Aidan,

1. "Ultimately Engie made a commercial decision to close it because it was inefficient and unsafe." Yes but a commercial decision based on government bias against the station. You might not agree with the author's interpretation of the causes of the closure but that doesn't make those interpretations an error. The author's views are perfectly defensible.

2. "He falsely implied that there were recent blackouts in SA"
Oh so now the author is IMPLYING things that you think are wrong. He writes things that are right but you read things into it that are wrong and then call that an error. O'kaaaay!

3. The author specifically said what his percentages refer to. You misunderstood that and now claim that your misunderstanding means the author was wrong. Again its fine to argue that his numbers may mislead the unwary (such as yourself) but that doesn't make it an error.

Aidan, I hope you're sitting down when you read this...just because you don't agree with someone's interpretation of events or use of numbers doesn't mean they're erroneous.

To put a less flattering light on it, you didn't like the conclusions the author reached and wanted to dismiss them based on supposed error, but had to effectively make up the errors.

Hasbeen/runner

Have I ever written that there were no major extreme events in the past?
It’s a bit like the comment from Peter Lang, where he stated that the climate has always changed, the film referenced below about ice cores featuring Richard Alley says exactly that. Richard Alley explains in the film that very major volcanic eruptions and other extreme events show up where expected on the time line displayed by the ice cores. Richard Alley explained also that the very features that deniers bring up as possibilities other than anthropogenic climate change have all been considered.

Richard Alley in the film comments on how WUWT completely misrepresented a study he had published, he is not complimentary to say the least!

After 8 minutes into the video Richard Alley talks about how the warmth take up by CO2 needs to be considered in how missile route is tweaked to take into account that warmth.
By the way, Richard Alley does not subscribe to Green politics, he states he is a Republican, elsewhere.

http://youtu.be/c90nab5i-TQ

Back modelling, meaning using objective data from the past and looking for features which influence climate also uphold anthropogenic climate change.

mhaze, as per usual is quite aggressive, aggression is used to hide lack of any evidence based arguments. Where are the references?

I provided 3 references created before climate change denial began in earnest, the graph put out by Exxon scientists is quite accurate for current time. mhaze has shown an inability to read graphs. No comments about the Shell reference?
Extracts from a further report about what was known about fossil fuels produced by Stanford Research Institute scientists for the American Institute of Petroleum in 1968:

http://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16

Coal-fired power, how good is it?

Well for starters the energy coefficient is 20%. Because as much as 80% of the energy is consumed spinning things. Another 75% in transmission/distribution losses.

To effectively arrive at your metre box, with just 5% of the generated energy. Even so, you cover 100% of that cost/whatever price gouged profit the provider/government of the add. Plus a surety of supply, tariff.

Could this be done better, minus most of the in-house loses spinning things, losses due to resistant factors?

Yes and mandatory if we're to keep using and exporting coal!? Or eliminate most of the CO2 component of coal-fired power as well as all the friction and inertia losses.

Flameless heat will be required to effectively cook out all the methane from the coal. This methane will need to be piped directly to the end user. To power up, methane consuming, onsite ceramic fuel cells, where the exhaust product? Mostly pristine water vapour.

The energy coefficient of this combination being 80%.

75% more at your metre box, than the current delivery system. Moreover, all wires transformers/things spinning are eliminated. Solid state technology eliminates wear and tear failures/maintenance etc-etc.

Pipes buried below ground are less subject to the vagaries of climate and wildfires.

Meaning such a system would remain uninterrupted by fire, tempest and flood! Be largely carbon fee and more profitable over time than current practice. And flick of a switch reliable, 24/7!

Some of the gas can be stored in simple bladders so solar thermal could be considered as the flameless heat source?

We currently have around 700 years worth of coal. Could extend by centuries as well as, make the gas available as a general use CO2 (40%) reducing, transitional transport fuel! Thereby making an annual 26 billion available for other purposes.

A national gas grid, rapid rail, etc-etc.

In any event, the only coal-fired scenario able to get finance after corporate due diligence! Should've happened over a decade ago, when it would've cost half!
Alan B.

Alan, "UK Climate Change Chief Demands Ban on Domestic Gas", so not too sure your gas idea is a good one. Of course the fact that the same Lord Deben has extensive interests in windmills might be more responsible than his greeny ideals on this.

Ant what would you be babbling on about if we had a 26 year drought? I reckon it would be proof that carbon based energy was at fault to you.

Just what do you think was producing all that CO2, when there was a 26 year drought in Queensland, so bad that it produced no sediment deposits, [none at all] just before Captain Cook came cruising by. May be the aboriginals had SUVs we don't know about.

Or how about the federation drought, when the waters of the Darling became so toxic that they could not be drunk by man or beast.

I could go on but trying to convince a fool is a fools game.

The man (?) who wrote..."You really ought to read more science" complains about aggression! Oh dear.

ant,

Providing links to this or that is fine and good and I do it more than most. But all you've done, and what you do more often than not, is link to something without the slightest effort to show its relevance.

What, pray tell, do you think the Exxon papers you've linked to tell us about climate scepticism then or now? You put up some links to great screeds of data and demand I disprove it. But there's no need to disprove it. I skimmed it and agree, in the main, with what I read.

I quoted from one of the papers to show why I agree with it. You, who raised the issue, haven't offered any quotes or even commentary as to why the papers prove anything of use to your assertions.

Its the same as the last time who went so disastrously down this path where you simply asserted that the Exxon papers proved the skeptics wrong and then assiduously refused to show how.

As to the graph which you think I've misread, while temperatures rose by about 0.7c by 2020, it shows a prediction they will rise by about 1c by 2020 ie about 50% more than the actual. Please explain why you think I've got that wrong.

Just throwing out links to this or that means nothing. Explain why you think your links say anything meaningful.

Whew, seems to be a lot of waffle on this thread.
First one; Y2K was a fraud.
NO IT WASN'T !
Mhaze and others must have lived a protected life.
Many programmers earned a lot of money checking and testing programs.
Many programs had been written, say 20 years earlier, and then updated
from time to time. A friend of mine made a lot of money on it.
For fifty years or more it was customary to only use two digits for year.
If you input 00 for 2000 the program would blow up after a sort.
Programs had to be altered to check that four digits were input.
I had to alter a couple of minor programs that I wrote, only took an hour.

Another waffle is that various wild weather occurs much more frequently now.
That is because there is now more ability to know it is happening
somewhere or other and it can now be reported more widely.
Automatic wx reporting is now common.
Ant's list of events proves my point.

Alan B said;
Well for starters the energy coefficient is 20%. Because as much as
80% of the energy is consumed spinning things.

Oh come on Alan once up to speed the m/c only needs a little nudge
to keep it spinning. More force input then goes out on the wires !
Your m/cs must have had corrugated iron for bearings !

That will do for now, but no one has answered my question,
"What is the multiplication factor for the number of wind turbines
to get 100% supply ?"
I have seen that the factor is 12 !"