Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Who'd have paid for the cable grid to the main land ?
The residents backed scheme allowed the financials from the long term revenue to justify the cable expenditure and investment, selling energy, and also then facilitated the connection of the island to the information superhighway - Cable Broadband
Those were the drivers (aka business model) to allow it to happen. Rather than the drip of the diesel generators.
i am not sure there is a problem with solutions like this to certain niche situations . if the renewable industry had been built upon small scale projects to perfect technology and application to the point where tax breaks as opposed to subsidy with tax payer cash was enough to ensure major projects got off the ground i doubt there would be much complaint.The residents backed scheme allowed the financials from the long term revenue to justify the cable expenditure and investment, selling energy, and also then facilitated the connection of the island to the information superhighway - Cable Broadband
Those were the drivers (aka business model) to allow it to happen. Rather than the drip of the diesel generators.
turbobloke said:
USA solar subsidy farming is rarely pain-free as the headlines show.
"Sungevity files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy"
"Verengo Solar files for bankruptcy!
"HelioPower files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy"
"US solar company SunEdison files for bankruptcy"
"Solyndra v SunEdison: 2 bankruptcies show how solar has changed"
"Pending Bankruptcy of Largest Solar Company Puts Alternative Energy Industry Into Full Meltdown Mode"
Fortunately another headline reveals that help is at hand when faithful individual investors get their hands sunburned.
"Bankruptcy USA - We Do it For You For Only $89?"
Hilarious!
It's delightful when your arguments collide with one another - these would be companies that you keep telling us are given an endless supply of free money. "Sungevity files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy"
"Verengo Solar files for bankruptcy!
"HelioPower files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy"
"US solar company SunEdison files for bankruptcy"
"Solyndra v SunEdison: 2 bankruptcies show how solar has changed"
"Pending Bankruptcy of Largest Solar Company Puts Alternative Energy Industry Into Full Meltdown Mode"
Fortunately another headline reveals that help is at hand when faithful individual investors get their hands sunburned.
"Bankruptcy USA - We Do it For You For Only $89?"
Hilarious!
durbster said:
It's delightful when your arguments collide with one another - these would be companies that you keep telling us are given an endless supply of free money.
Apart friom wrongly inserting the word "endless" and (therefore) the lack of any collision, that post almost describes what happens when greedy subsidy farmers with a carp business plan get the subsidy rug pulled. Try another headline:"UK solar panel subsidy cuts"
When America coughs...watch out UK renewables peeps.
Oh dear never mind what a shame etc. All you need for even worse spin is for bankruptcy to be termed recycling. That would be delightfully pc.
An industry that costs between 2 and 4 real jobs for every greenblobjob 'created' via taxpayer subsidies is currently employing around 10 million people worldwide, so 20 to 40 million people (10 to 30 million more than now) could have jobs but don't. Enriching wealthy land-owners to the detriment of the poor including UK pensioners in fuel poverty is another 'advantage' of the renewables fiasco. The industry doesn't even know its own costs ffs.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You've done this to death.
I'm bored of it, and you spectacular unfounded soundbites.
I said we are done
I touched a nerve? Ooops. Unfounded you say...here are the studies on adverse green blob impacts in Italy, Scotland and Spain. Also some wider UK impacts.I'm bored of it, and you spectacular unfounded soundbites.
I said we are done
Istituto Bruno Leoni sudy (each greenblobjob has cost 4.8 real jobs)
http://www.brunoleoni.it/italy-s-sequel-to-calzada...
Verso Economics study (each greenblobjob has cost 3.7 real jobs)
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/publication/wor...
King Juan Carlos University (Calzada study, each greenblobjob has cost 2.2 real jobs)
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2011/November/S...
How wealthy landowners including CMD's father-in-law are making £millions from windymills
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-landowners-...
UK pensioners can't afford to heat their homes and buy books to burn
http://metro.co.uk/2010/01/05/pensioners-burn-book...
Pensioners in fuel poverty
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/yorkshire-post/2014...
More encouraging reading on how the renewables
Here's a link to the renewables industry explaining all the wind energy costs as per the list I posted several times in this thread
www.yougottabejoking.con
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 6th May 15:46
In respect of the recent comments about zero subsidy off-shore wind farm bids (i.e. the operators will expect to make a profit on the installation at commercial rates) it is probably worth reading and re-reading the DONG energy statement about the offer (which could yet be withdrawn.)
Of the 3 projects (none of them huge when considering the total amount of generation required for an all Renewable "solution" to Europe's energy needs), 2 off them, conveniently adjacent to each other and existing installations owned and operated by DONG, are bid at zero subsidy and the third at 60 EUR per MWhr.
In fact all three developments seem to be extensions of existing fields or fields currently under construction. Presumably this factor implies economies of scale and site development continuity are the prevalent factors (other then the commercial expediency of making sure they have control over all sites in an area where they are already incumbent) that they can rely upon today.
Taking that a stage further if the "ne" installation are, in effect, more like extensions of existing fields then the connections, for which DONG are not expected to pay, will presumably be possible at lower cost than a truly "green field" site might require. (Should that be a Sea Blue site?)
In addition they are making some assumptions about technical developments that will appear by the time they need to action the installation work - 2024 in this case.
At the moment it is safe to do that since they don't have to commit to the investment until 2021 (Maybe there could be some renegotiated flexibility in that too?)
Add to that that the locations are rather good, apparently, for average wind speed (suggesting that other places are not and so the financials are unlikely to be reflected as widely as people might be led to assume) and the case for this lower cost becoming the normal offer may not be all that it seems - at least not until the price of energy is forced upwards far enough to result in the subsidies no longer being required to re-balance an energy trading system from which the lowest cost producers have been purged.
The comments also point out that the "The German authorities have approved the possibility to extend the operational lifetime of the asset from 25 to 30 years."
Note the word "possibility" and wonder about the basis on which this "allowance" has been offered. Engineering led or is it more political expedience from both Germany and DONG?
Whilst the installations are unlikely to provide more than a small part of demand and the intermittency challenge is not solved by the development if the installation can be undertaken at zero subsidy and using wholesale prices as they vary, then one should applaud that out turn when it happens assuming that the prices have not already been jacked up by the policy decisions in order to "make it so".
I suppose we will know the answer to that in about 7 or 8 years from now - unless the whole deal is re-written in 2021.
None of that seems to be any sort of answer to the prayers of those who see a catastrophic tipping point for climate change if CO2 output is not reversed NOW. If not sooner.
So the whole effort could be a complete waste of time as far as the majority of humanity is concerned.
http://www.dongenergy.com/en/investors/company-ann...
Edit to add the link that I forgot to include before hitting the Submit button.
Of the 3 projects (none of them huge when considering the total amount of generation required for an all Renewable "solution" to Europe's energy needs), 2 off them, conveniently adjacent to each other and existing installations owned and operated by DONG, are bid at zero subsidy and the third at 60 EUR per MWhr.
In fact all three developments seem to be extensions of existing fields or fields currently under construction. Presumably this factor implies economies of scale and site development continuity are the prevalent factors (other then the commercial expediency of making sure they have control over all sites in an area where they are already incumbent) that they can rely upon today.
Taking that a stage further if the "ne" installation are, in effect, more like extensions of existing fields then the connections, for which DONG are not expected to pay, will presumably be possible at lower cost than a truly "green field" site might require. (Should that be a Sea Blue site?)
In addition they are making some assumptions about technical developments that will appear by the time they need to action the installation work - 2024 in this case.
At the moment it is safe to do that since they don't have to commit to the investment until 2021 (Maybe there could be some renegotiated flexibility in that too?)
Add to that that the locations are rather good, apparently, for average wind speed (suggesting that other places are not and so the financials are unlikely to be reflected as widely as people might be led to assume) and the case for this lower cost becoming the normal offer may not be all that it seems - at least not until the price of energy is forced upwards far enough to result in the subsidies no longer being required to re-balance an energy trading system from which the lowest cost producers have been purged.
The comments also point out that the "The German authorities have approved the possibility to extend the operational lifetime of the asset from 25 to 30 years."
Note the word "possibility" and wonder about the basis on which this "allowance" has been offered. Engineering led or is it more political expedience from both Germany and DONG?
Whilst the installations are unlikely to provide more than a small part of demand and the intermittency challenge is not solved by the development if the installation can be undertaken at zero subsidy and using wholesale prices as they vary, then one should applaud that out turn when it happens assuming that the prices have not already been jacked up by the policy decisions in order to "make it so".
I suppose we will know the answer to that in about 7 or 8 years from now - unless the whole deal is re-written in 2021.
None of that seems to be any sort of answer to the prayers of those who see a catastrophic tipping point for climate change if CO2 output is not reversed NOW. If not sooner.
So the whole effort could be a complete waste of time as far as the majority of humanity is concerned.
http://www.dongenergy.com/en/investors/company-ann...
Edit to add the link that I forgot to include before hitting the Submit button.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
A narrow perspective perhaps, which raises some questions.
Does the state of Kentucky offer tax credits and/or subsidies for renewable energy systems?
Yes, they exchange them for anyone reporting commie-like behaviour to the authorities. If the coal police achieve a conviction, they award tax credits. Does the state of Kentucky offer tax credits and/or subsidies for renewable energy systems?
turbobloke said:
How about any remaining federal subsidies from the fading Obama legacy of misinformation and daft policymaking?
Federal subsidies are dictated by a tiny number of activists who infiltrated the US Government in 1978 and have been hiding in the Whitehouse ever since. They whisper through the Whitehouse walls when the President is nearby to tell them climate change is real and to throw money to renewable energy providers.They are currently hiding in a cupboard in the Whitehouse basement until Trump's gone. He's immune to their powers because he's like, really smart. He's also had every kind of fan removed from Mar a Lago. Not because he thinks they're a waste of money, but because they mess up his hair.
turbobloke said:
Who makes the most money from these subsidies, credits and rebates?
The BBC gets half, but only on condition they give 10% to David Bellamy and 5% towards electing Mrs Brown in the next election. The Guardian gets the rest. turbobloke said:
Any signs of scandal yet as per Solyndra?
Yes. And it gets worse - every single person involved in renewable energy has been confirmed as driving in the middle lane AND not replacing the toilet paper after using the last piece.turbobloke said:
Presumably you know all the details already to be a poster boy for the above scheme - it would be helpful and possibly a laugh if you shared your knowledge by replying to the above queries. TIA.
Damn, you figured it out. I'm a poster boy for the a Kentucky Coal museum's energy provider scheme. They have paid me to promote this story in a British car forum, and I'm paid for every response I get. Much appreciated.
Silver Smudger said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Excellent job done - Switched off a diesel generator by building a wind farm - And connecting the island to the mainland power grid!Headline - "The first U.S. offshore wind farm just shut down a diesel plant"
Article -
"Block Island officials on Monday switched on a connection between the island and a cable linking the wind farm to Rhode Island’s mainland power grid. The connection allowed the island’s only electricity source — a small diesel-fueled power plant — to shut down. The island’s 2,000 residents burned about 1 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. Until now, Block Island’s power grid was completely isolated from the mainland. The construction of the wind farm and its connection to the mainland allowed the island to connect to the New England power grid for the first time."
Would have been cheaper just to put the link cable in, I would have thought ?
PS. I believe I've raised this in the past. Does a minute rise in the planet’s temperature matter?
Edited by robinessex on Saturday 6th May 16:52
robinessex said:
PS. I believe I've raised this in the past. Does a minute rise in the planet’s temperature matter?
Not when the corrupted near-surface temperature database is unfit for purpose, and the only 'evidence' that mankind has caused any temperature increase at all exists in climate models because the modellers put it there. Also...Warmth is beneficial whereas the cold kills more people than heat...the danger associated with vested interest climate misdirection including the renewables fiasco is that cooling/cold kills 20 times as many people as warming/heat, according to an international study analysing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. These findings were published in The Lancet. Politicians and other true believers look the other way.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
mondeoman said:
At last, an admission of the truth
What ? That Offshore wind will generate money and survive with subsidy / taxpayers inputs before long ?
I wholly agree. It's the rest f the clowns and dinosaurs here that haven't a clue.
mondeoman said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
mondeoman said:
At last, an admission of the truth
What ? That Offshore wind will generate money and survive with subsidy / taxpayers inputs before long ?
I wholly agree. It's the rest f the clowns and dinosaurs here that haven't a clue.
On top of the hot air from those two luminaries, there's this headline.
"Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists"
It's disputed by believer scientists and other vested interests, naturally.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Silver Smudger said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Excellent job done - Switched off a diesel generator by building a wind farm - And connecting the island to the mainland power grid!Headline - "The first U.S. offshore wind farm just shut down a diesel plant"
Article -
"Block Island officials on Monday switched on a connection between the island and a cable linking the wind farm to Rhode Island’s mainland power grid. The connection allowed the island’s only electricity source — a small diesel-fueled power plant — to shut down. The island’s 2,000 residents burned about 1 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. Until now, Block Island’s power grid was completely isolated from the mainland. The construction of the wind farm and its connection to the mainland allowed the island to connect to the New England power grid for the first time."
Would have been cheaper just to put the link cable in, I would have thought ?
The residents backed scheme allowed the financials from the long term revenue to justify the cable expenditure and investment, selling energy, and also then facilitated the connection of the island to the information superhighway - Cable Broadband
Those were the drivers (aka business model) to allow it to happen. Rather than the drip of the diesel generators.
Someone (does not matter who) has paid for a wind farm and a connecting cable that went past the island, allowing the island to connect to it. A connecting cable alone will clearly cost less than a wind farm and a cable.
Wind power has not replaced the diesel generator, as per the headline - Money for a wind project has coincidentally allowed a cheaper connection to a 24/7 reliable mainland grid supply.
America's first commercial offshore, five-turbine, 30 MW wind farm has been switched on, after spending around $150 million, and this still has not provided full-time power for just 250 families, other US power stations are still running as ever they were, supplying power to US residents.
The real story does not support the crowing headline.
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
PS. I believe I've raised this in the past. Does a minute rise in the planet’s temperature matter?
Not when the corrupted near-surface temperature database is unfit for purpose, and the only 'evidence' that mankind has caused any temperature increase at all exists in climate models because the modellers put it there. Also...Warmth is beneficial whereas the cold kills more people than heat...the danger associated with vested interest climate misdirection including the renewables fiasco is that cooling/cold kills 20 times as many people as warming/heat, according to an international study analysing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. These findings were published in The Lancet. Politicians and other true believers look the other way.
A tiny effect, albeit it with potential tipping points for a greater results since the most direct result would be an expected reduction in the numbers of elderly and infirm. If one could shave a few years off the average life expectancy of the world not only would it be good for Gaia but the challenge of funding pensions and care for those who live too long would be slightly alleviated. More so than if excess heat was to be the only available tool.
Younger members of the species may see this a benefit to them, at least in the short term until they realise that their time is getting closer and only the next generation would benefit.
The art of the politician is, of course, to express concern publicly about the "scale" of the problem but recognise that ignoring it is a safe bet because the school age generation can be trained to think differently to their parents and the "problem" can be "disappeared" from any aspect of social concern, via the education curriculum, before it becomes a challenge for them personally.
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
PS. I believe I've raised this in the past. Does a minute rise in the planet’s temperature matter?
Not when the corrupted near-surface temperature database is unfit for purpose, and the only 'evidence' that mankind has caused any temperature increase at all exists in climate models because the modellers put it there. Also...Warmth is beneficial whereas the cold kills more people than heat...the danger associated with vested interest climate misdirection including the renewables fiasco is that cooling/cold kills 20 times as many people as warming/heat, according to an international study analysing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. These findings were published in The Lancet. Politicians and other true believers look the other way.
A tiny effect, albeit it with potential tipping points for a greater results since the most direct result would be an expected reduction in the numbers of elderly and infirm. If one could shave a few years off the average life expectancy of the world not only would it be good for Gaia but the challenge of funding pensions and care for those who live too long would be slightly alleviated. More so than if excess heat was to be the only available tool.
Younger members of the species may see this a benefit to them, at least in the short term until they realise that their time is getting closer and only the next generation would benefit.
The art of the politician is, of course, to express concern publicly about the "scale" of the problem but recognise that ignoring it is a safe bet because the school age generation can be trained to think differently to their parents and the "problem" can be "disappeared" from any aspect of social concern, via the education curriculum, before it becomes a challenge for them personally.
In my experience of working with sixth-form students applying for Oxbridge places, there are plenty of young people willing to regurgitate the nonsense they're taught in order to pass exams, but not swallow it wholesale. Independent thought is alive and well.
It's been my misfortune to meet a smaller number who want to gain a science degree in order to 'save the planet' and in those cases there's no point in expecting rational thought to defeat blind faith so I help them anyway and leave the rest in the hands of Gaia.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Silver Smudger said:
Who was paying for the million gallons of diesel fuel every year?
Someone (does not matter who) has paid for a wind farm and a connecting cable that went past the island, allowing the island to connect to it. A connecting cable alone will clearly cost less than a wind farm and a cable.
Wind power has not replaced the diesel generator, as per the headline - Money for a wind project has coincidentally allowed a cheaper connection to a 24/7 reliable mainland grid supply.
America's first commercial offshore, five-turbine, 30 MW wind farm has been switched on, after spending around $150 million, and this still has not provided full-time power for just 250 families, other US power stations are still running as ever they were, supplying power to US residents.
The real story does not support the crowing headline.
Headlines rarely support a story- I thought was clear from the politics angle of this thread.Someone (does not matter who) has paid for a wind farm and a connecting cable that went past the island, allowing the island to connect to it. A connecting cable alone will clearly cost less than a wind farm and a cable.
Wind power has not replaced the diesel generator, as per the headline - Money for a wind project has coincidentally allowed a cheaper connection to a 24/7 reliable mainland grid supply.
America's first commercial offshore, five-turbine, 30 MW wind farm has been switched on, after spending around $150 million, and this still has not provided full-time power for just 250 families, other US power stations are still running as ever they were, supplying power to US residents.
The real story does not support the crowing headline.
Some points you have made at true, some aren't.
Safely for the residents the WTGs they have are s
te and have already had issues - as have the cable installations made , for the first time In the USA- so whilst a flagship project, a bad one - but hey ho : solved a problem.Which reverts back to my point above missed by WC - small experimental phase projects are NOT the way forward from an economical perspective.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Headlines rarely support a story- I thought was clear from the politics angle of this thread. - The whole article was misdirection
Some points you have made at true, some aren't. - Which ones? What am I wrong about?
Safely (sadly?) for the residents the WTGs they have are ste and have already had issues - as have the cable installations made , for the first time In the USA- so whilst a flagship project, a bad one - - Phase one of a $1.5-billion, 385-megawatt wind farm - Already ste?
but hey ho : solved a problem. Coincidentally solved a small problem
Really wondering why you posted this article at all, and now you are undermining their 'success' with bad news about sSome points you have made at true, some aren't. - Which ones? What am I wrong about?
Safely (sadly?) for the residents the WTGs they have are s
te and have already had issues - as have the cable installations made , for the first time In the USA- so whilst a flagship project, a bad one - - Phase one of a $1.5-billion, 385-megawatt wind farm - Already ste?but hey ho : solved a problem. Coincidentally solved a small problem
te turbines and having issues and describing it as a bad project.Air quality: Diesel scrappage scheme being considered
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3981...
Not sure if the counts as a political issue re CC, but it's a prime example of a political decision turning out to be compete bks, screwing up diesel drivers who bought their vehicles in good faith, and now requires a rapid reverse ferret by the government. Is Basil Fawlty behind this I wonder.? If we extrapolate this sort of ignorance by politicians onto the AGW scene, a complete fk up, costing £Trillions, is inevitable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3981...
Not sure if the counts as a political issue re CC, but it's a prime example of a political decision turning out to be compete b
ks, screwing up diesel drivers who bought their vehicles in good faith, and now requires a rapid reverse ferret by the government. Is Basil Fawlty behind this I wonder.? If we extrapolate this sort of ignorance by politicians onto the AGW scene, a complete fk up, costing £Trillions, is inevitable.robinessex said:
Air quality: Diesel scrappage scheme being considered
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3981...
Not sure if the counts as a political issue re CC, but it's a prime example of a political decision turning out to be compete bks, screwing up diesel drivers who bought their vehicles in good faith, and now requires a rapid reverse ferret by the government. Is Basil Fawlty behind this I wonder.? If we extrapolate this sort of ignorance by politicians onto the AGW scene, a complete fk up, costing £Trillions, is inevitable.
From memory we discussed this about two years ago? I clearly remember being laughed at when I suggested to my mates (over a few pints and much banter) to get rid of their diesels before they become worthless!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3981...
Not sure if the counts as a political issue re CC, but it's a prime example of a political decision turning out to be compete b
ks, screwing up diesel drivers who bought their vehicles in good faith, and now requires a rapid reverse ferret by the government. Is Basil Fawlty behind this I wonder.? If we extrapolate this sort of ignorance by politicians onto the AGW scene, a complete fk up, costing £Trillions, is inevitable.Lately (same pub same mates same banter) they all start getting a tad panicky
most are clutching to the hope of getting cash for scrap - I did warn them that my guess is the best they're likely to get is a discount for an electric heap of ste!Bearing in mind I'm talking mainly about "white van drivers" it aint going down to well.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff