

Wind has a small place, a very small place and is absolutely useless at the generation of baseload. Hence it is NOT a suitable energy source for large scale power generation.
Solar is really only a solution for top-of-the-roof power source generated at the consumption end. Again NOT at the other end of a long complicated grid.
Hydro opportunities are NOT suitable for baseload power because hydro potential is extremely limited in most countries. However, it is ideal as a source of peaking power and short-term emergency power in most countries. There are exceptions, of course, which is why it is lauded as such a wonderful solution for baseload.

So, what we need is reliable, continuous power sources that are scaleable according to demand and easy to wind up and down as the load fluctuates. The ONLY options available are coal, gas, oil, and nuclear. The most logical replacement for fossil fuels is the nuclear option, but the World spent 50 years in hiatus and did not develop this energy source to replace fossil fuels. That is where we need to get back to.

Leave Hydro to work where it is available and for peaking power and storage for short-term backup. Let Solar and Wind fulfil small niche requirements where the economic fit is right.
Cray said:
I don't think any country has successfully weaned of coal completely. Currently Australia has the following energy mix...

  • Coal: Black coal accounts for 35% of Australia's electricity, and brown coal accounts for 11.5%
  • Natural gas: Natural gas accounts for 17.8% of Australia's electricity
  • Solar: Solar power accounts for 15.3% of Australia's electricity
  • Wind: Wind power accounts for 11.4% of Australia's electricity
  • Hydro: Hydro power accounts for 6.1% of Australia's electricity
  • Bio energy: Bio energy accounts for 1.1% of Australia's electricity
Do you have any major issues with the above?
Click to expand...
I cannot comment on the above numbers without knowing how the percentages have been calculated. For example, if the numbers are all based on nameplate figures, then they are all meaningless BS.

The right mix will always be a better answer than an all eggs in one basket strategy. But then it must be accepted that each and every country will have its own mix suited to its economy and development.
 


3da3569109e8cb78924d7138ead73845.png
 
ShaunSA said:
I actually didn't believe that one when it popped up on my yt feed :oops:
Click to expand...
Yup. It is that stupid. On the other hand, I bet the local population that lives in that city and the places along that new highway are very pleased with the new road being built for them.
 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:
Sabine is miffed with the Jan 2025 LA Widlfire reporting

Click to expand...
HA! At last, some are showing up the BS! And commenting on how inconsistent and full of rubbish the MSM narrative is! Most of the Climate Cult driven research papers arrive at conclusions not in any way substantiated by their own research.
 
Last edited:
electrek.co

Covering every roof with solar could supply 2/3 of global electricity - study

Covering every roof with solar panels could cover most of the world's electricity needs - and eliminate all fossil electricity generation too
electrek.co electrek.co

It found that rooftop solar could provide a total of 19,483TWh of electricity, which is about 2/3 of global electricity use (which was 29,664TWh in 2023).

This total is actually more than the amount of electricity the world currently generates from fossil fuels – that number was 17,718TWh in 2024, driven mostly by coal and methane, two highly polluting sources.
Click to expand...

So yeah... With solar panels and batteries still set to get a lot cheaper... Eventually solar panels will become the roofing material of choice. Inevitably. And fairly large home batteries will be as normal as having a warm water geyser at home.
 
The Trutherizer said:
electrek.co

Covering every roof with solar could supply 2/3 of global electricity - study

Covering every roof with solar panels could cover most of the world's electricity needs - and eliminate all fossil electricity generation too
electrek.co electrek.co
Click to expand...
The article was pretty good up to the point where it referred to the pollutants --- That is just BS!
The Trutherizer said:
So yeah... With solar panels and batteries still set to get a lot cheaper... Eventually solar panels will become the roofing material of choice. Inevitably. And fairly large home batteries will be as normal as having a warm water geyser at home.
Click to expand...
The point is IF and only IF solar and batteries become a lot cheaper. Roof top solar without storage is just about as useless as a generator without diesel. Then normal market forces will see to it that it becomes the energy source of choice. Right now, roof top solar is a toy of the rich. It is by far the best way to use solar power, NOT this brain-dead idea of building hectares of solar farms out in the sticks and trying to transport the energy via a complicated grid.

I doubt, however, if we will see this day for many years to come.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter