The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[MYOB]

rolando said:

So we are in agreement that the 2015 written statement supersedes the 2011 policy statement and that onshore wind is no longer considered to be a government preferred option.

You are confusing what the intention of the NPSs are. Nothing supersede the NPSs. But policy matters may be slightly out of date in the NPSs. But the point is that planners, developers and officials are fully informed as to where policy has moved on from what is in the NPSs. The NPSs are a guidance to be used for planning that contains policy issues. It is everyones' responsibility to keep abreast of policy changes and these will eventually be updated in the NPSs. It's not so straight-forward to change a paragraph or two in the NPSs - they are not "live" documents.

I'm afraid I cannot speak for the Government on what their preferred option is. For planning matters, it is imperative that Ministers give due regards to current policy, along with all other factors listed in the NPSs and local planning framework.

PS - S.1.6.1 of the overarching NPS might give you a clue on the matter of reviews and updates:

Period of validity and review

1.6.1 This NPS will remain in force in its entirety unless withdrawn or suspended in whole or in part by the Secretary of State. It will be subject to review by the Secretary of State in order to ensure that it remains appropriate. Information on the review process is set out in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Annex to CLG’s letter of 9 November 2009 (see paragraph 1.2.3 above).

Edited by MYOB on Tuesday 19th December 14:33

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

The future of power generation in Great Britain is very much to do with CO2 emissions.

Measure myself against others? Which part of your irrational mind did you dig that up from?

Irrational brain ?
Proof?

Do you believe in manmade global warming when there's no anthropogenic forcing visible in TOA radiative imbalance data (missing causal energy signal) and no visible human signal in global climate data (missing causal temperature signal) because you can see invisible things that should be visible or because you believe other 'authorities' who tell you they can see invisible things that should be visible?

Is it scientific to work on the basis that the data don't matter?

Depending on how you answer, maybe you'll offer your own proof.

[rolando]

An interesting read which concludes that "…storage is best used with baseload power, i.e., nuclear, coal or NGCC, rather than with solar and wind".

[MYOB]

turbobloke said:

Do you believe in manmade global warming when there's no anthropogenic forcing visible in TOA radiative imbalance data (missing causal energy signal) and no visible human signal in global climate data (missing causal temperature signal) because you can see invisible things that should be visible or because you believe other 'authorities' who tell you they can see invisible things that should be visible?

Is it scientific to work on the basis that the data don't matter?

Depending on how you answer, maybe you'll offer your own proof.

Lad...go over to the Climate Change thread.

Edited by MYOB on Tuesday 19th December 16:28

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Which suggests that you believe that Storage is feasible ?

Until now you have said it isn't

Don't put words into my mouth.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Storage is feasible ?

What happens to already peas-poor EROEI when storage is added to too-expensive / subsidised and intermittent wind?

[MYOB]

rolando said:

Don't put words into my mouth.

Isn't this a tactic you attempted earlier?

rolando said:

So we are in agreement that the 2015 written statement supersedes the 2011 policy statement and that onshore wind is no longer considered to be a government preferred option.

[rolando]

MYOB said:

You are confusing what the intention of the NPSs are. Nothing supersede the NPSs. But policy matters may be slightly out of date in the NPSs. But the point is that planners, developers and officials are fully informed as to where policy has moved on from what is in the NPSs. The NPSs are a guidance to be used for planning that contains policy issues. It is everyones' responsibility to keep abreast of policy changes and these will eventually be updated in the NPSs. It's not so straight-forward to change a paragraph or two in the NPSs - they are not "live" documents.

I'm afraid I cannot speak for the Government on what their preferred option is. For planning matters, it is imperative that Ministers give due regards to current policy, along with all other factors listed in the NPSs and local planning framework.

PS - S.1.6.1 of the overarching NPS might give you a clue on the matter of reviews and updates:

Period of validity and review

1.6.1 This NPS will remain in force in its entirety unless withdrawn or suspended in whole or in part by the Secretary of State. It will be subject to review by the Secretary of State in order to ensure that it remains appropriate. Information on the review process is set out in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Annex to CLG’s letter of 9 November 2009 (see paragraph 1.2.3 above).

Edited by MYOB on Tuesday 19th December 14:33

What follows on from the NPSs and Ministerial Statements is, as you know, the planning guidance which has a full section on Renewable and low carbon energy which is updated as policy moves forward.

[Toltec]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

rolando said:

An interesting read which concludes that "…storage is best used with baseload power, i.e., nuclear, coal or NGCC, rather than with solar and wind".

Rather than the usual incoherent rant about unproven, unreliable and expensive unnecessary technology - you say it is "interesting"

How is that not in any way indicative that the Storage aspect (the cut and thrust of the bloody article) is not feasible ?

Ignoring the absolute feasibility of storage that article does suggest that it is at least more feasible combined with baseload than renewables. Something like tidal and in particular lagoon type systems may be viable as the power delivery is both predictable and can have a storage mode. Shame about the cost and environmental issues though.

[MYOB]

rolando said:

What follows on from the NPSs and Ministerial Statements is, as you know, the planning guidance which has a full section on Renewable and low carbon energy which is updated as policy moves forward.

The NPPF does not "follow on" on from the NPSs.

[Toltec]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Toltec said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

rolando said:

An interesting read which concludes that "…storage is best used with baseload power, i.e., nuclear, coal or NGCC, rather than with solar and wind".

Rather than the usual incoherent rant about unproven, unreliable and expensive unnecessary technology - you say it is "interesting"

How is that not in any way indicative that the Storage aspect (the cut and thrust of the bloody article) is not feasible ?

Ignoring the absolute feasibility of storage that article does suggest that it is at least more feasible combined with baseload than renewables. Something like tidal and in particular lagoon type systems may be viable as the power delivery is both predictable and can have a storage mode. Shame about the cost and environmental issues though.

and Yet - type Howard Hayden in to Google :

August, 2016. Howard Hayden is listed as a “Founding Member” of group named Climate Exit (Clexit) led by climate change denier Christopher Monckton. According to Clexit's founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the.......


are we all content that he is bipartisan on the subject ?

or ........

Cherry picked cases then? I've certainly noticed, for example, that relative generation costs vary between US and UK reports so what may hold true there may not here too.

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

MYOB said:

rolando said:

What follows on from the NPSs and Ministerial Statements is, as you know, the planning guidance which has a full section on Renewable and low carbon energy which is updated as policy moves forward.

The NPPF does not "follow on" on from the NPSs.

'as you know'

Oh, he's putting words into my mouth again

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

The future of power generation in Great Britain is very much to do with CO2 emissions.

Measure myself against others? Which part of your irrational mind did you dig that up from?

Irrational brain ?
Proof?

Your mental leap from my comments re: "UK's CO2 emissions" to "me measuring myself against others" is surely irrational. Followed by something about striving "to do what's right yourself", which sounds dangerously religious. Irrational, illogical and incoherent.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

if you can't connect the dots - then fair enough.

Either way : its your opinion, not proof.
Again, avoiding the actual answering of questions levied at you.

What have dots got to do with anything?

Please tell me a bit more about this "doing what's right for yourself"; do you perhaps view the promotion of unreliables as some sort of evangelical crusade?

[Gary C]

turbobloke said:

Do you believe in manmade global warming when there's no anthropogenic forcing visible in TOA radiative imbalance data (missing causal energy signal) and no visible human signal in global climate data (missing causal temperature signal)

Link ?

The ipcc seems to state you can see the signature, be interesting to read an authoritative peer reviewed opposite.

[LongQ]

MYOB said:

XM5ER said:

Do what's right by whom? Those living in energy poverty deciding to heat or eat? Or those trading CO2 futures deciding which Michelin star restaurant to eat in this lunchtime? All based on an unproven hypothesis that gives idiot politicians a feeling of saving the world.

I think the point is that the UK (and the EU amongst many others) have decided to demonstrate leadership and decide to do something that will bring some benefits to us.

We can't force others to follow but we can lead the way and hope others eventually see fit to do the same.

Don't be too cynical.

Government tried previously to deal with energy and climate change under one Department. It didn't work. There are too many conflicts and the issues were separated again under the previous Machinery of Government when DECC was abolished.

It's been a while since I read anything that came across as jingoistic as that.

I was almost tempted to use "arrogant" but it didn't seem to nearly close enough to the message.

[LongQ]

Toltec said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

rolando said:

An interesting read which concludes that "…storage is best used with baseload power, i.e., nuclear, coal or NGCC, rather than with solar and wind".

Rather than the usual incoherent rant about unproven, unreliable and expensive unnecessary technology - you say it is "interesting"

How is that not in any way indicative that the Storage aspect (the cut and thrust of the bloody article) is not feasible ?

Ignoring the absolute feasibility of storage that article does suggest that it is at least more feasible combined with baseload than renewables. Something like tidal and in particular lagoon type systems may be viable as the power delivery is both predictable and can have a storage mode. Shame about the cost and environmental issues though.

Surely the point is that tidal and similar systems are [b]pointless[/ ]without storage. Very significant storage at huge cost in many aspects, not just financial.

[rolando]

If people want to store CO2, why don't they plant more trees and food crops and do it natures way?

And spotted earlier tis morning gone Twitter: If a tax can stop the climate from changing, can another tax stop the continents from moving?

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Planting trees ? Where will you find new land to plant them ?

It is only once they are mature after 75 to 100 years that they are really effective on the CO2 consumption - despite all you silly postings.

2.5million tonnes of CO2 per year for the Gorgon LNG release - a hectare of mature forest has a sequestration rate of about 10 Tonnes of Carbon dioxide.

So how big is your new imaginary rapidly growing forest going to need to be ?

https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-ca...

More CO2 = Good.
Nature loves the stuff. And your figures are nonsense - the C in CO2 is used by the trees to make the tree so the tonnage of the tree itself needs to be included in the sequestration calculation. Of course though it is actually the oceans that are the lungs of planet earth so whilst the extra trees are very nice (even if they have no idea how many there are) in the grand scheme of things are only a bit player.

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Planting trees ? Where will you find new land to plant them ?

It is only once they are mature after 75 to 100 years that they are really effective on the CO2 consumption - despite all you silly postings.

2.5million tonnes of CO2 per year for the Gorgon LNG release - a hectare of mature forest has a sequestration rate of about 10 Tonnes of Carbon dioxide.

So how big is your new imaginary rapidly growing forest going to need to be ?

https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-ca...

Q1: Let's start with all the land being stripped to fuel Drax
Point 2: What a fking stupid comment. Trees need CO2 all their lives.
See jinx above