The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Has America sneezed...
"Nearly one-third of U.S. households (31%) reported facing a challenge in paying energy bills or sustaining adequate heating and cooling in their homes in 2015. About one in five households reported reducing or forgoing necessities such as food and medicine to pay an energy bill, and 14% reported receiving a disconnection notice for energy service. Of the 25 million households that reported forgoing food and medicine to pay energy bills, 7 million faced that decision nearly every month."
US Energy Information Administration, 19 September 2018
"Nearly one-third of U.S. households (31%) reported facing a challenge in paying energy bills or sustaining adequate heating and cooling in their homes in 2015. About one in five households reported reducing or forgoing necessities such as food and medicine to pay an energy bill, and 14% reported receiving a disconnection notice for energy service. Of the 25 million households that reported forgoing food and medicine to pay energy bills, 7 million faced that decision nearly every month."
US Energy Information Administration, 19 September 2018
The Crack Fox said:
rolando said:
I've worked on the engineering of quite a few tidal energy projects and it's very hard to consider any of them as an economically viable solution to power generation. Some of the comments make me laugh though, talking about how much money has been wasted or lost on 'green projects'. They have no idea, and havent even considered, how much money was spent in history on failed steam engines, failed coal to gas projects, failed mining ventures, and boiler explosions which had not just a monetary but also a human cost. In comparison a few million on some plans for a lagoon off Swansea are not even worth mentioning.
Condi said:
The Crack Fox said:
rolando said:
I've worked on the engineering of quite a few tidal energy projects and it's very hard to consider any of them as an economically viable solution to power generation. Some of the comments make me laugh though, talking about how much money has been wasted or lost on 'green projects'. They have no idea, and havent even considered, how much money was spent in history on failed steam engines, failed coal to gas projects, failed mining ventures, and boiler explosions which had not just a monetary but also a human cost. In comparison a few million on some plans for a lagoon off Swansea are not even worth mentioning.
Condi said:
From memory they wanted a strike price of £90/mwh for 75 years. No way would any government be able to suggest that is economic, Hinkly C is on £90 for 35 years, and thats incredibly expensive as it is.
Some of the comments make me laugh though, talking about how much money has been wasted or lost on 'green projects'. They have no idea, and havent even considered, how much money was spent in history on failed steam engines, failed coal to gas projects, failed mining ventures, and boiler explosions which had not just a monetary but also a human cost. In comparison a few million on some plans for a lagoon off Swansea are not even worth mentioning.
while i don't disagree with your point you would think we might have learnt some lessons from past faux pas.Some of the comments make me laugh though, talking about how much money has been wasted or lost on 'green projects'. They have no idea, and havent even considered, how much money was spent in history on failed steam engines, failed coal to gas projects, failed mining ventures, and boiler explosions which had not just a monetary but also a human cost. In comparison a few million on some plans for a lagoon off Swansea are not even worth mentioning.
wc98 said:
while i don't disagree with your point you would think we might have learnt some lessons from past faux pas.
If you can accurately predict which technologies are the future then you will be a very rich man. While the project was optimistic, the idea of using tides or water power will no doubt be commercialised in a few years. History is full of examples of projects being successful when conventional wisdom wrote them off, and other brilliant ideas being consigned to the scrap bin either because they didn't work, or simply because something else came along which was better or cheaper. To ridicule the people investing their own money is just schadenfreude.
Condi said:
If you can accurately predict which technologies are the future then you will be a very rich man. While the project was optimistic, the idea of using tides or water power will no doubt be commercialised in a few years.
History is full of examples of projects being successful when conventional wisdom wrote them off, and other brilliant ideas being consigned to the scrap bin either because they didn't work, or simply because something else came along which was better or cheaper. To ridicule the people investing their own money is just schadenfreude.
Yet we have known for many years that in the uk we have two of the biggest tidal basins in the world but wont develop them. The cegb looked at them seriously but environmentalist were up in arms at the suggestion.History is full of examples of projects being successful when conventional wisdom wrote them off, and other brilliant ideas being consigned to the scrap bin either because they didn't work, or simply because something else came along which was better or cheaper. To ridicule the people investing their own money is just schadenfreude.
Condi said:
wc98 said:
while i don't disagree with your point you would think we might have learnt some lessons from past faux pas.
If you can accurately predict which technologies are the future then you will be a very rich man. While the project was optimistic, the idea of using tides or water power will no doubt be commercialised in a few years. History is full of examples of projects being successful when conventional wisdom wrote them off, and other brilliant ideas being consigned to the scrap bin either because they didn't work, or simply because something else came along which was better or cheaper. To ridicule the people investing their own money is just schadenfreude.
There has been a "Moore's law" based fallacy which has seeped into much public discourse on the subject of power generation, it goes something along the lines of support my expensive technology because it will automatically lead to better technology as get much cheaper over time.
I'm not sure I see this as being the case with tidal lagoons, the parts of the system which are built in factories and may see economies of volume are the turbines themselves, everything else is pretty mature technology and it is the walls of the tidal lagoons where the majority of the cost is located. Making a second tidal lagoon is unlikely to be drastically cheaper than the first.
Whereas if you looked at cost of solar installations the majority of the components are factory built or their installation is standardised so has substantial potential for improvement. The same is true of nuclear stations even with conventional technology there is in the region of 3-4 fold potential reduction in build cost by improving execution (see SpaceX vs ULA/NASA).
Condi said:
If you can accurately predict which technologies are the future then you will be a very rich man. While the project was optimistic, the idea of using tides or water power will no doubt be commercialised in a few years.
History is full of examples of projects being successful when conventional wisdom wrote them off, and other brilliant ideas being consigned to the scrap bin either because they didn't work, or simply because something else came along which was better or cheaper. To ridicule the people investing their own money is just schadenfreude.
there is also a hypocrisy around "green" tech that seems to be largely (but not totally) avoided in discussion. wind turbines directly remove energy from air masses. that energy was involved in a natural process, whether carrying seeds, dust or just finely eroding the planet (wind,wave,rain). solar panels capture energy that would have been radiated to space the following evening (most of it in most locations) or partially reflected depending on location. they do the same theoretical job as co2, slowing down energy loss to space. tidal lagoons completely alter the physical structure of what i consider the single most important habitat worldwide , inshore and often estuarine, permanently.History is full of examples of projects being successful when conventional wisdom wrote them off, and other brilliant ideas being consigned to the scrap bin either because they didn't work, or simply because something else came along which was better or cheaper. To ridicule the people investing their own money is just schadenfreude.
that the "green" tag seems to give carte blanche to some activities i am surprised we haven't had "green" oil yet , or have we ? you won't find me ridiculing anyone spending their own money in an attempt to further human understanding, science or technology. i won't even ridicule those spending tax payers money in an attempt to do the same,i do expect them to examine existing knowledge carefully before proceeding.
V8 Fettler said:
Condi said:
V8 Fettler said:
There were many who felt that the possibility of the UK leaving the EU was zero, how wrong they were. If widespread power cuts occur due to the lack of coal then the population of a post-Brexit UK is unlikely to listen to those who support the cult of wind.
The government is far more likely to invest in new nuclear than new coal, not least because when the UK leaves the EU it will want to be seen as an engaged, outward looking member of the international community. Pulling out of, or ignoring, an agreement which was signed by nearly every other country in the world does not give that impression. Talking of coal, some looked at what China was saying rather than what it was/is doing. Capacity already added with more to come.
China could add as much as 400 million tons of coal capacity over the next two years, according to analysts at the consulting firm Woods Mackenzie. Woods Mackenzie’s analysis shows that China is far away from a green energy renaissance like many environmental activists hope.
Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 24 September 2018
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday that European carmakers could be made uncompetitive if EU targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars and vans were set at more than 30 percent by 2030.
Reuters, 25 September 2018
The German government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for wind farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry.
Newsweek, 19 September 2018
What a shame. Self-interested subsidy grabbers become whine merchants.
China could add as much as 400 million tons of coal capacity over the next two years, according to analysts at the consulting firm Woods Mackenzie. Woods Mackenzie’s analysis shows that China is far away from a green energy renaissance like many environmental activists hope.
Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 24 September 2018
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday that European carmakers could be made uncompetitive if EU targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars and vans were set at more than 30 percent by 2030.
Reuters, 25 September 2018
The German government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for wind farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry.
Newsweek, 19 September 2018
What a shame. Self-interested subsidy grabbers become whine merchants.
turbobloke said:
Talking of coal, some looked at what China was saying rather than what it was/is doing. Capacity already added with more to come.
China could add as much as 400 million tons of coal capacity over the next two years, according to analysts at the consulting firm Woods Mackenzie. Woods Mackenzie’s analysis shows that China is far away from a green energy renaissance like many environmental activists hope.
Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 24 September 2018
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday that European carmakers could be made uncompetitive if EU targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars and vans were set at more than 30 percent by 2030.
Reuters, 25 September 2018
The German government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for wind farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry.
Newsweek, 19 September 2018
What a shame. Self-interested subsidy grabbers become whine merchants.
China coal power building boom sparks climate warningChina could add as much as 400 million tons of coal capacity over the next two years, according to analysts at the consulting firm Woods Mackenzie. Woods Mackenzie’s analysis shows that China is far away from a green energy renaissance like many environmental activists hope.
Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 24 September 2018
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday that European carmakers could be made uncompetitive if EU targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars and vans were set at more than 30 percent by 2030.
Reuters, 25 September 2018
The German government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for wind farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry.
Newsweek, 19 September 2018
What a shame. Self-interested subsidy grabbers become whine merchants.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-456...
Building work has restarted at hundreds of Chinese coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery.
The research, carried out by green campaigners CoalSwarm, suggests that 259 gigawatts of new capacity are under development in China.
The authors say this is the same capacity to produce electricity as the entire US coal fleet.
The study says government attempts to cancel many plants have failed.
According to this study, there was a surge in new coal projects approved at provincial level in China between 2014 and 2016. This happened because of a decentralisation programme that shifted authority over coal plant construction approvals to local authorities.
The report says that at present China has 993 gigawatts of coal power capacity, but the approved new plants would increase this by 25%.....................continues
wc98 said:
there is also a hypocrisy around "green" tech that seems to be largely (but not totally) avoided in discussion. wind turbines directly remove energy from air masses. that energy was involved in a natural process, whether carrying seeds, dust or just finely eroding the planet (wind,wave,rain). solar panels capture energy that would have been radiated to space the following evening (most of it in most locations) or partially reflected depending on location. they do the same theoretical job as co2, slowing down energy loss to space. tidal lagoons completely alter the physical structure of what i consider the single most important habitat worldwide , inshore and often estuarine, permanently.
that the "green" tag seems to give carte blanche to some activities i am surprised we haven't had "green" oil yet , or have we ? you won't find me ridiculing anyone spending their own money in an attempt to further human understanding, science or technology. i won't even ridicule those spending tax payers money in an attempt to do the same,i do expect them to examine existing knowledge carefully before proceeding.
Green oil - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuelthat the "green" tag seems to give carte blanche to some activities i am surprised we haven't had "green" oil yet , or have we ? you won't find me ridiculing anyone spending their own money in an attempt to further human understanding, science or technology. i won't even ridicule those spending tax payers money in an attempt to do the same,i do expect them to examine existing knowledge carefully before proceeding.
wc98 said:
there is also a hypocrisy around "green" tech that seems to be largely (but not totally) avoided in discussion. wind turbines directly remove energy from air masses. that energy was involved in a natural process...
Indeed.Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.
Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.
Some good news for the French.
France To Cut Renewable Energy Growth
The French Government will drastically reduce the growth of its renewable spending in 2019, with the ecology ministry’s draft budget showing a 1.3% rise, which will effectively be flat after inflation.
27/09/18 The Energy Advocate
France To Cut Renewable Energy Growth
The French Government will drastically reduce the growth of its renewable spending in 2019, with the ecology ministry’s draft budget showing a 1.3% rise, which will effectively be flat after inflation.
27/09/18 The Energy Advocate
Talksteer said:
V8 Fettler said:
Condi said:
V8 Fettler said:
There were many who felt that the possibility of the UK leaving the EU was zero, how wrong they were. If widespread power cuts occur due to the lack of coal then the population of a post-Brexit UK is unlikely to listen to those who support the cult of wind.
The government is far more likely to invest in new nuclear than new coal, not least because when the UK leaves the EU it will want to be seen as an engaged, outward looking member of the international community. Pulling out of, or ignoring, an agreement which was signed by nearly every other country in the world does not give that impression. London 28 September: A review of UK media coverage of the shale gas industry concludes that major media outlets have been hyping claims of environmentalists while playing down the benefits. The briefing, published by the (cross-party) Global Warming Policy Foundation, focuses on the output of the BBC and the Guardian, and outlines many examples of biased coverage.
PDF for the evidence of bias (examples):
Click
PDF for the evidence of bias (examples):
Click
turbobloke said:
Indeed.
Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.
Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.
Are we seriously suggesting that a wind turbine increases global temperatures ? I can see that it can change local temperatures by changing wind flows, but anything else ?Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.
Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.
;)Gary C said:
turbobloke said:
Indeed.
Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.
Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.
Are we seriously suggesting that a wind turbine increases global temperatures ? I can see that it can change local temperatures by changing wind flows, but anything else ?Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.
Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff