Is climate change a fraud?

[Markduc]

[Happier diner]

51 minutes ago, HeliX said:

You know this is a daft argument, surely?

The electricity produced by the power station is considerably cleaner than the equivalent energy produced by burning fuel in combustion engines.

That's correct. The powers station only produces CO2 and water from the gas turbines. No horrible micro pollutants like a diesel car/van produces......well apart from when they are running the diesels of course. 

[b4mbi]

25 minutes ago, HeliX said:

The key word being potential, of course. The only people it's really in the best interests of are Crogga's shareholders. There is legitimate debate to be had about giving our national resources to a private company. I also have little faith in the Govt's ability to negotiate a reasonable deal for Manx people with Crogga. And the gas won't be available for another 10 or so years anyway.

If the gas is there, and if they can locate and extract without damaging the environment, and if the Manx public gets a considerable amount of the benefit, I'll be for it (though it may well come too late). My concern is most of those ifs will turn out not to work in our favour, and the Govt will use the whole exercise as an excuse not to develop energy independence because "Oh we're waiting to see what comes of the gas", and we'll be 10 years down the line with fuck all done.

You're wide of the mark on many levels I'm afraid.

It was proved in 1982 gas is present.

You'd trust government to develop the field? It's the global norm for the development of the resource to be given to a private company. The government risks no money and stands to gain massively from the license terms which will already be agreed (cap on price at 80p/therm  and the tax rate on extraction)

They can do this because the Island will only use 5% of the volume of the field. The other 95% will be sold via the existing gas interconnector at market rates. 

So to say its only Crogga shareholders (most of whom are local by the way) are the only ones to benefit if the project is successful is just wrong, although they are the ones putting their money where mouths are and taking the financial risk.

Why wouldn't government take this chance with no risk to itself? It would pay for the transition to renewables and generate a national wealth fund, providing energy to the Island that is not dictated by uninfluencable market/geopolitical forces.

It will take as long to install new interconnectors as it will to be in a position to benefit from the gas, and interconnectors still leaves you vulnerable to the UK/market energy prices.

Whether the greens like it or not, natural gas will still make up 30/40% of the global energy supply by 2050, and we will be relying upon our gas power station until at least 2040 realistically.

Our field will be developed and used for carbon capture within 20 years and the Island will be sustainably energy self sufficient. 

My understanding is the licence terms agreed also include provisions that the overall development is carbon neutral, so the plan is that wind turbines will be installed as part of the overall development to provide power for the small gas cleaning plant that will be required, with excess being sold back to MUA possibly.

So actually, the project is proposing to install the first MW wind turbine on the Island to meet the conditions of the licence.

How much more can be expected? 

Our emissions are but a drop in the ocean globally, trying to reduce that to half a drop spending long millions the government doesn't have is nonsensical. 

The greens have no realistic plan how to finance the renewables. 

The gas field is a golden opportunity for the Island it really is and I really struggle to understand people that can't see this. 

Think mini-Norway.

 

[ellanvannin2010]

10 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

That's correct. The powers station only produces CO2 and water from the gas turbines. No horrible micro pollutants like a diesel car/van produces......well apart from when they are running the diesels of course. 

Wasn't there a similar push, some 20 odd years ago, to what is now occuring with the EV towards people getting diesel vehicles as this helped the UK meet it's emissions targets?

 

[Markduc]

16 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

That's correct. The powers station only produces CO2 and water from the gas turbines. No horrible micro pollutants like a diesel car/van produces......well apart from when they are running the diesels of course. 

Or they are burning bio fuels like drax ps , that strangely enough produces more pollution than when it was coal fired 

[Two-lane]

2 minutes ago, Markduc said:

Or they are burning bio fuels like drax ps , that strangely enough produces more pollution than when it was coal fired 

The things you find out by reading this forum....

"The report estimated that ozone from wood-based energy to meet the European Union’s 2020 goal would cause nearly 1,400 premature deaths a year, costing society $7.1 billion."

[Markduc]

3 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

The things you find out by reading this forum....

"The report estimated that ozone from wood-based energy to meet the European Union’s 2020 goal would cause nearly 1,400 premature deaths a year, costing society $7.1 billion."

Shows how much bullshit the so called greens are talking 

[SleepyJoe]

50 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

The things you find out by reading this forum....

"The report estimated that ozone from wood-based energy to meet the European Union’s 2020 goal would cause nearly 1,400 premature deaths a year, costing society $7.1 billion."

This hasn't been sited in reputable online publications in 10 years - perhaps someone found a cure for it

[Two-lane]

Who knows what is going on. On the one hand there theoreticists saying that the Northwest passage will soon be open 24 months a years, and then there is the actuality of this:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/2021/11/23/russia-sends-nuclear-powered-icebreakers-to-rescue-at-least-18-ships-stranded-in-artic/#:~:text=As many as 21 cargo ships may have,coast%2C a remote region near the Bering Strait.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

 

2 hours ago, HeliX said:

I'm not advocating the removal of IC power in any use case at the moment. What I am doing is saying that talking about the way the electricity is generated like that cancels out the use of EVs is daft.

Indeed here's an interesting video that compares both IC and EV and which pollutes more - long but worth a watch:

 

A lot of EV drivers also have solar and use the solar to refill the car.

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by Ham_N_Eggs

[Newsdesk]

2 hours ago, HeliX said:

What I am doing is saying that talking about the way the electricity is generated like that cancels out the use of EVs is daft.

No what you’re saying is that reality doesn’t currently align with your beliefs. We generate all our power here from natural gas. Of course talking about the way power is generated is valid. 

[Cambon]

3 hours ago, Two-lane said:

They published a report in 2013 that also said global temperatures have not risen in fifteen years.

Meanwhile in the desolate, frozen, wastelands of northern Ramsey, it is 16 C in the middle of summer.

Sorry, not summer yet. Still spring. 

[Two-lane]

4 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Sorry, not summer yet. Still spring. 

Are you here for the 5 minute argument or the full half-hour?

[Cambon]

1 minute ago, Two-lane said:

Are you here for the 5 minute argument or the full half-hour?

Oh, the full half hour😆

[HeliX]

48 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

No what you’re saying is that reality doesn’t currently align with your beliefs. We generate all our power here from natural gas. Of course talking about the way power is generated is valid. 

No, I'm saying that the vast majority of the time someone responds to any suggestion of EVs with "but power stations" it's because they're an idiot. It is more efficient to turn fossil fuels into electricity in a nice big efficient power station, and then use that electricity to propel a car, than it is to burn petrol in cars to achieve the same result.