Govt carbon targets / policy will LOWER energy bills

[Lost_BMW]

Yep, Huhne just said so - even looked sincere - on Panorama!

[powerstroke]

Lost_BMW said:

Yep, Huhne just said so - even looked sincere - on Panorama!

Oh well its true then, he is always truthfull and honest...

[thinfourth2]

He could be right

Government policy of using only windmills will mean considerably lower electricity bills for everyone



As there won't be any electricty to bill

[Jasandjules]

Well, Politicians never lie...........

[Happy82]

thinfourth2 said:

As there won't be any electricty to bill

I'll be ok, I'm setting up a chav-sized hamster wheel generator fueled by McDonalds happy meals

[powerstroke]

Happy82 said:

thinfourth2 said:

As there won't be any electricty to bill

I'll be ok, I'm setting up a chav-sized hamster wheel generator fueled by McDonalds happy meals

I think it would run better on Greggs

[Guybrush]

The British public were told decades ago that Nuclear power, once up and running, would be so cheap it would almost not be worth printing out the bills.

[mackie1]

The only way that will happen IMO (based on nothing but hunch) is if shale gas is developed.

[pgtips]

The theory (at least) is that we spend over next 10 to 15 years to develop a lot of low carbon technology (nucs, CCS, renewables) that all have high capex and low variable costs. Should we develop sufficient capacity we'll reduce the exposure to fossil fuel prices and wholesale power prices will begin to fall..... Unfortunately the outcome is predicated on developing sufficient low carbon capacity to disconnect power from fuel prices. I think there is a very real risk that we end up for a period of time in which a) we are paying large subsidies to low carbon generation (much larger than today) and b) we fail to develop sufficient low carbon generation such that power is still set by high gas and carbon prices. Hence - we end up with the worst of both worlds....

[andytk]

pgtips said:

I think there is a very real risk that we end up for a period of time in which
a) we are paying large subsidies to low carbon generation (much larger than today) and
b) we fail to develop sufficient low carbon generation such that power is still set by high gas and carbon prices. Hence - we end up with the worst of both worlds....

Worse still, with so called renewables mostly comprising of wind when the inevitable country wide calm period happens all those standby open cycle gas turbine plants which haven't sold a dot of 'leccy (due to aforementioned windymills) in months, will have to recover their fixed costs over a short time.

In otherwords they'll have to charge a mint for having sat done nothing for ages and that means when the wind does not blow, the power will be f**king expensive.

(this assumes we're daft enough to let 40% of the grid become wind)

Andy K

[crankedup]

mackie1 said:

The only way that will happen IMO (based on nothing but hunch) is if shale gas is developed.

Your 'if' became a very very very big IF last week.

[thinfourth2]

andytk said:

(this assumes we're daft enough to let 40% of the grid become wind)

Andy K

40% wind is better then the current future of 100% hot air