|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 4 Oct 13:46
Has been passed over for funding for the third time. Liebour just following in the Tories footsteps. A similar project in Peterhead was promised funding if we voted No in 2014. Surprise, surprise , it was a lie and no funding materialised.
U.K. Gov can find no money for a Carbon Capture project in Scotland but can find the money for two such projects in the North of England.
It’s no surprise really as a Government will only really invest in areas where they need/want votes. They don’t need any votes in Scotland to win a GE, so we will always be at the back of the queue.
No funding forth coming either to save our only refinery. Yet U.K. Gov can find £600 million investment to help fund the billionaire Jim Ratcliffe’s pet project in Belgium ( I thought we had left the EU ), which has been described as a “ Carbon bomb “ . U.K. gov need to explain to the people of Scotland why they can invest in Belgium but not in Scotland ? Maybe one of our resident unionists can explain………
The only surprise is, I suppose, that people in Scotland were so stupid as to vote for red Red Tories expecting change. That will never happen. Well it will…..things will change and none of it will be for the betterment of our citizens or our country.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 4 Oct 15:48
Isn`t this a devolved issue hence why before the years end the Scottish Government will be announcing if it is going ahead with a new gas burning power station with carbon capture? Of course in an independent, progressive Scotland burning fossil fuels would have been a thing of the past surely? Saudi Arabia of renewables and all that nonsense.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 4 Oct 18:47
There is nothing to stop the Scottish Government funding it but the carbon capture grant funding was a UK government initiative. They didn`t choose the Aberdeenshire project so that`s down to them. Was it not a similar case with Longannet? Obviously the Scottish Government could intervene but it`s already working to mitigate the disgusting cuts from the Tories and now Labour. The money simply isn`t there, which is why I`d be reviewing how big an impact free prescriptions and bus travel cost vs the benefit. I suspect neither costs much though. Sadly, serious cuts are going to be needed and it`ll be the big cost areas being hit most - health, social care, education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 4 Oct 20:29
I`m ready and happy to be corrected on this but doesn`t carbon capture have to where fossil burning power stations are and there is only one of them in Scotland and many more in England.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Fri 4 Oct 22:58
There is zero evidence the Carbon Dioxide that makes up 0.044% of the atmosphere (Little more than a rounding error) has anything to do with the climate.
It`s very important for plant growth though, that`s why the earth is a lot greener since the slight increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution and volcanic eruptions.
The climate scam is consigning your decedents to poverty while is purveyors keep their cars, pets and private jets while chomping on steaks and puffing on big fat cigars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 5 Oct 00:27
Prove it
Edit: That the earth is a lot greener
Post Edited (Sat 05 Oct 00:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 11:35
Quote:
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 5 Oct 00:27
Prove it
Edit: That the earth is a lot greener
Every gardener with a greenhouse knows that heat combined with higher CO2 increases plant yield.
Beyond my anecdotal ramblings, is Yale University OK for you?
https://shorturl.at/dfYX2
Post Edited (Sat 05 Oct 11:39)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Aylesbury_Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 12:21
So you are literally using the greenhouse effect to deny the impact of the Greenhouse Effect on the climate!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 13:01
Mensae conversae, circumversae.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 5 Oct 14:07
Yale university? Would that research have been done by scientists because if so I`m glad you are listening to them.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 14:18
Of course I`m not listening to them, but you are.
I don`t need to listen to them, I have the lived experience of a greenhouse and CO2 enrichment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Sat 5 Oct 14:24
Quote:
Bletchley_Par, Sat 5 Oct 14:18
Of course I`m not listening to them, but you are.
I don`t need to listen to them, I have the lived experience of a greenhouse and CO2 enrichment.
I know you love this bollocks, but CO2 isn`t even the most harmful greenhouse gas, just the most common in the atmosphere.
I`d love a little Fact Checker on the Internet to correct right wing anti-science crap
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 15:25
Water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBA
Date: Sat 5 Oct 17:21
Quote:
Bletchley_Par, Sat 5 Oct 15:25
Water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Have a lie down mate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 17:28
Concentration in the Atmosphere (By Percentage)
Water Vapor: 0.2% to 4% (varies).
Carbon Dioxide: 0.041%.
Methane: 0.00019%.
Nitrous Oxide: 0.00003%.
Ozone: 0.000004%.
CFCs, HFCs, SF₆, PFCs: Trace levels (ppt).
From the NASA Website.
Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat.
Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder. Water vapor is also a key part of Earth’s water cycle: the path that all water follows as it moves around Earth’s atmosphere, land, and ocean as liquid water, solid ice, and gaseous water vapor.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Post Edited (Sat 05 Oct 17:28)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Sat 5 Oct 19:41
£22bn to be spent on 2 English projects. The SG has limited borrowing powers and cant fund to that extent and we are getting screwed everywhere. Of course an Independent Scotland could provide opportunites.
When Longannet closed and 400 jobs were lost we were promised a carbon capture project. It was just another broken promise. When that happened the only option was to close.
The absolute blatant back stabbing comes from the fact that Longannet had to pay £40 million a year to access the grid. If it was based in the south of England it would have actually got a subsidy.
The further south you go the grid charges reduce. The further north you go the grid charges increase. It is a total rip-off. As ever Scotland is losing out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sun 6 Oct 02:21
Quote:
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Sat 5 Oct 19:41
£22bn to be spent on 2 English projects. The SG has limited borrowing powers and cant fund to that extent and we are getting screwed everywhere. Of course an Independent Scotland could provide opportunites.
22 Billion on a scheme that if it works as well as expected (it wont) will "remove" the same amount of CO2 China pumps out in 4 days.
Orca the first large-scale direct air capture and storage plant in Iceland removes and stores 4000 tonnes of CO2 per year, costing over £15,000,000 to build and £3,200,000 running cost per year.
And the cherry on top of the cake here is Capturing CO2 emissions using direct-air-capture (DAC) technology requires almost as much energy as that contained in the fossil fuels that produced the carbon dioxide in the first place!
220,000 trees do the same job, there are currently 2,000,000,000 (2 Billion) trees in Scotland).
Trees don`t cost anything to maintain and after 25 years you can cut them down make a profit and plant even more trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 6 Oct 10:20
I have to admit Bletchley, it really is quite funny how you avoided addressing my post on the other thread yet you continue your nonsense on here.
So let`s share it again:
Actually Bletchley, the principles of enthalpy of Chemical bonds and vibrational energy levels within molecules is taught at both Higher and Advanced Higher level Chemistry and Physics in Scotland. Folk like yourself often point to water in the atmosphere being a "heat trapping gas" and try to use this to claim that climate change is "fake or a "hoax", but very often said folk lack an understanding of the chemical principles behind the phenomenon.
Essentially, molecules can take in energy at quantised levels until a threshold known as the Ground State Dissociation Energy is breached, at which point the molecule dissociates. The energy required to break an O-H bond is far lower than that required to break a C=O bond (note that this is a double covalent bond). The light coming from the sun is of a wavelength corresponding to an energy strong enough to break an OH bond (Plancks constant E=hf) but NOT a C=O bond. The CO2, CO and NOX molecules emitted by combustion are at higher vibrational energy levels because of the heat of the combustion reaction and will basically flee aboot and crash into other molecules such as the Oxygen and Nitrogen in your diagram, dispersing their kinetic energy - see Collision Theory - until said molecules return to the ground state, thus heating the earth. The increased quantity of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere take in sunlight and vibrate and flee aboot again because they cant dissociate and so the cycle continues. And do you really want to try and claim that CO2 is not more abundant in the atmosphere than prior to Industrialisation?
All of those principles mentioned above, I learned in Higher and Advanced Higher Chemistry and Physics in Scotland.
If you alternatively said that Scientists don`t know about the exact mechanisms by which a global temperature increase will affect natural weather phenomena, then you`d actually be presenting a valid point. As it stands, you`re actually just making a fool of yourself by denying observable Chemical and Physical phenomena.
The principle is though that you shouldn`t really spread false information about a topic that you clearly have no idea about. Or will you now simply claim that I have been brainwashed by "Left Wing Universities"?
Anyway, apologies to the other posters for the off topic post. Climate Change deniers just dae ma boax in!
I studied Chemistry at Aberdeen University and then continued to Master level at Heidelberg University in Germany before completing a MSc in Astrophysics at Lund University in Sweden. Is that good enough for you? Or have I been brainwashed by the Communist Science lecturers?
So will you actually address my previous post now?
Post Edited (Sun 06 Oct 10:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 6 Oct 20:57
Aren`t grid charges related to transmission costs?
So it would cost more to distribute energy from a source in the North of Scotland to the population centres in the south of England than from a source much closer geographically.
Are you saying an Independent Scotland would have kept Longannet open?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 6 Oct 21:45
Shouldn`t it cost customers more to buy power from sources further away?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Mon 7 Oct 00:01
The One Who Knocks wrote:
> Shouldn`t it cost customers more to buy power from sources
> further away?
>
>
Well the distribution costs are divided by the number of customers. So a large city far from the source may have cheaper electricity than a small village near the source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Mon 7 Oct 23:52
Even massive Labour donor and Green loony and soon to be Labour Lord Dale Vince called carbon capture a scam on Cathy "so what you`re saying is" Newman`s Times Radio show.
• Hasn`t been operated commercially anywhere in the world.
• No future where it will be commercially viable.
• Methane leeks overlooked.
• Quarter of a million pound per job, economic madness.
https://x.com/i/status/1843210907955912877
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 11 Oct 21:37
Shouldn`t it cost customers more to buy power from sources further away?
I`m sure I read somewhere that it does, but I assume this is only part of the price.
I think this illustrates a couple of points:
One - few people understand the electricity market - for example I have just read that the cost of much of the generated electricity is paid at the locational marginal price, but due to non-convexities present in the wholesale market, some suppliers may incur losses. Now I imagine this could be problematic, but since I have no idea what any of this means I couldn`t say for sure.
Two - this won`t stop people attempting to make political capital.
Who pays for distribution costs in other industries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 11 Oct 23:49
It might be different over there, but here in Oz, 59 degrees Fahrenheit is about 15 degrees Celsius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sat 12 Oct 08:42
OzPar wrote:
> It might be different over there, but here in Oz, 59 degrees
> Fahrenheit is about 15 degrees Celsius.
>
>
But a CHANGE of 59 degrees Fahrenheit is indeed a change of 32.78 degrees Celsius.
You don’t need to add/subtract 32 when dealing with relative changes - just divide by 1.8.
So for example 0 Celsius is 32 Fahrenheit, and 1 degree Celsius is 33.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
Professor Hurricane Jimmy will confirm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sat 12 Oct 09:13
Quote:
Tad Allagash, Mon 7 Oct 00:01
The One Who Knocks wrote:
> Shouldn`t it cost customers more to buy power from sources
> further away?
>
Well the distribution costs are divided by the number of customers. So a large city far from the source may have cheaper electricity than a small village near the source.
I thought I saw some Community projects in England that were going to benefit from wind turbine/turbines being built near them. The article stated that they would get cheaper electricity because of the close proximity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sun 13 Oct 04:27
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 6 Oct 20:57
Aren`t grid charges related to transmission costs?
So it would cost more to distribute energy from a source in the North of Scotland to the population centres in the south of England than from a source much closer geographically.
Are you saying an Independent Scotland would have kept Longannet open?
The way the UK distributes and manages its energy is a joke. It has been ridiculed by many , most recently the CEO of Octopus.
Anybody who thinks Scotland…… the most energy rich nation per head of population…on the planet is getting a good deal from the spivs in WM, or even attempted to argue that we are, or attempts to justify we are “ because it might be worse if we are a normal country” ………..cringe ! epitomises why we are in the state we are in.
What a weak ,meak country we are….. pathetic really. Shame for our old folks and younger generations that we bottled it…
Note…. Sorry I should have said Region , not country because that’s what UK Gov’s call us and that’s what many of our citizens think we are….. and many on here too…. We are just a region, a backwater.
We deserve everything that’s coming to us. Come it will. And it won’t be pleasant….Farage next ?
Post Edited (Sun 13 Oct 04:38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
