Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
LongQ said:
To repeat:

Read this

http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-internet-of...

And the comments are a must.
damart and candle shares to rocket.the following guest post from the finnish ? authors of the proposition should make for interesting reading ,and the following comment thread.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Great willy waving, PNM...
not really, his cock appears to be 5 times shorter than the ones he wants put on the block wink

Terminator X

14,921 posts

203 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
If you're so brave / certain why don't you put 5:1 odds on it so £100 in and we'd win £500?

TX.

pgtips

181 posts

215 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Excellent.

Any Offshore Wind project will be viable / make FID without subsidy within the next five years.

Give me 5:1 and I'll put £100 down.
You're betting on the future gas price more than the cost of offshore though. Everyone (well almost everyone) can see the massive fall in offshore costs in last two years ... 140 £/MWh for the first CFD enabled FiDs.... and now down to circa 80 £/MWh for the next round of CfD auctions. No-one can really dispute that.. and yes it ignores balancing costs costs (also falling), full life-cycle costs, etc. But stick with LCOE for the moment. Whether they are subsidy free or not is simply the relative cost of gas and carbon and thus the wholesale power price, and the cost of capital investors are willing to commit to deploy at. Because of the cannibilisation of the power price from the growth of renewables leading to lower wholesale power prices, and the risk premia investors attach to offshore development, I'd take your bet at 5:1 in the next five years, but it could be pretty close. Subsidy free onshore pretty much there today at circa 45 £/MWh. Exciting times in the transformation of the power sector.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
pgtips said:
ignores . . . full life-cycle costs, etc
That's strange. How is the total cost of something determined by ignoring costs? I've read the most recent forecasts of cost reduction beyond recent years' claims, but the sources aren't independent and therefore the credibility factor, which P'n'M questions a lot, needs questioning because costs are being ignored and assumptions are made to favour the favoured bypothesis.

Forbes commenting on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory surcey: technologists who developed the wind industry over the last 20 years or so are even more optimistic than general sector experts and far more optimistic than sector analysts.

That's not strange. Just follow the vested interest gradient.

If offshore wind becomes as cheap as chips that's a good thing because less taxpayer money will be wasted on white elephants and with a favourable wind wink energy bills might not rise as much as they would otherwise. Also if offshore wind is indeed favoutable and windier than previously thought, that's a good thing because the white elephants will be active in the energy circus at a rate above 36% capacity factor. This would all be good news.

It would be even better news if all costs were accurately assessed and included.

At some point it's got to come back to those very well-funded and dedicated Google Corporation scientists and engineers who desperately wanted to find a way forward in terms of renewable energy, and failed.

Google Corporation engineer being interviewed said:
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
The IEEE interview mentioned above added that even with the inclusion of large cost-reduction forecasts based on self erecting wind turbines using non-existent robotic technology redolent of Von Neumann machines to create new wind farms without human intervention, the facilities never or just barely produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction, this is otherwise known as an economic absurdity. Still no sign of a full cycle cost approach, only construction costs were mentioned.

Those in the industry need to explain the totally radical breakthrough that has occurred very recently to update the Google Corporation findings. What's on the table beyond fantasy technology akin to Von Neumann machines? When citing this breakthrough in response, give a credible independent source please.

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
From what I can see the economics of 'renewable' energy depends very heavily on a rising 'carbon' price achieved through taxation. Take green and other taxes off any fossil fuel and it is profitable at a much lower retail price than we see today.

GnuBee

1,272 posts

214 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am not here to say Renewables is the answer - but the ignorance on this thread is lamentable when it comes to facts.
It's not ignorance; it's a belief system - you're in a religious argument with fundamentalists.

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
GnuBee said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am not here to say Renewables is the answer - but the ignorance on this thread is lamentable when it comes to facts.
It's not ignorance; it's a belief system - you're in a religious argument with fundamentalists.
Matthew 7:5

hehe

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I'm wrong. You're right.

Cock on the block time, any proper project as in not necessarily a U.K. one, makes it to FID without a government subsidy

You and TurboTwaddle - in? Or out ?

5:1, £100 down
Your original claim was the industry would be subsidy free in a few years.

Not 'any project'.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
pgtips said:
You're betting on the future gas price more than the cost of offshore though. Everyone (well almost everyone) can see the massive fall in offshore costs in last two years ... 140 £/MWh for the first CFD enabled FiDs.... and now down to circa 80 £/MWh for the next round of CfD auctions. No-one can really dispute that.. and yes it ignores balancing costs costs (also falling), full life-cycle costs, etc. But stick with LCOE for the moment. Whether they are subsidy free or not is simply the relative cost of gas and carbon and thus the wholesale power price, and the cost of capital investors are willing to commit to deploy at. Because of the cannibilisation of the power price from the growth of renewables leading to lower wholesale power prices, and the risk premia investors attach to offshore development, I'd take your bet at 5:1 in the next five years, but it could be pretty close. Subsidy free onshore pretty much there today at circa 45 £/MWh. Exciting times in the transformation of the power sector.
What a breath of air ^^^^
Unfortunately not enough moving air to power a mini-turbine.

Neither of you know if the situation is almost subsidy-free onshore when all costs are not included by your own admission.

Offshore projections are similarly afflicted.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Australia energy crisis

SA electricity crisis: It cost $4.5 million to keep power stable for a day, Australian Energy Regulator report shows

SOUTH Australian power consumers have been slugged for a massive $4.5 million price spike for services that stop energy infrastructure from blowing up.
The Australian Energy Regulator released a report on Tuesday night into why prices for services which stabilisethe grid exceeded $5000/MWh in SA on October 18 last year.
It found that for more than five hours, the cost of the services which regulate frequency soared to more than $11,000/MWh, bringing the total cost for the day to $4.5 million.
“In comparison, FCAS (Frequency Control Ancillary Services) costs across all mainland National Electricity Market regions combined are typically around $200,000 per day,” the report stated.
Over the week inclusive of October 18, 40 per cent of the cost — or $1.8 million — was paid for by customers and 60 per cent of the cost was recovered from generators, which The Advertiser understands tended to be wind farms because they cause frequency changes.

South Australia Heatwave Wind Power Collapse, Rolling Blackouts

Rolling blackouts ordered in Adelaide as city swelters
Widespread power blackouts were imposed across Adelaide and parts of South Australia with heatwave conditions forcing authorities to impose load shedding.
About 40,000 properties were without electricity supplies for about 30 minutes because of what SA Power Networks said was a direction by the Australian Energy Market Regulator.
The temperature was still above 40C when the rolling blackouts began at 6.30pm to conserve supplies as residents sought relief with air conditioners.
Appearing live on Facebook for a question and answer session, Premier Jay Weatherill blamed the national energy market for the outages saying a gas-powered generation plant in SA had not been required to come online. “The rules of the energy market are broken,” he said. “We’ll be asking for changes.”
SA Power Networks said in a tweet tonight: “AEMO has instructed us to commence 100MW rotational #load shedding via Govt agreed list due to lack of available generation supply in SA.’’
Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed the blackouts on the SA government’s renewable energy target, which he described as ‘‘madness’’

We're following Germany to an energy disaster

A far darker shadow is hanging over Britain than that of the collapse of our steel industry. As she is the sister of a leading figure in the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, we may not be surprised by the warning from Amber Rudd, our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, that “Brexit” would raise our energy bills by £500 million a year. Her brother Roland, as a key behind-the-scenes strategist for Stronger in Europe, might be described as “the Rudd who doesn’t want us to leave the sinking ship”.
But in making that “half a billion a year” claim, Ms Rudd must hope that we don’t recall those recent figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility projecting that within four years – due entirely to her own Government’s policies – we will be paying £13.6 billion a year in climate change levies alone, up a further £7.6 billion from the year just ending.
Even this is only a small part of the disaster Ms Rudd is heading us towards, as she sets about “decarbonising” our economy by closing down all the fossil-fuel power stations which, until recently, were supplying two thirds of all our electricity, in order to rely instead on ever more “renewables” and those new nuclear power stations which simply aren’t getting built.

Germany’s Energiewende: The intermittency problem remains

In the American press, there has been much discussion of Germany’s Energiewende—a plan that not only aims for a nearly carbon-free economy by 2050, but also seeks to achieve this ambitious goal with no nuclear power at all.
Countless individuals and organizations share the optimistic view that what has happened in Germany so far shows that a totally decarbonized economy is both technically feasible and eminently affordable. Paul Krugman, for example, claims in one of his op-ed columns for The New York Times that the “climate threat” should be solved since “[t]he science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected.” And Joe Romm, founding editor of Climate Progress, suggests that it is possible to integrate “very large amounts of renewable electricity into the electric grid cost-effectively.”
But the celebrations are premature. A nearly carbon-free economy is still an ambitious goal for a major Western economy, or any industrial powerhouse of the developed world.
True, Germany’s energy system is changing at an incredible pace. Its renewable energy share increased exponentially over the past two decades, accounting for almost a third of Germany’s gross electricity consumption in 2015. And Germany accomplished all this without having its economy collapse—in fact, it is doing well, even while renewable energies became the largest source of power in the German electricity mix.
But this energy transition has come at a high cost and created not only winners. The Energiewende has also destroyed the effort embedded in existing infrastructure and put an unprecedented strain on German society. The rapid shift to renewables—with their emphasis on lots of small-scale, decentralized power and heat production—has fundamentally altered the traditional way of doing business for the big utilities in Germany, causing a huge drop in market share and big losses in earnings. From their past position as the backbone of the German economy, the utilities now totter on the brink of dissolution; there has been a large sell-off of assets by the utilities as a result. (Among other things, they are now trying to reposition themselves as providers of Big Data, and intelligent technology.)

Finally.

Next winter, we have a 2 week period with high pressure over the UK. No bloody wind, temperatures well below freezing. What bloody use are flappy panels then?

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Thanks that's right on cue robinessex! I was typing this for the last few minutes.

Whether or not subsidies are present, and they certainly are present, renewable energy needs to be fit for purpose i.e. capable of meeting society’s energy needs reliably, and affordably in a total sense (in economic terms and in EROEI terms).

Also it needs to be clear which of the following costs are included in any analysis:

- are location-specific capital costs being used to provide the necessary detail and accuracy, or is an optimistic chicken soup average in place which also benefits from mean/median variance
- does any claimed total reflect lifecycle costs in full including maintenance, repair and decommissioning or just construction; are social / health / environmental impacts realistically costed and included e.g. human health, property prices for onshore, extraction and processing clean-ups, widespread and large-scale deaths of birds of prey and bats
- to add a true capacity of say 500 MW in renewable energy to the grid, you also need to add a conventional-powered plant of up to 500 MW that can be switched on when solar and wind prove to be useless and unknown future storage methods aren’t in place, are these costs included and are baseload cycling costs included
- are costs associated with reduced reliability of the grid included, see South Australia...a forensic analysis including timings has already been posted on PH which refutes vested renewables interest defence of their salaries

These issues are continuously sidestepped and ignored, and it doesn’t matter if the reason is faith or vested interest.

More generally how will EROEI inadequacy be overcome and what breakthrough has taken us beyond the Google Corporation findings from their scientists and engineers that even fantasy technology doesn’t help.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Here's hoping this comes to fruition for Americans and sets the tone on a wider basis - a Maine lawmaker wants to protect people on both sides of the global warming debate from being prosecuted by the attorney general's office or punished in other ways by any state agencies.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/new-bill-protect...

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Robin, if that question is aimed at me - I have no view point. I have never claimed that Renewables, or Wind is The Answer.
So, if flappy paddles aren't 100% available at ALL times, you have to back them up with an alternative. Er, so why bother then? That makes a stupid economic case as far as I can see. Pay for twice the power you need, as 50% isn't reliable !!! Only an economist could see sense in that !!!

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Following on neatly - the science isn't settled, the debate isn't over - JB looks at this point from a modelling failure perspective.

Click the link to see how an accurate and judicious answer from Pruitt sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Robin, if that question is aimed at me - I have no view point. I have never claimed that Renewables, or Wind is The Answer.
So, if flappy paddles aren't 100% available at ALL times, you have to back them up with an alternative. Er, so why bother then? That makes a stupid economic case as far as I can see. Pay for twice the power you need, as 50% isn't reliable !!! Only an economist could see sense in that !!!
The reason windmills died out the first time round was the intermittent supply of energy,when we had developed a reliable alternative, nothing has changed, we have just failed to learn from history.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
No. fk that.

I politely pointed out yesterday the belief on this thread on certain factual matters was wrong.

Usual mouthpieces LOL'd - and Yes I did say the industry will become subsidy free. It will.

More braying from the benches, so I countered that I'll take an evens bet on Ten years time. A safe as houses bet from my side and fair.

More LOL'ing so fk it, I'll run as close to it as possible and say a project in five years. I only added the caveat that FID would be achieved as the postulating deny-ers on this thread will be expecting blades spinning. I think my bet is fairly stiff, so I want 5:1 on.
All the gobby' ones have gone silent.



So, I'll give you three; TurboB, Dicky, WC all the benefit of the doubt that you were just shooting your mouths off and bring the odds back to you if you are scared.

£100 each, 3:1

Take it or Foxtrot and his mate Oscar on this, and admit that your' credible sources' aren't and you data is out of date..
go run that by a bookmaker with the context of your original statement and he will wet himself laughing.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
So, if flappy paddles aren't 100% available at ALL times, you have to back them up with an alternative. Er, so why bother then? That makes a stupid economic case as far as I can see. Pay for twice the power you need, as 50% isn't reliable !!! Only an economist could see sense in that !!!
every single minute a wind turbine is standing still it requires back up. in a completely free market where people had the choice to choose their energy source for the year ahead , how many would choose wind power as their sole supply ? not many i imagine.

Phud

1,262 posts

142 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy are you going to have TCO or just building without subsidy?

Also does your bet induce the cost of the base and its carbon footprint or just the windmill as a physical structure?

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
A quick question - if you buy your energy from Dong, or say Iberdrola.
They have a few sites up the West coast of the UK, some in the baltic, some in the German Bight ,some onshore in the mountains, and a few more in the North Sea.
When the wind stops blowing. Does it stop blowing everywhere ?
I'm not sure you are not that stupid, but thats how your statement reads.


Or, do you think for a minute, that those who know more than you, have planned a varied portfolio to account for this ?
so you are telling me all those sites are interconnected ? that changes a lot if true. is it true ? how well does portfolio planning work when planning applications for onshore and offshore get thrown out ?

having some knowledge of the planning that went into the proposed site on the scottish side of the solway firth i think getting the contract signed for receipt of tax payer funding is more important than the practicalities of where the site is . it apparently came as a great shock to those proposing that wind farm that there were no harbours on the scottish side that had navigable access 24/7 for instance. that doesn't fill me with confidence the people behind the planning have much of a clue about due diligence. http://www.isleofwhithorn.com/news_detail.asp?Docu...

it was good that something like that came to the fore early doors, made getting the application kicked out so much easier, though i know for a fact it would never have got the go ahead anyway smile
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED