idealism2045.bsky.social
34 posts
7 followers
88 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
If water supply is scarce more reservoirs should be built.
It's not hard really.
comment in response to
post
An 'electrostate' with the highest energy prices in the world? Good luck.
comment in response to
post
This study uses RCP8.5 for the 40% loss claim. RCP8.5 is wildly implausible, 50% of energy from coal, billions more people than projected, >$100k GDP per capita. Basing 40% yield loss claims on it risks discrediting climate science when it doesn’t come true.
comment in response to
post
This study uses RCP8.5 for the 40% loss claim. RCP8.5 is wildly implausible, 50% of energy from coal, billions more people than projected, >$100k GDP per capita. Basing 40% yield loss claims on it risks discrediting climate science when it doesn’t come true.
comment in response to
post
This study uses RCP8.5 for the 40% loss claim. RCP8.5 is wildly implausible, 50% of energy from coal, billions more people than projected, >$100k global GDP per capita. Basing 40% yield loss claims on it risks discrediting climate science when it doesn’t come true.
comment in response to
post
This study uses RCP8.5 for the 40% loss claim. RCP8.5 is wildly implausible, 50% of energy from coal, billions more people than projected, >$100k GDP per capita. Basing 40% yield loss claims on it risks discrediting climate science when it doesn’t come true.
comment in response to
post
Nice try Zeke. But no, you know RCP8.5 still pollutes climate science to this day, despite #RCP85isBollox, despite your and Glen's Nature paper, etc, etc. And SSP3-7.0 is no more plausible today than RCP8.5 was ten years ago, yet it's about to be enthroned by the the IPCC in the same way.
comment in response to
post
RCP8.5 is a scenario used by the IPCC and peer-reviewed studies themselves, it's not "denial" to reference it. RCPs (now called SSPs e.g. SSP5-8.5) are not opinions but modelling tools for possible emissions futures; discussing which is plausible isn't relevant to peer review for a paper.
comment in response to
post
The IPCC suggests sea levels will rise by approx 1m by 2100 in the worst case scenario RCP8.5 which sees 50% of all energy coming from coal and massive population rise. We are nowhere near RCP8.5. 4m sea level increase projections are hysterical and are not serious.
comment in response to
post
But think about the savings if they consumed all of that power instead! (they literally argued this in their press release 🤦♂️)
comment in response to
post
Its £60/MWh in 2012 prices. Its actually around £84/MWh in 2024 prices, and linked to inflation.
All CfDs are quoted in 2012 prices but that is not what they are actually being paid.
comment in response to
post
Technology-induced deflation will affect the car industry in the same way deflation has reduced the price of consumer technology like 4K TVs. We will all be driving Ferrari supercars for £40,000 soon. All the industry needed was an innovation arms race from China.
comment in response to
post
Solving high energy prices would help massively.
comment in response to
post
Affordable houses are more important than newts and bats.
Environmental maximalists have no right to oppose changing rules unless they credibly propose reforms that would allow 5-10 million houses to be built.
comment in response to
post
For a QRD the wiki page is better than anything I could explain in a 300 char message wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_order
Essentially it provides stability (so you match supply and demand 24/7) and that stability is worth paying a higher price than the marginal price per method of production.
comment in response to
post
Whoever figures out why people are willing to destroy their reputations for fleeting interactions on X during moments of 'mass disruption' deserves a Nobel Prize in something.
(by disruption I mean some sort of mass event - blackout, war, etc....)
comment in response to
post
I had the faintest glimmer of hope that the tech bros would destroy the funding application bureaucracy (i.e. making it easier to apply for grants like fast grants fastgrants.org or funding more experimental work) but it turned out they just wanted to burn shit down for its own sake
comment in response to
post
At least when someone exposes themselves like this you can make a mental note to approach their future analyses with caution.
It offers insight into their mindset: the tendency to make hasty claims during a crisis in order to gesture toward a political stance.
comment in response to
post
You don't need to balance cake and apple supply with cake and apple demand every second of every day 24/7 and flow of cake and apple generation to apple and cake consumption.
comment in response to
post
Wholesale costs of electricity are only 34% of a bill (electricitybills.uk). Breaking the 'link' would not reduce bills by much. That's before you calculate subsidies. CfDs for offshore wind are generally >£100/MWh. Reducing wholesale costs with less marginal gas would only induce higher subsidy.
comment in response to
post
Wholesale costs of electricity are only 34% of a bill (electricitybills.uk). Breaking the 'link' would not reduce bills by much.
comment in response to
post
In 2024 there were an estimated 11.0% of households (2.73 million) in fuel poverty in England. Price signals are rationing. What demand management actually means, under the guise of efficiency, is that the poorest go cold while the wealthiest continue as usual. It's not management it's abdication.
comment in response to
post
To those in favour of 'demand management' - or more accurately, rationing - are you prepared to tell millions of people they can't afford to turn on the heating or cook dinner because the price of electricity is 50p/kWh or higher? Are you prepared for the backlash and headlines?
comment in response to
post
How do you expect the public react when they see electricity bills continue to rise after politicians promise falling bills? Electricity subsidies (CCL, RO, CfD) *must* fall, not because climate change is not real, but that it is the only lever the gov. currently possesses.
comment in response to
post
The assumptions that make this model output appear favorable are questionable, such as 45% gas efficiency and battery CAPEX of £200/kWh, and some are outright fictitious, including a 25-year lifetime for fossil systems and a 35-year lifetime for solar.
comment in response to
post
Again, I'm not arguing against net zero, but the UK is facing a valley of death, paying high gas prices while simultaneously incurring tens of billions in capital expenditures on renewables, long before seeing any savings from lower wholesale costs. This threatens to derail net zero's legitimacy.
comment in response to
post
@mliebreich.bsky.social @gredmondking.bsky.social @dpcarrington.bsky.social @tombaldwin66.bsky.social @leohickman.carbonbrief.org @drandrewboswell.bsky.social
While gas prices contribute to wholesale costs, wholesale costs contribute less than 50% of retail/business cost.
comment in response to
post
While I respect your highlight of European nations, I suggest that we must maintain a global outlook as ultimately it is global emissions which matter. The picture isn't so good.
comment in response to
post
Insulate those copper pipes, the radiators and water got noticeably hotter after I insulated mine!