Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
robinessex said:
pgtips said:
robinessex said:
As we already have fields full of backup generators for when the wind don't blow, is the cost of these include in wind power. I bet not !!! Fiddled to make windy things look good !!
Help me understand...we had backup generation before we had wind turbines? What was the backup generation doing then? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/0...
National Grid to offer a new set of subsidies to diesel generator operators under a scheme designed as insurance against the lights going out
An employee checks the pricing on televisions whilst the football World Cup is shown at a Currys store in London
Mini-power plants provide National Grid back-up power to ensure lights don’t go out when there is a surge in national power consumption, such as during the football World Cup, Wimbledon finals or Strictly Come Dancing.
Subsidies levied on household energy bills have helped drive a boom in polluting “diesel farms” across the UK to meet periods of peak electricity demand, the Guardian has found.
Almost a quarter of Britain’s back-up power under one programme for the National Grid is being provided by tiny fossil fuel power stations – some of which have been built on farmland by entrepreneurs.
The mini-power stations are brought into play by grid managers when there is a rapid surge in demand for power, for example when large numbers are watching major sporting events such as the World Cup or Wimbledon finals or during major TV events such as the final of Strictly Come Dancing.
In the coming weeks the grid is to offer through auction a new set of subsidies to diesel farms under a scheme designed as insurance against the lights going out.
NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, THE GRID NOR MANY OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED ARE KEEN TO PROVIDE MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SHADOWY NEW INDUSTRY.
Note the last sentance.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
mybrainhurts said:
Paddy in having a paddy shocker...mind the handbag, chaps, unless the wind isn't blowing.
Just fixing the fiction. I see the rest of the Bash street club are still in detention - and you smirked off when Bets were being offered.
cAreful of those splinters.
And I don't "smirk off", I work irregular and unusual hours, old boy...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
mybrainhurts said:
Now you've really lost it. What have bets got to do with me?
And I don't "smirk off", I work irregular and unusual hours, old boy...
I took you 'Willy waving' and 'Bedazzled' comments yesterday as snide goading from the side lines - if not, I apologise.And I don't "smirk off", I work irregular and unusual hours, old boy...
turbobloke said:
Nohody needs to know it all to get the right perspective i.e. one that's rational rather than faith-based.
Know about causality:
-there's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data for temperature or energy and these are the variables that define global warming
Know about EROEI:
-renewables are inadequate, expensive and pointless, enriching land owners and subsidy farmers while impoverishing pensioners and leading to excess cold-related deaths
That'll do.
Could you tell me what energy sources will power the human race into the future then? Know about causality:
-there's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data for temperature or energy and these are the variables that define global warming
Know about EROEI:
-renewables are inadequate, expensive and pointless, enriching land owners and subsidy farmers while impoverishing pensioners and leading to excess cold-related deaths
That'll do.
You must surely agree that fossil fuels are finite and although I am no 'peak oil' type eventually it will be gone. So do we wait for that to happen or do we do things now to slow the decline and to a certain degree - not yet reached - replace the need? If your answer to that is Yes but not via renewables then tell us all what it should be then? What is your manifesto on energy then?
It is a great pity that the evident energy that some people put into AGW denial is not more constructively spent in devising alternative strategies for power generation. Even if you are adamant that AGW is tosh how can you look to the future and believe that business as usual is the only option?
Is it even possible to have a sensible discussion on this subject either from a political or scientific basis on these forums? Have you noticed that posts often end up single sided when it comes to AGW as most people just cannot be bothered with the tirade of abuse that is directed towards them because they would prefer a house with some insulation or a car driven by electricity. The only thing you end up hearing are echoes of your own opinions.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
I did .....and he did just that 
You didn't Dick.Or if you did, perhaps the penny didn't drop : He was laughing at you.
Oh I forgot you keep changing your mind as in - a few years to ten, then an evens bet to an odds on bet, then you change the goal posts to an entirely different scenario!! So have another
until the full onslaught in a "couple of years".I was not actually sure whether to categorically ignore any of your posts. Until now. I won't be answering anything else from you, and it is a shame you couldn't put your money and hilarious Emoji application where you mouth is. I would have happily put a £100 down in the bet with you.
Contribute, or p
s off, pet.Think carefully carefully before you post any more dribble as it's preserved above waiting to bite you're arse in the future.
'Leaked paper exposes EU countries’ abuse of climate loophole'
http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environmen...
http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environmen...
s2art said:
DapperDanMan said:
Could you tell me what energy sources will power the human race into the future then?
Nuclear. There is enough fissile or fertile fuel to power the world for thousands of years. We might even get fusion to work by then.Countdown said:
s2art said:
DapperDanMan said:
Could you tell me what energy sources will power the human race into the future then?
Nuclear. There is enough fissile or fertile fuel to power the world for thousands of years. We might even get fusion to work by then.Check out U-Battery which our own Urenco are developing. And there are loads of other modular reactors in the pipeline.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/06/d...
It's the Guardian so it must all be true right?
It's the Guardian so it must all be true right?
Good grief. I'm away for a while earning the wherewithal to purchase the meagre crust that will stop tonight's bottle of Nero d'Avola from being too wet and it's been carnage. Like when you're out for a pint and leave a nice quiet bar for a wazz and return to find the place trashed!
Anyway, and in summary, there are two distinct points of view on whether offshore wind is going to be cost competitive. Thankyou P&M for the link to the original WPM article. Lots of luvverly data.
This graph seems illustrative:
If I'm breaking any rules by quoting I'll link instead
I have no idea on the validity or derivation of the underlying data but it appears to me that one of the crystal balls suggests we might see parity of offshore wind with gas in the UK by 2030. Another that the costs become almost parallel with no crossover within sight.
One query on the gas price: Has anyone any idea how such a projection is generated (pun intended
)?
Surely as fracking becomes universal in the UK gas prices will fall, not rise?
Anyway, and in summary, there are two distinct points of view on whether offshore wind is going to be cost competitive. Thankyou P&M for the link to the original WPM article. Lots of luvverly data.
This graph seems illustrative:
If I'm breaking any rules by quoting I'll link instead
I have no idea on the validity or derivation of the underlying data but it appears to me that one of the crystal balls suggests we might see parity of offshore wind with gas in the UK by 2030. Another that the costs become almost parallel with no crossover within sight.
One query on the gas price: Has anyone any idea how such a projection is generated (pun intended
)?Surely as fracking becomes universal in the UK gas prices will fall, not rise?
It's an interesting graphic certainly but optimistic insider forecasts are optimistic and as yet no insider has provided an accurate up-to-date list of all/most of the relevant costs as identified in the question I posed earlier.
How anything resembling total cost forecasts from vested interets are supposed to be credible when various contributory costs aren't known by them is an intriguing thought.
Follow the vested interest gradient; I seem to recall mentioning this earlier in 'the carnage'
How anything resembling total cost forecasts from vested interets are supposed to be credible when various contributory costs aren't known by them is an intriguing thought.
Follow the vested interest gradient; I seem to recall mentioning this earlier in 'the carnage'
johnfm said:
Isn't diesel backup being replaced by gas fired because diesel generator cannot meet the emissions regs?
Diesel and gas do slightly different things..... Diesel provide a quicker response time than gas recip engines, whereas gas are cheaper to run. The problem for diesel at the moment is they are getting squeezed out by better system management from Grid reducing the part of the market they operate in, plus the growth of batteries and demand-side response. They are not then competitive with gas recips in the slightly slower part of the market - STOR. But you are right in that the emissions directive on small plant will reduce their usefulness further - maybe 7 years away?steveT350C said:
'Leaked paper exposes EU countries’ abuse of climate loophole'
http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environmen...
Thanks for the link steveT350C.http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environmen...
Fascinating. EU, climate, carbon credits, fraud, all we need for a full house is the BBC not featuring this leaked report loud and lairy including on its website. Hold the front page!
Re backup.
Read the links posted about the Finnish Analysis of how to power Europe (it only really works on a wide area basis) a couple of pages back.
In effect whatever the max power requirement might in the middle of winter you need have that amount and a little in reserve. From memory the norm was 10% reserve being minimum and 20% being a target.
With predictable production and relatively predictable demand patterns as influenced by the time of year, this is not too much of a problem usually unless people forget to order new plant in time .... etc., etc.
Scheduled maintenance a reburbishment allowed everyone to get some running and produce some power and so have the potential to cover costs and make a profit.
The industrial revolution was based on that reliable source of power.
So you built to about 20% spare capacity and things were relatively reliable at the generation end.
So get the same with Wind (forget solar in most of Europe in the winter). you have to accept that you need to build about 7 or 8 times the faceplate rating and hope that the wind blows.
When it doesn't you try to import from elsewhere.
When that is not possible because there is not enough spare you try demand management or the odd paid for switch off (if there are still a few large enough industrial consumers to make that worthwhile) and after that just let things happen and point the fingers of blame around in a perpetual circle.
In the good times, say in the summer when at times solar is doing ok (during the day mostly when it's not needed in Europe but better in, say, Arizona or Oz where Aircon is a higher factor than heating) and the wind is blowing you probably have 3/4 of the plated capacity all curtailed (and compensated for loss of earnings in one way or another) because there is no way of using the output.
But hey - the wind is free right and even so it will not cost more than a Nuke plant right?
Except it will all need replacing every 20 years or so.
Any self respecting energy company, say an oil company, HAS to be in that market because they are businesses and they see everything being skewed in the renewables direction including most of the money. They know that, one way or another, Governments have backed themselves into a corner and will have to make it work. Or rather will have to pay for it. Expect ever increasing legislation to enforce "green" changes and then watch a raft of incremental "indirect" taxes being applied.
My Gas and Electricity bills have reached parity. The increase for next year is far greater for the "cheap" (or even Free) energy provided by Wind then it is for the Expensive Gas energy delivered from around the world.
So with the UK being a "very good" place to adopt Wind Power ... why is it that the price has increased so much in the past decade?
A Rhetorical question. No answer required.
Read the links posted about the Finnish Analysis of how to power Europe (it only really works on a wide area basis) a couple of pages back.
In effect whatever the max power requirement might in the middle of winter you need have that amount and a little in reserve. From memory the norm was 10% reserve being minimum and 20% being a target.
With predictable production and relatively predictable demand patterns as influenced by the time of year, this is not too much of a problem usually unless people forget to order new plant in time .... etc., etc.
Scheduled maintenance a reburbishment allowed everyone to get some running and produce some power and so have the potential to cover costs and make a profit.
The industrial revolution was based on that reliable source of power.
So you built to about 20% spare capacity and things were relatively reliable at the generation end.
So get the same with Wind (forget solar in most of Europe in the winter). you have to accept that you need to build about 7 or 8 times the faceplate rating and hope that the wind blows.
When it doesn't you try to import from elsewhere.
When that is not possible because there is not enough spare you try demand management or the odd paid for switch off (if there are still a few large enough industrial consumers to make that worthwhile) and after that just let things happen and point the fingers of blame around in a perpetual circle.
In the good times, say in the summer when at times solar is doing ok (during the day mostly when it's not needed in Europe but better in, say, Arizona or Oz where Aircon is a higher factor than heating) and the wind is blowing you probably have 3/4 of the plated capacity all curtailed (and compensated for loss of earnings in one way or another) because there is no way of using the output.
But hey - the wind is free right and even so it will not cost more than a Nuke plant right?
Except it will all need replacing every 20 years or so.
Any self respecting energy company, say an oil company, HAS to be in that market because they are businesses and they see everything being skewed in the renewables direction including most of the money. They know that, one way or another, Governments have backed themselves into a corner and will have to make it work. Or rather will have to pay for it. Expect ever increasing legislation to enforce "green" changes and then watch a raft of incremental "indirect" taxes being applied.
My Gas and Electricity bills have reached parity. The increase for next year is far greater for the "cheap" (or even Free) energy provided by Wind then it is for the Expensive Gas energy delivered from around the world.
So with the UK being a "very good" place to adopt Wind Power ... why is it that the price has increased so much in the past decade?
A Rhetorical question. No answer required.
V8 Fettler said:
How much money has been blown on renewables since the early 1990s? GBP100 billion? That sum would have built sufficient power stations based on the Sizewell B design to provide all our baseload requirements beyond 2050.
When the Labour Party was in government, they put the cost of their nonsensical Climate Change Act as between £324bn and £404bn. Very precise! As this was a Labour Party wanting to minimise the apparent cost, and as Labour are incompetent, the cost will be greater than the upper limit for sure.On the supposed benefit side, the position is equally hilarious, albeit in an eqyally ironic way. Originally, they put the benefit of the CCA as ca £100bn. What happened next is summed up exceptionally well by the Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP in an open letter to the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Peter Lilley said:
When it comes to your revised estimate of the benefits (from the CCA) however, we enter Alice in Wonderland territory. Even though costs have broadly doubled, the embarrassment of them exceeding your own estimate of the maximum benefits has been eliminated. The benefits have been dramatically increased tenfold from £105 billion to over £1 trillion. I congratulate you on finding nearly £1 trillion of benefits which had previously escaped your notice.
Well said and what a Silly Secretary we had. Whoever worked on the sharp rise in the CCA benefit estimate ought to be in turbine economics these days...that said, they probsbly are.
turbobloke said:
When the Labour Party was in government, they put the cost of their nonsensical Climate Change Act as between £324bn and £404bn.
-
-
-
That level of funding would provide fission baseload until at least 2075 and reasonable certainty of commercial fusion power perhaps 2050 onwards (if not sooner).-
-
-
Why are we dabbling with renewables?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff