Author Topic: GG Comments on Religion  (Read 449 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2017, 01:00:16 pm »
***thread relevancy alert*** ala the GG, I scoff at the religion of the denaliti and its agent-in-arms TimG

What I said is Germany had "hit the limit" when it comes to renewable power - meaning I acknowledged that they had increased it but they are the point of a diminishing returns. More importantly, they have to rely on coal for the foreseeable future to provide base load because they closed their nuclear stations. The graphs are completely irrelevant when you consider my point (waldo always does this - when he can't refute the point I make, he piles on with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense and hopes to overwhelm people with detail. In your case his deception appears to have worked).

again, on display: your unsubstantiated opinion! Just released report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance --- Beyond the tipping point: flexibility gaps in future high-renewable energy systems in the UK, Germany and the Nordics’ --- UK & Germany on course for 50% renewables by mid 2020s
http://images.electricalsector.eaton.com/Web/EatonElectrical/%7B0bb6db95-4584-4578-bcce-4d1ecd60de93%7D_Exec_Summary_Beyond_the_tipping_point_EN.pdf

Quote
Key findings

    - Economic tipping points mean renewable energy will account for over half of electricity generation by the mid-2020s in the UK and Germany
    - Renewable energy will meet more demand, more often – driving opportunities for flexibility including storage and increased usage of interconnectors
    - System volatility will increase markedly in the UK and Germany – providing opportunities for fast-ramping resources, but creating a challenging environment for non-variable baseload technologies such as nuclear
    - Due to lengthy seasonally induced renewable generation gaps, the total back-up capacity needed in 2040 is much the same as in 2017. The ongoing need for this capacity, combined with significant drops in its utilisation, harms the economics of non-renewable generation plants such as coal and gas
    - A future energy system in the UK and Germany dominated by variable renewable generation must be complemented by flexible resources – in particular storage. The Nordics’ spare flexibility presents opportunities via interconnectors to plug the potential flexibility gaps in the UK and Germany

Another, less important point, is graphs like the one waldo provided are deceptive because they include "biomass" (e.g. burning trees) as a renewable. I don't consider this sustainable because our power needs vastly exceed the number of trees that can be grown if countries like China and India jumped on the bandwagon.

don't eat that Elmer... that there's TimG bullshyte! Germany's Bioenergy is principally Biogas from energy crops... but also includes Biogenic Waste, Liquid Biomass and... Solid Biomass which predominantly burn residual and non-recyclable waste wood to produce power and heat. Hey Timmay, if you want to challenge this, put up the respective MW for each of these 4 categories of biomass... sure you will!  ;D

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2017, 01:08:54 pm »
Yet the assumption wss that life was created; it was people using science that gradually called that assumption into question and eventually demonstrated that divine intervention was not the only answer and that the science argued against it.
You seem to be missing the point. Belief in a divinity and science are not mutually exclusive. Science does not/cannot/should not concern itself with the existence of the divine because to do so undermines the purpose of science: to find answers. As soon as you presume a divine, science becomes meaningless because if you don't understand something then 'god did it'. However, saying that science cannot concern itself with questions of the divine does not mean people who do concern themselves with a divine are necessarily wrong. The most science can say is there is no scientific basis for their beliefs which is different from saying it is false. OTOH, people who believe in a divine need to be careful not dismiss the value of scientific explanations.


Offline segnosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1557
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2017, 01:17:14 pm »
The most science can say is there is no scientific basis for their beliefs which is different from saying it is false.  OTOH, people who believe in a divine need to be careful not dismiss the value of scientific explanations.
The issue here however is that a certain group of people (i.e. the creationists) are pushing a "theory" that has no basis in fact.

There is no way to address the lack of scientific basis for creationism without saying it is false.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2017, 02:14:44 pm »
The issue here however is that a certain group of people (i.e. the creationists) are pushing a "theory" that has no basis in fact.
They are wrong because they are trying to construct a "scientific" theory based on the assumption of the divine which completely undermines the point of science. That does not means the belief that the divine wrong - just that the question is irrelevant to science and trying to conflate the two is wrong headed.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2017, 02:26:35 pm »
They are wrong because they are trying to construct a "scientific" theory based on the assumption of the divine which completely undermines the point of science. That does not means the belief that the divine wrong - just that the question is irrelevant to science and trying to conflate the two is wrong headed.

I don't think those who are duped into creationism/divinity are bothered by anything scientific at all. In fact they don't like science because it provides so many challenges to them.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2017, 03:01:33 pm »
Can we put the climate change talk elsewhere?
FWIW - I try not to derail threads by trying to connect the AGW issue back to the thread topic (in this case it is relevant since the GG did attack "AGW deniers"). Unfortunately, waldo has an attitude to every variation from his interpretation of the AGW religion must be attacked and he usually responds with a bewildering array of irrelevant and tangential comments that don't actually address the often nuanced points I wish to make. At a certain point I have to just ignore him and hope the readers can see though his tactics.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2017, 03:25:36 pm »
FWIW - I try not to derail threads by trying to connect the AGW issue back to the thread topic (in this case it is relevant since the GG did attack "AGW deniers"). Unfortunately, waldo has an attitude to every variation from his interpretation of the AGW religion must be attacked and he usually responds with a bewildering array of irrelevant and tangential comments that don't actually address the often nuanced points I wish to make. At a certain point I have to just ignore him and hope the readers can see though his tactics.

Providing evidence to back up his claims is a pretty good tactic I'd say.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2017, 04:00:24 pm »
Providing evidence to back up his claims is a pretty good tactic I'd say.
Only when it is relevant to the argument being made. Overwhelming people with a bunch of information that does not address the the original argument is deceptive. It also completely derails discussion threads which is the bigger issue.

guest4

  • Guest
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2017, 04:10:31 pm »
Only when it is relevant to the argument being made. Overwhelming people with a bunch of information that does not address the the original argument is deceptive. It also completely derails discussion threads which is the bigger issue.

It looked to be relevant to me.  You made claims about Germany"s use of renewables vs. coal and Waldo presented data about Germany's use of renewables vs. coal.  How is that not relevant?   It's clear you disagree with the data he presented but dismissing it as irrelevant to your argument is a very weak argument.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2017, 04:27:33 pm »
It looked to be relevant to me.  You made claims about Germany"s use of renewables vs. coal and Waldo presented data about Germany's use of renewables vs. coal.  How is that not relevant?
I made the argument that Germany had hit the limit with renewable and was relying on coal for base load.  Implicit is that statement is an acknowledgement that Germany had been increasing renewables so a chart showing that Germany did exactly what I implied it was doing is quite irrelevant. To actually address the question of Germany's continued need for coal because renewables are not technically able to replace it requires a fairly in depth understanding how the electrical system works (something I have because of my work) and it is not something that can be addressed with dueling links to blog posts. In the end, people who want to believe in the AGW religion will downplay any information that makes their religion edicts seem unobtainable and people who do not  wish to join the AGW cult will downplay information that suggests there is a urgent need to do something. I take the attitude is we should do something if and only if it makes economic sense without relying on notoriously unreliable future guesses of costs or the emergence of currently unavailable technology.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 04:31:45 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2017, 04:33:39 pm »
I made the argument that Germany had hit the limit with renewable and was relying on coal for base load.  Implicit is that statement is an acknowledgement that Germany had been increasing renewables so a chart showing that Germany did exactly what I implied it was doing is quite irrelevant. To actually address the question of Germany's continued need for coal because renewables are not technically able to replace it requires a fairly in depth understanding how the electrical system works (something I have because of my work) and it is not something that can be addressed with dueling links to blog posts. In the end, people who want to believe in the AGW religion will downplay any information that casts doubt on the tenants of their religion and people who do not  wish to join the AGW cult will downplay information that suggests there is a urgent need to do something. I take the attitude is we should do something if and only if it makes economic sense without relying on notoriously unreliable future guesses of costs or the emergence of currently unavailable technology.

Once again, AGW is not a cult or a religion, it is a measurable scientific fact. And not only does it make economic sense to proceed, it's also showing a little compassion to the many thousands of humans who die prematurely as they succumb to poor air quality.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2017, 04:45:26 pm »
Once again, AGW is not a cult or a religion, it is a measurable scientific fact.
You are as bad a creationist. AGW meaning CO2 causes warming is a measurable scientific fact. The idea that we must immediately impose any number of draconian measures to pretend to reduce CO2 emissions *is* a religion. Learn the difference. When I talk about AGW religion or AGW cult I am talking about the people who obsess about CO2 in the same way pro-lifers obsess about other people's bodies. I am not talking about the simple acknowledgement of the scientifically established link between increased CO2 and warming.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 04:48:17 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2017, 04:48:19 pm »
You are as bad a creationist. AGW meaning CO2 causes warning is a measurable scientific fact. The idea that we must immediately impose any number of draconian measures to pretend to reduce CO2 emissions *is* a religion. Learn the difference.

I'm quite aware of the difference. Apparently so is Germany. Among many others, including Canada.

While the mining union opposes a planned phase-out, coal regions have slowly accepted that the end of coal mining is in sight; and their leaders are already bargaining for federal funds to finance the economic transformation of their states. In the end, the question is not if, but when, Germany finally says goodbye to coal.

https://energytransition.org/2017/07/the-future-of-germanys-energiewende/

Learn the facts.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2017, 04:52:13 pm »
Learn the facts.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/greens-scale-back-policy-demands-german-coalition-talks

Quote
The FDP is strictly against a quick pull-out from coal-fired power. The party’s leader, Christian Lindner, said he would prefer to see more development aid pumped into climate protection instead, suggesting that Germany might suffer energy supply shortfalls if power stations were shut down. The Greens insist Germany produces far more electricity than it needs so shortages are not to be feared.
Politicians posture but the people running the system are telling the German leadership that Germany is stuck with coal for now.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: GG Comments on Religion
« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2017, 05:08:47 pm »
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/greens-scale-back-policy-demands-german-coalition-talks
Politicians posture but the people running the system are telling the German leadership that Germany is stuck with coal for now.

And here's what the people running the system say:

In addition, the government has moved eight lignite coal-power plants into what’s called a “cold capacity reserve”. These plants, totaling 2.7 gigawatts of capacity, will only be re-activated if Germany’s power supply unexpectedly cannot meet demand. However, experts think it is unlikely the plants will ever be used again; with many referring to the reserve as “Jurassic Park”.