[quote=Kit ]The Department of Energy and Climate Change report said 14,600 Gigawatt hours were generated in Scotland from renewables such as wind and hydro.
Link to the report in question? I can't find a DECC report which states anything the BBC article is claiming. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I can't find it. (And certainly not the first time the BBC has swallowed wholesale rubbish that a press release has fed them - I can think of an unrelated example.) The links in the Scottish Govt. report also don't give this data, or give different numbers. But then I am pretty tired so maybe I'm just not paying attention to what I'm reading. But again, not that it matters much, and happy to stand corrected if someone can point me directly to the source of the BBC/DECC numbers!
The DECC data is available from a link on the Scotgov website.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/03/Energy-figures-28032013
It's not efficient to store energy as electricity. Electricity is a second or third generation power source, so significant efficiency losses have already occurred. Then you have further losses in the storage and distribution of electricity. It's just not practical to ship electricity over long distances as it is fossil fuels. Last time I looked gas was three times cheaper per KWhr than electricity. Fossil fuels are hard to beat, if we can just stop this obsession with CO2 emissions, we might get a sensible debate on future energy supply without being lambasted distorted stats from either side.
I'd love for us to wean ourselves off fossil fuels as it would mean we wouldn't becoming more reliant on unpleasant countries and regimes for our future energy supply, and force us to be hypocrites as we have to suck up to these people cause they've got us over a barrel. But I don't want to see our countryside festooned with windmills and other hair rained schemes. Yes, let's all be more energy efficient, I'm all for that, but having spent time in the Middle East and looking at their grotesque energy consumption (they have air conditioned streets), and combine that with China and South America, we really can't even hope to make a dent in the global carbon footprint, even if we shut our whole country down tomorrow. It's quite depressing really.
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Our detailed weather and climate records only go back a couple of hundred years at the most. Beyond that we've only got the odd snapshot of what the climate was like at a few points interspersed over millions of years, and they clearly show our climate has always been dynamic and volatile, so we've hardly got alot of data to base our conclusions of impending environmental catastrophe. We really haven't got a clue about the highly complex nature of our weather and climate. And while we're so focused on this red herring, we're not focussing on the real issues threatening us in the relative immediate future.
Kit - MemberScotland already generates 39% of its power from renewables...
Sorry old bean, if you're quoting Wikipedia, then I would contest that number.
Just chasing the numbers, originates from DECC:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/03/geenenergytargets29032012
Seems to be referring to this:
Which dipping into it, closely matches the numbers (looks like some rounding, DECC says 13728ghw, .gov says 13750)
wobbliscott - MemberWe really haven't got a clue about the highly complex nature of our weather and climate.
Sounds like a compelling argument for not ****ing with the status quo tbh.
ransos - Member
No, fossil fuels compete with both of them. That's the obvious answer. I'm surprised you can't see it.
>> They compete with each other. This is a publicly stated aim of the present government.
That may be so, but they do both compete with fossil generation, don't they? Or do coal and gas fired power stations generate a different form of electricity whilst not having to manage their pollution?
By the way, it's fossil fuels, not nuclear, that are responsible for global warming
>> I haven't argued otherwise - what's your point?
My point being that climate change as a result of CO2 emissions is a far bigger killer than the worst nuclear disaster in history. For that matter, it's a much bigger killer than nuclear weapons.
I hate the way we're so focussed on CO2 emissions as the only environmental issue to be concerned about - especially as the jury is still out on the impact.
Which jury? The one funded by oil companies?
wobbliscott - Member
We really haven't got a clue about the highly complex nature of our weather and climate.
[b][i][u]You[/u][/i][/b] may not have a clue. Thankfully, there are quite a few highly qualified people who do.
Sorry, i may ride a 29er but that doesn't mean i jump on every bandwagon out there, so forgive my cynicism, but.... Qualified people? How can someone be qualified in a subject we know nothing about? Only this week there has been doubt cast on global warming as the climate doesn't seem to be complying with the models these "qualified" people have created to predict global warming (how dare Mother Nature defy them?). The problem is that there is a whole global industry employing hundreds of thousands of people based upon the myth of man-made global warming. They are not going to come out and admit they've got it all wrong or there is not yet sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt any time soon are they?
Global warming happened many times before we started burning fossil fuels, as well as global cooling. The ice age was a new phenomenon, before that ice caps did not exist, and i have read that it is thought that it was caused by the growth of the Hymalayas that disrupted and diverted global wind currents - though we still can't explain it for sure - even the 'qualified' experts can't. Why do we think that the reduction in ice caps is a sign of a global catastrophe in action? Only in the '60's the 'qualified' experts thought we were facing another ice age and were devising machines to pump CO2 onto the atmosphere to cause global warming to counter the ice age they thought was coming. Thank god most people were too stoned or having too much sex to take notice of them back then. Shame there is not more of that going on these days.
How can someone be qualified in a subject we know nothing about?
Rest assured, many highly qualified people do know about it. Just because the rest of your post demonstrates that [i]you[/i] know nothing about it (aside from oil-funded tabloid media stories), doesn't mean that noone knows anything about it.
Have we really regressed so far in life that something cannot exist unless the individual questioning it can directly prove it themselves? Jesus wept.
scotroutes - Member
Northwind - Member
Thanks guys - I was pretty ill the night I was trying to look through reports and spreadsheets and I couldn't make head-nor-tail of it. Had a look and agree on the kWh and MW figures. No idea if the 39% thing is correct and I can't be arsed looking for the consumption data to check. Apologies if I was a bit grumpy 🙂
Luna wave power is the future 😀
if we can just stop this obsession with CO2 emissions,
Pity I don't have a time machine to send you back to the Permian or even Cretaceous so you can see what it's like on our planet with high CO2 levels. Believe me, you wouldn't like it.
Heads up for anyone with the time, cash and interest (note that you can apply for a subsidised place):
That may be so, but they do both compete with fossil generation, don't they? Or do coal and gas fired power stations generate a different form of electricity whilst not having to manage their pollution?
So you now accept my assertion that renewables and nuclear compete with each other. I haven't made any argument about fossil fuels so your second sentence is irrelevant to my point.
Have you thought about why renewables competing with nuclear might be a problem?
My point being that climate change as a result of CO2 emissions is a far bigger killer than the worst nuclear disaster in history. For that matter, it's a much bigger killer than nuclear weapons.
It could well be, and I haven't argued otherwise. I'm not sure why you're persistently trying to convince me of what I already believe to be true.
I haven't made any argument about fossil fuels so your second sentence is irrelevant to my point.
Only if you're interested in childish point scoring rather than the bigger picture. Blinkered views like this help nobody.
I'm not sure why you're persistently trying to convince me of what I already believe to be true.
Because if, instead of "nuclear is bad mmmkay", effort was put into making the fossil fuel industry pay for its pollution, it would immediately become non-viable. If we both agree that coal-fired power is worse than nuclear, why not put concerted effort into getting rid of that, rather than in-fighting between the various non-fossil alternatives?
