Printable View
As are most of the CFCs. From memory India has a good bit of CFC production also. I mean, why wouldn't you? They're mature technology, easy to make and pretty much ideal in their use.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Halon hasn't been replaced in aircraft because there's still no replacement that ticks all the boxes. I still remember all the BCF extinguishers we had dotted around the boats over the years and was highly unimpressed when we had to trade those in for dry powder.
Share your thoughts on dry powder- Noting more than a few warm beer cans chilled icy cold by an older type of boat Beer Chiller Whoops I mean fire extinguisher [biggrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by BradC
CO2 for cooling beer. Dry powder just makes a terrible mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyDiver
I read somewhere ( I think in this thread) that 91% of new electricity capacity in the World is from renewables.
I have attached this article which demonstrates that of that 91% claimed it is probably only 10% as renewables exponents are always quoting "nameplate rating" which I hope we all know is a totally inadequate way of measuring renewable capacity seeing that wind for example rarely contributes more than 30% of "nameplate rating" and very often much less.
We Should Not Compare Electricity Sources Using Nameplate Ratings – Watts Up With That?
Regards PhilipA
While it is obviously true that the nameplate rating isn't an accurate measure of the actual output, it would be good to get a more reliable source than "Watts Up With That?" to know what a more realistic figure would be.
"Watts Up With That?" is known to be an unreliable source of information.
Attachment 176710
According to the climate change religious and Michael Mann who was involved in the Climategate "hide the decline " scandal.Quote:
Watts Up With That?" is known to be an unreliable source of information.
Perhaps it would be an idea to open up to alternative points of view, just like the Eu has now done by recognising that gas is "green" LOL.
Some interesting articles on WUWT , some by Jennifer Mahoresy showing how the BOM is corrupting data and using one second maximum temperature readings not the World Standard.
Or would many prefer to believe David Attenborough who has now admitted driving walruses off a cliff to promote climate change.
Regards PhilipA
I'm not entering the climate change debate, but based on the worldwide stigma surrounding the release of carbon into the atmosphere I can't quite get my head around this. It's like saying burning biomass is clean, green energy. Aside from a couple of (hundred) thousand years, what's the difference between biomass (wood chips/pellets) and coal? Both release an equivalent amount of carbon when burned and ultimately both came from the same place.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Are they trying to say that because they plant trees they can burn cut down trees and it's net-zero? Where the hell are all these newly planted trees growing at a rate that offsets the mass being burned?
I'm all for "clean" power, but call it what it is. It's not clean and it's not green. Then again, I suppose calling it green allows Europe to flagellate the rest of the first world for not having a high enough percentage of "green" power.
Solar is approaching green, if they can figure out what to do with the dead cells, wind power will never get there. About the greenest power we have on the planet is hydro (or the N word).
According to this site, your criticism of Michael Mann is not justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
That site concludesSkeptical Science" appears to be a more reliable source of information than "Watt's Up With That?"Quote:
a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.
"Attachment 176719
Quote:
February 2010. the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
Pen state Uni is Mann's Alma Mater.
There is no debate that the emails between University of East Anglia and Mann stated "how do we hide the decline"
the Hockey stick Graph was based on tree rings from ONE tree up until they became unreliable and Mann then switched in the 20th century to another basis , which you cannot do .
Look I am not going to get into a debate about climate change especially when the debate uses Ad hominem abuse , which means the abuser has already lost.
The topic we are discussing is various governments' responses to believed climate change ie the rush to renewables.
The article in WUWT discussed Government responses to climate change, and surely this is a topic of interest without the need for instant denigration.
There are some other articles now posted discussing erosion of blades on sea based wind generators causing 4.5% PA reduction in output from salt erosion and questioning the UK Government agency calculations of per KWh costs for sea based wind generators .
Interesting stuff.
That investigation was one of six independent investigations.
The article explained that the "decline" did not refer to a decline in temperature. That comment did not mean what critics have claimed it meant.
Am I being accused of playing the man not the ball? All I have done is provide evidence of the dubious reliability of some of your sources.
I am not trying to get you into a debate about climate change. I am just trying to get you to look more closely at the reliability of sources of information that you are quoting.
