Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all


‘You are a denier’ Gore abruptly ends UK reporter’s Q&A after question on sea level

http://www.climatedepot.com/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/question-al-go...

It's Al Gore so don't mention vested interests.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
No answers, lots of obfuscation.

In previous posts I suggested a split for onshore and offshore but it would be OK if you supplied combined data.

Cost per turbine is fine, just take the total cost in each category and divide by the number of turbines in the UK, it's useful as we can then scale the numbers as more white elephants appear.

It's painfully obvious at this stage that you don't know the answers and can't find them, the implication being that the numbers don't exist.

In addition to the known grace period ROC subsidies and ongoing CFD subsidies, there/s an unknown hidden subsidy represented by the unknown costs which are being ignored and not paid. Pricing cannot be evaluated.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I hope 'something' will go away - that is correct.
Sadly, I'll bet that's not vandalism of the landscape.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Without the subsidy regime I'd expect a vast, overnight reduction in investment by the main players in renewables/cpaacity market etc.

In my brief time as an energy lawyer acting on various UK wind, solar and biomethane injection projects the overriding impression I got was that there's a very, very decent ROI for these project (minimum seemed to be 15% or project co would pull up stumps). The state of panic when ROCs were reduced was substantial.

Clearly, there is an argument for incentivising the reaching of 'critical mass' by subsidies of some technologies if there is evidence that they can provide a viable, long term solution.

My view is that the jury is still out on both wind and solar, due to intermittency. Advances in battery technology will help, no doubt.

Sadly, the solution is being obscured by 'CO2 is evil due to climate change' noise, whereas there would be general agreement on arguments of air quality and efficient use of resources.

But, we are where we are.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
mybrainhurts said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I hope 'something' will go away - that is correct.
T
Sadly, I'll bet that's not vandalism of the landscape.
The Electricity Pylons mentioned previously?


Or Turbines ? If the former I agree.
So why pylons = bad, turbines = good?


Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The latter ? Yes , they're all going over the horizon and out of sight.
Won't somebody think of the fish?

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You don't think Pylons are ugly?
Uglier than Turbines as they cross the country?

I do, but I believe we have totally accepted them and they tend not to even register on the eye.
No we haven't. Yes they do.

Try driving through the Peak District, then out of it. Pylons are out of it. You would notice them.

Windmills are about as bad as graffiti, a bloody disgrace.

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
johnfm said:
Sadly, the solution is being obscured by 'CO2 is evil due to climate change' noise, whereas there would be general agreement on arguments of air quality and efficient use of resources.
yes

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 17th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You don't think Pylons are ugly?
Uglier than Turbines as they cross the country?

I do, but I believe we have totally accepted them and they tend not to even register on the eye.
Quite so. Especially once they have aged for a while.

That's how the brain works.

Wind turbines, on the other hand, sometimes move.

Even if only a little I find that I notice them.

When driving I find the movement incredibly distracting. No doubt others do too. Sadly the sides of motorways throughout the land are littered with turbines, distracting when moving, pointless when not.

Offshore?

Potentially more productive but zero output is still zero output when wind conditions are not conducive to production.

Far more expensive though, historically.

If costs are truly tumbling due to efficiencies rather than other factors is that because resources have been ramped up to an over-supply situation? Or have costs genuinely come down for "real" reasons?

You recently mention very low day rates for vessels. Is that good for the industry? Does it encourage further investment in new and better vessels? Or will the owners move them to other parts of the world as projects appear far away?

Are the low bids you suggest based on real sustainable numbers or the hope that other get squeezed while the customer eventually benefits from the generation income and allowances?

If the September bid prices are as you suggest might not that suggest that the April bids are now obsolete and too expensive?

They are not yet firm contracts as I understand it - could they be abandoned?

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 18th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
If costs are truly tumbling due to efficiencies rather than other factors is that because resources have been ramped up to an over-supply situation? Or have costs genuinely come down for "real" reasons?
The cynic always just about creeps through.....
It's a more rational approach than simply believing - scepticism is not only healthy but essential as per the motto of the Royal Society "nullius in verba".

Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You mean the CFD auction? Announced in September. the numbers have been worked on for a few years by the respective Utilities to each have a winning price - not a 'chicken soup exercise' or other such nonsense.
CFD auction, you mean more subsidies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/05/15/ene...

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 18th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
CFD auction, you mean more subsidies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/05/15/ene...
confused

You said earlier that you know all about CfD Auctions. If you've forgotten already, Yes - CfD Auctions are in place until parity. And for complete clarity: this is a subsidy process.

Feel magnificent about pointing it out now ?
Weird. With words and phrases like that, you're the one wiith emotion in control of reason.

I knew about that visible form of subsidy, yes indeed, together with the grace period ROCs for which I've given the 2017/18 price according to Ofgem.

In addition I'm aware of the invisible subsidies due to wind not paying the total cost of production, not knowing the total cost doesn't help. Unless you want to break the habit of a threadtme and list the costs I asked about months ago. No holding of breath is advised.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 18th August 2017
quotequote all
These two timely items are over at ICECAP.

Joe's Blog:
Why Climate Alarmist Reports Should Be Ignored Where They Use Bad Methodology and Bad Data
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Political Climate:
Why Revoking the EPA GHG Endangerment Finding Is the Most Urgent (USA) Climate Action Needed
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 18th August 2017
quotequote all
A thought. Can you cost anything that's manufactured? How far down the supply chain do you/can you go?

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Friday 18th August 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
If costs are truly tumbling due to efficiencies rather than other factors is that because resources have been ramped up to an over-supply situation? Or have costs genuinely come down for "real" reasons?
The cynic always just about creeps through.....

Of course they are coming down - sheer Size (WTG capacity) means less volume / units and subsequent O&M, maintenance and purchase costs.
Hence : Coming down

LongQ said:
You recently mention very low day rates for vessels. Is that good for the industry? Does it encourage further investment in new and better vessels? Or will the owners move them to other parts of the world as projects appear far away?
Came across my bows the other day :
http://www.bairdmaritime.com/work-boat-world/offsh...

not far from the truth

LongQ said:
Are the low bids you suggest based on real sustainable numbers or the hope that other get squeezed while the customer eventually benefits from the generation income and allowances?
see the comment about cynicism ? The OEM manufacturers are informing the customers of the new stuff still hidden from the public domain in NDA's and alike. The Low bids include this and efficiencies in the installation. Optimisations.
With that, timelines are known. With that, less risk - cutting out of unnecessary risk pots / finance kept 'in case'.
Prices are coming down as the industry(s) mature

LongQ said:
If the September bid prices are as you suggest might not that suggest that the April bids are now obsolete and too expensive?

They are not yet firm contracts as I understand it - could they be abandoned?
April Bids ? September Bids?


You mean the CFD auction? Announced in September. the numbers have been worked on for a few years by the respective Utilities to each have a winning price - not a 'chicken soup exercise' or other such nonsense.

Details here if you want : http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/03/14/uk-govt-cle...

The Award though I heard via the DIT (just tonight) could even be as low as the mid £70's (again - recall last time around £117 won it. That is tangible progress)

As for 'they could be abandoned' - hardly.
Numbers are only coming down, and any bidder will have had a project team on this for 3 or 4 years, bought the site, achieved consent and probably blown upwards of 100m already. If they win - a round the buoys exercise to solidify the prices and FID (formality these days) and orders placed.
Each of the sites will have place PSA agreements already i anticipation of a fast track.
Paddy,

I've been around a while.

I've been where you are now with exciting projects that had amazing futures and outstanding results all round - and then failed or simply didn't happen for other reasons.

I've seen interesting and "groundbreaking" technology appear and the disappear without trace. Likewise the decline of Monolithic Multinational companies who were dominant in their marketplace in early periods of rapid technological development and expansion, notably in the computer and telecoms marketplace. There have often been many factors involved and the declines have not always been the result of rational events.

You can stick with cynic if you like. I prefer questioning. If you conflate the two, so be it. Thanks for the answers anyway - rather interesting

Not everything is an "iPhone" in terms of the oft vaunted "paradigm shift" - and even they have only been around 10 years - a long time in modern technology terms but not so long compared to the most successful traditional technologies. Ome might argue, perhaps, that the "iPhone" concept was more evolutionary than revolutionary as a product and has already changed greatly beneath its recognisable form factor. The big surprise was less the communication technology than it was a Computer company muscling in on the telecoms world.

From the article to which you linked is seems that something similar may be happening in the maritime space related to offshore wind development.

Dredging companies appearing on the scene for example, or so the author(s) seem to be suggesting.The underlying inference is that such companies know what they are doing when working with multiple partners and so can deliver better value. That's good for the customers of course but does not read well for the early incumbents of the roles.

Unmentioned here but another interesting shift is the involvement of traditional Oil companies - Shell for example - moving into the same arena via takeovers and investment.

The second take is that for the sort of large solutions you see as the rapidly approaching future there are relatively few vessels capable of undertaking the work.

So a truly rapid expansion of capacity would be challenging due to lack of capacity for the latest technologies ... a rather common problem that has been known to destabilise industries with much firmer business success models over longer periods than offshore wind can claim.

I'm not being critical in writing that - just observing reality.

It's a subject that cannot really be covered adequately in a single response. Indeed it may not be interesting enough to the majority of people reading this thread.

The slight odd thing about the piece is that is starts out as a clear puff piece for "renewables" in the first paragraph and ends up questioning, to some extent, the immediate validity of the "solution" in the last paragraph.

I suppose that makes for some sort of balance!


As for the contracts as yet unimplemented - it really doesn't matter how much has been spent up front. If for some reason they become uneconomic they become uneconomic and the customer (in this case presumably the various country's electricity markets) and the vendor (in this case the developer) have to decide whether to continue with the agreement as agreed.

If the deal ends up looking like costing 50m a year for 20+ years with little chance of getting out of it or selling the problem on then writing off an up-front 100m investment (or part of it) is no big deal.

Much will depend on how the contracts are written.

WARNING - CYNIC MODE

Given the Wind Industry desire to do business and the Politicians desires to flaunt their virtue it would not surprise me at all if they have some up with a formula that suits both sides and leaves the tax payers stuffed - especially the poorer tax paying consumer masses rather that the big tax payers who are probably just on the line for some of the fiscal benefits already derived from the investment.

[Cynic mode now off.]

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 19th August 2017
quotequote all
Mrs TB's latest "Tales from the BBC" was a goodie earlier today. Over cornflakes she mentioned that the beeb is going overboard this morning on the within-natural-variation monsoon floods in India and that after their customary unsubtle spin they interviewed a local who was planting trees to help keep topsoil in place at times of heavy rainfall. Apparently he was asked what started it off and replied that it was after the worst flood in recent memory, in 1979, and that it was a better approach than whatever it was the government was doing. At which point there was a hissing noise as the BBC spin nachine lost its head of steam.

Thank goodness there was more carbon dioxide floating around in the 1970s otherwise people might get the wrong=right message.

silly

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 19th August 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Mrs TB's latest "Tales from the BBC"
You really are barking.


turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 19th August 2017
quotequote all
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Mrs TB's latest "Tales from the BBC"
You really are barking.
Your abuse is as tedious and predictable as ever, almost as predictable as the subsequent lack of anything remotely relevant, on topic, informed, but not nearly as predictable as the Tales from the BBC.

The beeb's mouthpiece had started off with the message that it was the worst flood in a decade. They need to be careful or Prof Hawking will be on their case due to blatant cherry picking...a chap on the ground pointed out it was worse in the 70s,

BBC rofl

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Saturday 19th August 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Mrs TB's latest "Tales from the BBC"
You really are barking.
Your abuse is as tedious and predictable as ever, almost as predictable as the subsequent lack of anything remotely relevant, on topic, informed, but not nearly as predictable as the Tales from the BBC.

The beeb's mouthpiece had started off with the message that it was the worst flood in a decade. They need to be careful or Prof Hawking will be on their case due to blatant cherry picking...a chap on the ground pointed out it was worse in the 70s,

BBC rofl
Hawking reported by the Beeb as saying the NHS is good value for money. WTjollyF is he on?

Or did the BBC misinterpret something he said?

grumbledoak

31,499 posts

232 months

Saturday 19th August 2017
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Hawking reported by the Beeb as saying the NHS is good value for money. WTjollyF is he on?
It is for people in his position.

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Saturday 19th August 2017
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Hawking reported by the Beeb as saying the NHS is good value for money. WTjollyF is he on?

Or did the BBC misinterpret something he said?
Of course its good value for money. Without wishing to get OT tell me another model that gets EVERYBODY in the country, regardless of means, the health care from cradle to grave that the NHS provides.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Saturday 19th August 2017
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
Hawking reported by the Beeb as saying the NHS is good value for money. WTjollyF is he on?

Or did the BBC misinterpret something he said?
Of course its good value for money. Without wishing to get OT tell me another model that gets EVERYBODY in the country, regardless of means, the health care from cradle to grave that the NHS provides.
That says something about its reach, and nothing about its value for money.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED