Guessing maybe £45,000 when Skoda has their version.    EDIT.  sorry thought the previous post of this youtube had crashed..

 

 

Edited 20 September, 20187 yr by Offski

Wrt the UK wholesale power price, Ofgem show it as around £55/MWh here:

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-prices-day-ahead-baseload-contracts-monthly-average-gb

So that brand-new windfarm I mentioned is priced at three times the going rate, not four as I said; apologies.

 

The previous comments were about wind & solar. The same source shows them as contributing 19.2 TWh in Q1 against a total of c. 93 => 21%.

The 30% figure includes hydro, biomass, etc.. That is just electricity of course.

 

" Climate change / global warming by burning fossil fuel is not a debate, it is a fact. " That's not how science works. If it was we would still be convinced that the sun orbits the earth. Climate change is a theory driven by computer models. Those models are running hot compared to hard data from satellites and weather radiosondes. The world has been hotter - and colder - in the recent past. We are still here. Climate changes: that's what it does.

 

 

More here on MEB

 

Vw planning to build 10 million in first wave????

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6176457/Volkswagen-group-plans-build-10-million-e-cars-wave.html

Wind turbines all over hills in Scotland and growing in numbers offshore, Hydro Systems with lochs, rivers & reservoirs & only under 6 million people to use the electricity then there is still the Nuclear Generation and Gas Powered 

so it needs storing or transmitting to where it gets used or Bill Payers are paying for profits to the generators and to those not generating.

 

Making Electricity is not difficult, it is just the UK Governments that can not get their acts together.

2015 Scottish government figures for energy:

Renewables 42%

Nuclear 34.7%

Fossil fuels 22%

Gas 3.7

 

Of course being the Scottish Government this adds up to more than 100%

 

https://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/TrendElectricity

 

It's not clear why this is not reported annually but given that fossil fuel power stations have been closed down and more wind turbines have been installed the 2018 figures should have tilted more towards renewables.

 

 

A more reliable source.

http://fraserofallander.org/scottish/economy/energy/scotlands-record-year-for-renewables

 

Certainly more up to date.

The Turbine convoys travelling and causing chaos on the A96 every week are being erected and starting generating not long after, 

the new offshore turbines in the bay off Trump International Aberdeen are now generating and more are every month around the UK.

On stream in the Moray Firth now as well.

Other new schemes also generating energy so their can only be an increase in renewables unless other schemes are closing down.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44847202

 

Edited 20 September, 20187 yr by Offski

7 hours ago, MikeHig said:

Wrt the UK wholesale power price, Ofgem show it as around £55/MWh here:

 

 

" Climate change / global warming by burning fossil fuel is not a debate, it is a fact. " That's not how science works. If it was we would still be convinced that the sun orbits the earth. Climate change is a theory driven by computer models. Those models are running hot compared to hard data from satellites and weather radiosondes. The world has been hotter - and colder - in the recent past. We are still here. Climate changes: that's what it does.

 

 

I remember in the 50s about the Antarctic ice core sampling and commencement of sea surface temperature sampling.

They 99+% of papers submitted for peer review align with the data and theory first expressed in the mid 1800s.

If you wish to provide research based data that does not concur, I’m pretty certain it will be examined thoroughly and you will become somewhat famous for your unique knowledge.

The internet is a dangerous tool.

This makes sense as a first step to fuel cell vehicles.  Probably only needing one fuel point near the docks for shuttle service to remote transfer of trailer to ICE powered tractor.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1118877_toyota-enters-82-million-partnership-to-roll-out-hydrogen-trucks-in-los-angeles-port

15 hours ago, MikeHig said:

" Climate change / global warming by burning fossil fuel is not a debate, it is a fact. " That's not how science works. If it was we would still be convinced that the sun orbits the earth. Climate change is a theory driven by computer models. Those models are running hot compared to hard data from satellites and weather radiosondes. The world has been hotter - and colder - in the recent past. We are still here. Climate changes: that's what it does.

I worded that badly, sorry. It is considered scientific consensus that man-made climate change is direct result of burning fossil fuel.

 

The world has fluctuating temperature is true, but here is the actual facts:

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/temperature-is-rising

The graph on the right of the following page shows the scientific consensus, this page also lists "scientists" who have hidden agendas, usually funding from fossil fuel industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Methane too.  A mere 600 years ago with a population of 350M man commenced the husbanding of animals for increased consumption of meat.  Farming has been a large contributor along with a population increase of 21 X

Deleted

 

Edited 21 September, 20187 yr by xman
Got my maths wrong

15 hours ago, Odin1123 said:

Renewables 42%

Nuclear 34.7%

Fossil fuels 22%

Gas 3.7

And it's not as simple as them having counted gas twice, which was my first thought.

Scottish Government statistics are always going to be dodgy, there was the Labour Fiddle or fuddles, Labour / Liberal, Democrat that  ex Liberal Democrat Leader in Scotland is the biggest name in Wind. Baron Nicol Stephen.

 

So you can be sure that they know about Wind and Water, or Pish and ****e.   

  Keith Brown MSP has been leader in chief on Bull Sh!t along with Alex Salmond, Ex MP ex MSP, 

Ex MSP & MP at the same time even.

Frankfurt divided over older diesel ban -

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180920/ANE/180929992/frankfurt-diesel-ban-challenged-by-regional-government?cciid=email-ane-daily

3 hours ago, KenONeill said:

And it's not as simple as them having counted gas twice, which was my first thought.

 

Why is Gas never called a fossil fuel? Its a biological by product just like oil and coal and also produces CO2,NOx,SO2,H2S like fossil fuels.

My old 2 stroke chainsaw might get the shove too -

https://electrek.co/2018/09/21/green-deals-ryobi-14-inch-40v-electric-chainsaw-for-169-more/

Interesting reference to Arrhenius' original theory that CO2 drives temperature change which formed the basis for today's climate science. The first version, at the end of the 19th century, estimated temperature swings of 5+ degrees Celsius for a doubling or halving of CO2 levels, much as we hear today. Ironically his updated version of 1906 gets little visibility: it downgraded the temperature swings to around +/- 1.5 degrees which is much closer to actual observations and significantly cooler than model predictions.

The ice core data was first taken as confirmation of the theory but, as measuring techniques improved, it became clear that, instead of leading temperature change, CO2 levels lagged behind, typically by 800 - 1000 years. This fits much better with the view that changes in temperature of the oceans cause offgassing (heating up) or adsorption (cooling) of CO2.

As for methane, it is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 but there are two qualifiers to that. Firstly, that is under laboratory conditions where it is tested in isolation. In the real atmosphere it is a different story because its absorption spectrum is largely blanketed by water vapour. Secondly, its concentration is very low, about 200 times less than CO2. Incidentally, let's not forget the 600lb gorilla in the room. Water vapour is by far the dominant greenhouse gas, present in concentrations up to 400 times higher than CO2.

This is all run-of-the-mill stuff which is very much in the public domain, for example in testimonies to US government commitees by the likes of Drs John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry.

Within the present interglacial temperatures have been higher than today, substantially so in the Holocene Optimum (when the Arctic was probably ice-free). The world did not self-combust. We are still here - so are the polar bears.

In the early 20th century temperatures rose in a similar fashion to the increase seen at the end of the century but there was not much change in CO2. In the middle of the century they fell at a similar rate which prompted the ice age scare - remember "snowball earth"? In the same timeframe CO2 levels rose slightly.

One way to validate a theory is to compare its results with real-world observational data. Multiple sets of satellite and radiosonde readings show that the world has not warmed up to the extent predicted by the models. Other predictions have failed: the "hotspot" in the upper tropical atmosphere has not apeared; Arctic ice has not disappeared and is recovering in a pattern which may be cyclical (there is anecdotal evidence of a similar collapse in ice cover early last century).

 

This post has become far too long and this is not the place for such discussions: my mistake for raising the issue. Let's leave it there.

^^^^^ If this is a unique observation I suggest you submit it.

E-Golf -

https://electrek.co/2018/09/24/vw-neo-electric-car-battery-configurations-price-report/

 

Tesla in the Netherlands -

https://electrek.co/2018/09/24/tesla-new-large-facility-european-factory/

"The plant has an indoor test-track for quality testing before the cars go out to new owners."

 

 

That looks a really rigorous test track....

9 hours ago, MikeHig said:

This is all run-of-the-mill stuff which is very much in the public domain, for example in testimonies to US government commitees by the likes of Drs John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry.

This is the issue here. The 3 names do appear on the Wikipedia list I linked earlier, and they are likely acting as "expert witness" to generate doubt and debate for political purposes. They do not represent the majority scientific community.

 

Most people in public domain does not understand the scientific process and wording. Peer review is the scientific process, and things that had been peer reviewed are considered the best scientific fact we know today. The word "theory" is only used because this may be proven wrong in the future, but public domain people take it as an uncertain opinion.

 

When it's snowing, I work on my best knowledge that my workplace is likely to be open for business. So I act based on the best knowledge I have.

The best knowledge we have currently is the peer reviewed scientific consensus that climate change is directly caused by human activities. So it's best we act on it.

 

 

This book gives a really good account of past events, how a handful of scientists and businesses generated doubt and debate regarding clear scientific conclusions. How mass media only circulated the debate and repeated cases where only the scientific journals published the peer reviewed truth.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1408824833 

There should be no doubt, no debate, no opposing views in the public domain on topics already gained scientific consensus. It's like you wouldn't question the Earth is round would you?

The taxpayer is the overwhelming funder of one side and the other side is overwhelmingly funded by .............

31 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

. It's like you wouldn't question the Earth is round would you?

 

Obviously not heard of the Flat earth society...or of the creationists/intelligent design lot who think that the earth is no more than about 6000yrs old....

 

& those people/theory's are gaining more momentum as their attitude is that its all a conspiracy & that scientist know nothing...& when you start to explain in detail to them you prove they know nothing scientific...at which point they get personal...had these discussions...even about DNA testing....some locals who were having a go at me for not being from here...so I reiterated info on DNA testing done a couple of years ago on the oldest family's in this area (which included the people I was having an argument with)..they found that they in fact came from the Spanish main....the reply I got back was "what do scientists know anyway?"......

 

Ignorance is bliss...…& the movement of "if you can't understand the info, don't bother to educate yourself, just state its all a conspiracy & stamp your feet & shout & heckle".....is gaining more followers...survival of the thickest....

Edited 25 September, 20187 yr by fabdavrav